No, you wouldn't. I realize you were trying to make a (very bad) joke, or seem cynical, but you're just being silly.
In Russia, it really does work that way. As in "here's some money Mr. Judge, decide my way." Corruption in other places is rarely as open and obvious as in Russia.
While you may have reason to dislike the "Western" legal system (what does that mean anyway?) overstating the point isn't necessary.
It's interesting that you've got issues related to your neck and back, but haven't considered the possibility that you were craning (tilting) your head to speak on the phone. Or perhaps lifting the phone changed the orientation of your back, neck and head.
My point is that there are a hundred better explanations for your issues. EM radiation is the last thing you should look at.
You were holding the phone to your ear, but were unaware how poorly it fit, and how hard you were pressing it against your ear. Why must it be "radiation"?
Of course, simple ergonomic issues (which were epidemic with old phones) will be dismissed, because people must believe what they want.
Me, I had the same problem you did, but my solution involved a newer, better designed phone that fit my ear.
The problem with your assertion that Bush has imparted a tacit "ban" is that there are alternatives for funding. As long as those alternatives exist, it's not a "ban" at all, but a refusal to subsidize. They are not the same, no matter how you try to spin it.
Yes, it is very hard to do this research without funding, but claiming that is the same as a "ban" is just not true.
Just because the money makes it easier, it does not follow that money is necessary.
Since the research CAN be done (and by the way the federal government refuses to fund all kinds of research) the only problem now is one of accounting.
A country has a scientific success (not breakthrough, because it's been done similarly at other places before) and they become the "world leader in science and technology." How does that work exactly?
Does that occur every time there is a scientific advance?
By the way, in order to clarify, I know embryos are alive. I use the term alive in the previous post as a catch all for the idea of "humanhood". As in "is it a viable, human life".
Crap, even then I didn't articulate it very well. Oh well.
There's an unfortunate problem with using conception as the reference, however.
That is, will embryos, as "life" receive protection as such.
Consider what happens to the discarded embryos from fertility clinics. If they are "alive" then discarding them is equivalent to murder. Should they be protected? What about when (in the future) they can be grown artificially with no help from the mother? Should we attempt to preserve every fertilized embyo? What about such embryos that develop naturally? Will women need to monitor their ovulation in order to prevent accidentally "murdering" a fertilized embryo that nature would normally put in the toilet?
I don't have all the answers, but I know that "life begins at conception" doesn't work for me. I see a very real and obvious difference between an embryo and a fetus. They are not the same. Does this mean embryos deserve less protection? Yes, I guess it does (for now). Until someone comes up with a better reason than I've heard (I've heard them all don't bother) then I will maintain my current opinion.
I think the other side's argument is closer to
"There are other options for funding beside the federal government. Ethical considerations don't allow us to move forward with federal funding, but we will endorse and allow other sources to fund the work."
Sounds more reasoned when I do it. I disgree with that side, but there is a good point there.
No, you didn't. You attempted to impugn his credibility by making ad-hominem statements about him and his school. You also provided NO facts to support your statement, only judgement based on your BIASED views.
The fact you can't see them has no impact on your bias' existence.
And you are correct, you only used biased statements to imply he was wrong. While it is a childish, freshman rhetoric sort of thing to do, yes you are correct that you never claimed directly that he was wrong.
So, in other words I was correct, and you know very little about business.
As far as my response being annoying, deal with it. Until you improve your understanding of business, and the stock market in general, you'll get more of it. Or maybe you could take a class like I suggested.
Buy and hold means exactly that. I bought for retirement, which in my case is 30 years away. What you think is a foolish choice is a 5x gain in capital. You thinking such a gain is foolish on my part impugns any credibility you may claim regarding business.
MS is a business, not satan. Puritanical crusades like yours ("boycott MS products!! It's the right thing to do!!") are ridiculous.
Well, considering I bought it many years ago, I've done pretty well.
But fools like you will line up to tell me how I'm wasting my money, all the while being laughed at because I've quintupled it. Ever hear of buy and hold?
Oh, and I own AAPL too. Bought it at 27, so I'm sitting pretty again.
And asserting that your mouse is better doesn't make it better. If you read reviews, you'd realize they come in even in the rankings. I would call you a liar for cliaming it was superior, but it's not a lie, so much as an intentional exaggeration. If, however, you were MS or Bill Gates, it would certainly be lying.
One last thing, your definiton of "healthy" could very easily lead to a company going out of business, especially if that's what "maximises(sic) growth in the long term for an industry the company is in." Business usually frown on being put out of business.
Please take a class or two on business, before you try to comment again.
Until then, I'll waste no more time on you.
Oh, and stop being such an anti-MS troll. It's embarrassing for you, really. You might be surrounded by fellow anti-MS zealots here at slashdot, but you should try some FACTS every once in a while. It might feel good to have people mod you insightful for that garbage, but being modded insightful by the morons here is more of an indictment that a compliment.
"Oh, spare us. The tone of your post was clearly against the idea of global warming."
You don't get to decide what someone's "tone" is. Address his post (which was pretty silly) or shut up, but stop trying to make your argument by claiming you understood his "tone."
What is a "healthy fashion"? Your answer will be different from mine. What is "the wrong way"? As an MS stockholder, I find their methods to be quite acceptable, since I have made quite a profit from them.
I have no intention of boycotting ANY of thier products, and in fact, because of you, I'll step up my purchase of an MS wireless mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you wouldn't. I realize you were trying to make a (very bad) joke, or seem cynical, but you're just being silly.
In Russia, it really does work that way. As in "here's some money Mr. Judge, decide my way." Corruption in other places is rarely as open and obvious as in Russia.
While you may have reason to dislike the "Western" legal system (what does that mean anyway?) overstating the point isn't necessary.
For thousands of years musicians survived without the ability to sell physical copies of their music.
The idea that musicians are entitled, or worse yet, NEED this money is ludicrous. Pay your way by performing, it was good enough for Beethoven.
It's interesting that you've got issues related to your neck and back, but haven't considered the possibility that you were craning (tilting) your head to speak on the phone. Or perhaps lifting the phone changed the orientation of your back, neck and head.
My point is that there are a hundred better explanations for your issues. EM radiation is the last thing you should look at.
You were holding the phone to your ear, but were unaware how poorly it fit, and how hard you were pressing it against your ear. Why must it be "radiation"?
Of course, simple ergonomic issues (which were epidemic with old phones) will be dismissed, because people must believe what they want.
Me, I had the same problem you did, but my solution involved a newer, better designed phone that fit my ear.
That is a lie. You've lied that same lie at least 5 times, and you got called EVERY time.
MANY institutions that do research on "unapproved" stem cell lines also get federal money.
Stop lying
The problem with your assertion that Bush has imparted a tacit "ban" is that there are alternatives for funding. As long as those alternatives exist, it's not a "ban" at all, but a refusal to subsidize. They are not the same, no matter how you try to spin it. Yes, it is very hard to do this research without funding, but claiming that is the same as a "ban" is just not true.
Dude you said "Word" when you meant to say "anything other than Word." Did you maybe, forget where you were?
Just because the money makes it easier, it does not follow that money is necessary.
Since the research CAN be done (and by the way the federal government refuses to fund all kinds of research) the only problem now is one of accounting.
Not sure I follow you.
A country has a scientific success (not breakthrough, because it's been done similarly at other places before) and they become the "world leader in science and technology." How does that work exactly?
Does that occur every time there is a scientific advance?
I thnk you may be confusing "current uses" with "potential uses" as in
adult, umbilical- more uses currently
embryonic- more uses potentially
By the way, in order to clarify, I know embryos are alive. I use the term alive in the previous post as a catch all for the idea of "humanhood". As in "is it a viable, human life". Crap, even then I didn't articulate it very well. Oh well.
There's an unfortunate problem with using conception as the reference, however.
That is, will embryos, as "life" receive protection as such.
Consider what happens to the discarded embryos from fertility clinics. If they are "alive" then discarding them is equivalent to murder. Should they be protected? What about when (in the future) they can be grown artificially with no help from the mother? Should we attempt to preserve every fertilized embyo? What about such embryos that develop naturally? Will women need to monitor their ovulation in order to prevent accidentally "murdering" a fertilized embryo that nature would normally put in the toilet?
I don't have all the answers, but I know that "life begins at conception" doesn't work for me. I see a very real and obvious difference between an embryo and a fetus. They are not the same. Does this mean embryos deserve less protection? Yes, I guess it does (for now). Until someone comes up with a better reason than I've heard (I've heard them all don't bother) then I will maintain my current opinion.
I think the other side's argument is closer to "There are other options for funding beside the federal government. Ethical considerations don't allow us to move forward with federal funding, but we will endorse and allow other sources to fund the work." Sounds more reasoned when I do it. I disgree with that side, but there is a good point there.
I consider 21 percent to be "significant' don't you?
best thing I have ever seen here
No, you didn't. You attempted to impugn his credibility by making ad-hominem statements about him and his school. You also provided NO facts to support your statement, only judgement based on your BIASED views.
The fact you can't see them has no impact on your bias' existence.
And you are correct, you only used biased statements to imply he was wrong. While it is a childish, freshman rhetoric sort of thing to do, yes you are correct that you never claimed directly that he was wrong.
So, in other words I was correct, and you know very little about business.
As far as my response being annoying, deal with it. Until you improve your understanding of business, and the stock market in general, you'll get more of it. Or maybe you could take a class like I suggested.
Buy and hold means exactly that. I bought for retirement, which in my case is 30 years away. What you think is a foolish choice is a 5x gain in capital. You thinking such a gain is foolish on my part impugns any credibility you may claim regarding business.
MS is a business, not satan. Puritanical crusades like yours ("boycott MS products!! It's the right thing to do!!") are ridiculous.
You know, your idiotic attempt to slam Bush would have been better if you spelles KETONES correctly.
I mean, how can you be an anti-Bushie if you can't get your facts straight?
Wait, that's the first requirement for anti-Bushie membership? Oops, sorry.
Well, considering I bought it many years ago, I've done pretty well.
But fools like you will line up to tell me how I'm wasting my money, all the while being laughed at because I've quintupled it. Ever hear of buy and hold?
Oh, and I own AAPL too. Bought it at 27, so I'm sitting pretty again.
And asserting that your mouse is better doesn't make it better. If you read reviews, you'd realize they come in even in the rankings. I would call you a liar for cliaming it was superior, but it's not a lie, so much as an intentional exaggeration. If, however, you were MS or Bill Gates, it would certainly be lying.
One last thing, your definiton of "healthy" could very easily lead to a company going out of business, especially if that's what "maximises(sic) growth in the long term for an industry the company is in." Business usually frown on being put out of business.
Please take a class or two on business, before you try to comment again.
Until then, I'll waste no more time on you.
Oh, and stop being such an anti-MS troll. It's embarrassing for you, really. You might be surrounded by fellow anti-MS zealots here at slashdot, but you should try some FACTS every once in a while. It might feel good to have people mod you insightful for that garbage, but being modded insightful by the morons here is more of an indictment that a compliment.
"Oh, spare us. The tone of your post was clearly against the idea of global warming."
You don't get to decide what someone's "tone" is. Address his post (which was pretty silly) or shut up, but stop trying to make your argument by claiming you understood his "tone."
"Dumbass"
Thank you for signing your post. Now I know who to blame for all the bullshit on my screen.
And you admitted you don't know what you're talking about.
"I don't think..."
If you KNEW anything abou tit, you wouldn't have to think.
Don't jump on someone for ignorance, then admit ignorance. That's just ignorant.
So, we get to choose between idiots and morons.
Hmm, sounds like a normal day here at slashbot.
By the way, your idiotic knee-jerk response was predictable, and made me 5 bucks. I predicted to a co-worker some moron would do exactly what you did.
You slashbots are so easy to manipulate.
"healthy fashion"
What is a "healthy fashion"? Your answer will be different from mine. What is "the wrong way"? As an MS stockholder, I find their methods to be quite acceptable, since I have made quite a profit from them.
I have no intention of boycotting ANY of thier products, and in fact, because of you, I'll step up my purchase of an MS wireless mouse.
Thanks for the motivation.
That's my memory taking leave. I knew they got uppity if you called them one or the other, just made the wrong choice.