Yes, and this carbon tax will apply just as much to the electricity from their plants as that from the ND ones. And I would assume that they would have to problem with other states applying a carbon tax to coal-derived power from Minnesota, but I suppose that may be presumptive.
Given the prevailing Westerlies, most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota, delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans. Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages, Minnesotans (and others further away) have to suffer the consequences without recompense.
That they are using the word "consumed" in the way you are using it when you say "I consumed a Christmas tree" and that that use is sensationalist? And the way you are using it is to claim that you are in the process of consuming it, but it is not wholly consumed yet? So your argument is that it is sensationalist because the wording makes it seem like the thing which is said to be "consumed" has become wholly consumed when in reality it is only being consumed and not yet wholly consumed?
But why do you assume they are using it in that way? Maybe they are actually talking about information which has been wholly consumed.
From what I can tell, some of the information which was poorly blacked out could be helpful to people who want to get things/persons past security.
However, that is under the assumption that the information is accurate. Perhaps this information is just misleading and the file was poorly blacked out so that people would crack it and assume that it is accurate.
Maybe one way to find out: Does anyone can fired or demoted for this? If not...maybe because it was intentional after all.
"But people in the 1500s said 'he lived a full life' to people dying in their 20s (in the bronze age, a mere 15 yrs old)."
Where's the evidence of this? I know that in Iron Age Greece males in their teens and even early twenties would be called ephebes -- not quite fully grown men. Plato suggested in the Republic that only people over 50 years old should rule, and that women should breed from 20-40 and men from 28-55, because these are their "prime" reproductive years. Was he expecting almost no one to breed? He himself lived to 84 years old, and there was nothing particularly spectacular about it. I doubt the Bronze age would be much different.
Perhaps you are confusing average life expectancy with what is regarded as a "full" life span?
Why would that make you an idiot? I don't expect to win anything when I go the cinema for two hours (in fact, I expect to lose: the admission price), but I still might do it because it was an entertaining experience.
How about a Greek philosopher who said that slavery was okay?
"It is clear that therefore some people are by nature freemen and other people are by nature slaves, people for whom it is beneficial to be slaves and it is just." (Aristotle, Politics, 1255a1)
This conclusion follows in part from his wider philosophy of human nature, and ethics and metaphysics even, philosophy which is still taken seriously in many circles.
"Looting and vandalism were widespread, especially in the African American and Puerto Rican communities, hitting 31 neighbourhoods, including every poor neighbourhood in the city."
If someone is paid to say "This I-pod rocks!", or someone else is not paid to, but says it anyway, what is the difference? Both reviews are entirely devoid of information. If anyone uses either case to help them decide on what portable audio player to buy, then shame on them for their lack of critical thinking. Unless of course you already know the reviewer to be trustworthy and you accept his opinion as to what is simply good to apply for you.
If someone is paid by Apple Incorporated to say that "This I-pod can play Vorbis-encoded audio files", when it does not, then is that not just plain fraud? So it seems you can trust paid-for reviews even more for what really matters -- the facts -- because they have a disincentive to lie: Being charged with fraud. Someone who has no monetary involvement could just make up whatever lies they want. Why they would want to, I do not know, but trolls do abound.
I'm not a US citizen. When I want to drive from Southern Ontario to Northwestern Ontario or vice versa I go through Michigan every time. I also many times go to the Lutsen ski area in Minnesota. Only one time had I a "problem". I was driving from London, Ontario having just picked up a car one relative inherited from another recently deceased distant sort-of relative (sort-of because of divorce). The car was still registered to the dearly departed. When I went across the Ambassador bridge they directed me to another stopping point. I got out there and they asked whose car it was. I explained it to them. They asked for proof that it was not stolen. I told them I didn't have any. They then let me go. It took about 3 minutes to cross the border that time. Every other time took about 15 seconds, not counting waiting in traffic. And I've travelled through with trailers and the vehicle packed with random boxes and furniture. I've moved apartments by going through the States. They never bothered to check any of the stuff.
About a year ago my brother and his girlfriend took the border bus (not sure what it is called) from Windsor to Detroit. She forgot all her ID. She had no passport, no driver's license, no ID of any kind. They got angry but let them both in anyway!
I have to wonder whether the IOC questioned the border policies of China before they gave them the green light for Beijing games.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
1. Wearing a suit on a bicycle is not hard. 2. Not getting dusty and sweaty on a bike is not hard. 3. Not getting tired on a bicycle is not hard. 4. Cyclists are healthier than non-cyclists. 5. Or black, or hispanic, or a woman... this was exactly the grandparents point: The interviewer was irrationally prejudiced.
"Governments are often accused of making money from the sales of cigarettes. While taxation revenues on cigarettes are quite high, as is shown in the table below health care costs are always higher."
And they include 2001/2002 numbers. Where are your 1998 numbers?
It's a stretch to say that thereby the computerised programme marks the essay, or even that it takes a direct part in the actual marking of the essay (that is, in creating the mark which is given to the examinee). The programme really marks the human marker in that scenario, if it marks anything at all.
Did you ever wonder what "teen" means? Well, it just means ten, as it looks. So 10 is "ten"; 13 is 10 + 3 so it gets "thirteen", that is "three and ten", etc. Twelve and eleven happen to have their own special names because they are a holdover from the Germanic tribes archaically using a number system based around 12 and 60.
Say you had a collection of population centres with the names Jonestown, Allentown, Jamestown, and Kingston. Now if someone said that all these are towns, would you then respond that only the first three are towns because only they have "town" in them?
So why do you know that your friends do those things? Because friends tell their friends about their own drug use? My point is that my neighbours are my friends. They would have to take a lot of conscious care to hide their drug use from me for all this time. Why would they do that? They know I wouldn't care if they used drugs. Maybe you're imagining a neighbourhood in an American city or something with a bunch of unknown faces walking around. Imagine something much more like a small island with ten other year-round houses on it and some summer cottages. That is my neighbourhood.
Okay then, one question. If druggies only open up to other druggies, then how do the druggies know who are the druggies up to whom they are going to open before they open? They would have to determine who does the drugs first. But how would they determine who does drugs first if the others who do drugs are not going to tell them unless they know that they do drugs first? Someone at some point has to just offer one of their friends some drugs. There's no broadcasting to the world, but friends figure it out. In fact, I know you're making stuff up, because I've lived in areas where people do use drugs. You hear your neighbour talking in her backyard and you walk over to see how she is doing, and she is smoking a joint in her backyard with some friends. She offers you some. Or you go over to a friend of a friend's house and they have a bong on their coffee-table. Or one of your friends tells you about the mushroom trip he went on (I've heard those tales many times). Or one of your friends tells you how he tried cocaine and it made him "feel invincible". (I've heard that one too). That's how it works, there's no big secret-handshake into the drug-user world, but there need not be any "broadcasting to the world" either.
The difference is that the neighbourhood I live in now, you never walk into a neighbours backyard and one of them is smoking a joint. You never go to a neighbour's house and they have a bong lying around. And I do walk in to my neighbours' backyards and I do go to their houses all the time, because I personally know them. And no one ever tells you about any drug use whatsoever in the neighbourhood. My lifestyle (which is your explanation for why I wouldn't hear about my own friends using drugs) hasn't changed between from before and now, so why did I hear about drug-use in the other neighbourhoods but not in this one? The better explanation for this lack of evidence is that the drug use just isn't there.
It would probably be much better to compare the rates in the same country before and after legalisation rather than compare the rates between two countries before legalisation with two the rates in two different countries after legalisation.
How do you figure drugs are everywhere? I know who my neighbours are, and I know they don't do drugs. They are people I meet and socialise with all the time. What are they, secretly doing drugs by themselves? And they take to shutting themselves and pretending that no one is home so that no one else sees them when they take them or in the period after? And they hide all their drugs and related paraphernalia like criminals whenever someone goes to their house, so that no one may find out that way? I'll have to say that my neighbours seem like far too reasonable of people to live such lives of subterfuge and constant worry about keeping up appearances.
Sure, many may die if you cut all the leaves off, but most? Probably not. And there are many factors to consider too. If you cut all the leaves off a maple or a tamarack in Vermont in November, the effect won't be very significant at all. But even if you cut all the leaves off a tropical plant in a regular tropical environment for example, the plant may very well die, but also may very well just lose a lot of its mass but in turn sprout some new leaves built from the nutrients stored in its stems and roots.
You could cut a gymnosperm tree clean down (let alone cut off all the leaves), but then you may yet see a little sprout come up from the stump -- the same organism.
I wish to complain about that last complaint. I can assure you that all groomers of haddock and every other species in order Gadiformes are indeed transvestites. This is in fact a necessary grade to be reached in the apprenticeship process for the Gadiformes Groomers Guild (GGF). If the former complainant indeed knows of any non-transvestite groomers as such, then he should report them both to the GGF and to the Ministry of Fish Groomers in Luton at once!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and this carbon tax will apply just as much to the electricity from their plants as that from the ND ones. And I would assume that they would have to problem with other states applying a carbon tax to coal-derived power from Minnesota, but I suppose that may be presumptive.
Given the prevailing Westerlies, most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota, delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans. Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages, Minnesotans (and others further away) have to suffer the consequences without recompense.
So what is your argument exactly?
That they are using the word "consumed" in the way you are using it when you say "I consumed a Christmas tree" and that that use is sensationalist? And the way you are using it is to claim that you are in the process of consuming it, but it is not wholly consumed yet? So your argument is that it is sensationalist because the wording makes it seem like the thing which is said to be "consumed" has become wholly consumed when in reality it is only being consumed and not yet wholly consumed?
But why do you assume they are using it in that way? Maybe they are actually talking about information which has been wholly consumed.
From what I can tell, some of the information which was poorly blacked out could be helpful to people who want to get things/persons past security.
However, that is under the assumption that the information is accurate. Perhaps this information is just misleading and the file was poorly blacked out so that people would crack it and assume that it is accurate.
Maybe one way to find out: Does anyone can fired or demoted for this? If not...maybe because it was intentional after all.
"But people in the 1500s said 'he lived a full life' to people dying in their 20s (in the bronze age, a mere 15 yrs old)."
Where's the evidence of this? I know that in Iron Age Greece males in their teens and even early twenties would be called ephebes -- not quite fully grown men. Plato suggested in the Republic that only people over 50 years old should rule, and that women should breed from 20-40 and men from 28-55, because these are their "prime" reproductive years. Was he expecting almost no one to breed? He himself lived to 84 years old, and there was nothing particularly spectacular about it. I doubt the Bronze age would be much different.
Perhaps you are confusing average life expectancy with what is regarded as a "full" life span?
Why would that make you an idiot? I don't expect to win anything when I go the cinema for two hours (in fact, I expect to lose: the admission price), but I still might do it because it was an entertaining experience.
How about a Greek philosopher who said that slavery was okay?
"It is clear that therefore some people are by nature freemen and other people are by nature slaves, people for whom it is beneficial to be slaves and it is just." (Aristotle, Politics, 1255a1)
This conclusion follows in part from his wider philosophy of human nature, and ethics and metaphysics even, philosophy which is still taken seriously in many circles.
At last we can explain wherefore Celtic people are who they are!
(*Dodges tossed caber*)
From New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Effects:
"Looting and vandalism were widespread, especially in the African American and Puerto Rican communities, hitting 31 neighbourhoods, including every poor neighbourhood in the city."
Techno Viking, meet Cyborg Viking -- Robin Af Ekenstam.
Is fraud not already illegal?
If someone is paid to say "This I-pod rocks!", or someone else is not paid to, but says it anyway, what is the difference? Both reviews are entirely devoid of information. If anyone uses either case to help them decide on what portable audio player to buy, then shame on them for their lack of critical thinking. Unless of course you already know the reviewer to be trustworthy and you accept his opinion as to what is simply good to apply for you.
If someone is paid by Apple Incorporated to say that "This I-pod can play Vorbis-encoded audio files", when it does not, then is that not just plain fraud? So it seems you can trust paid-for reviews even more for what really matters -- the facts -- because they have a disincentive to lie: Being charged with fraud. Someone who has no monetary involvement could just make up whatever lies they want. Why they would want to, I do not know, but trolls do abound.
I'm not a US citizen. When I want to drive from Southern Ontario to Northwestern Ontario or vice versa I go through Michigan every time. I also many times go to the Lutsen ski area in Minnesota. Only one time had I a "problem". I was driving from London, Ontario having just picked up a car one relative inherited from another recently deceased distant sort-of relative (sort-of because of divorce). The car was still registered to the dearly departed. When I went across the Ambassador bridge they directed me to another stopping point. I got out there and they asked whose car it was. I explained it to them. They asked for proof that it was not stolen. I told them I didn't have any. They then let me go. It took about 3 minutes to cross the border that time. Every other time took about 15 seconds, not counting waiting in traffic. And I've travelled through with trailers and the vehicle packed with random boxes and furniture. I've moved apartments by going through the States. They never bothered to check any of the stuff.
About a year ago my brother and his girlfriend took the border bus (not sure what it is called) from Windsor to Detroit. She forgot all her ID. She had no passport, no driver's license, no ID of any kind. They got angry but let them both in anyway!
I have to wonder whether the IOC questioned the border policies of China before they gave them the green light for Beijing games.
1. Wearing a suit on a bicycle is not hard. ... this was exactly the grandparents point: The interviewer was irrationally prejudiced.
2. Not getting dusty and sweaty on a bike is not hard.
3. Not getting tired on a bicycle is not hard.
4. Cyclists are healthier than non-cyclists.
5. Or black, or hispanic, or a woman
From The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991:
"According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes."
From Canadian Council for Tobacco Control - Tax Revenues:
"Governments are often accused of making money from the sales of cigarettes. While taxation revenues on cigarettes are quite high, as is shown in the table below health care costs are always higher."
And they include 2001/2002 numbers. Where are your 1998 numbers?
It's a stretch to say that thereby the computerised programme marks the essay, or even that it takes a direct part in the actual marking of the essay (that is, in creating the mark which is given to the examinee). The programme really marks the human marker in that scenario, if it marks anything at all.
Did you ever wonder what "teen" means? Well, it just means ten, as it looks. So 10 is "ten"; 13 is 10 + 3 so it gets "thirteen", that is "three and ten", etc. Twelve and eleven happen to have their own special names because they are a holdover from the Germanic tribes archaically using a number system based around 12 and 60.
Say you had a collection of population centres with the names Jonestown, Allentown, Jamestown, and Kingston. Now if someone said that all these are towns, would you then respond that only the first three are towns because only they have "town" in them?
If sex isn't dirty to you, you must be having some pretty boring sex.
So why do you know that your friends do those things? Because friends tell their friends about their own drug use? My point is that my neighbours are my friends. They would have to take a lot of conscious care to hide their drug use from me for all this time. Why would they do that? They know I wouldn't care if they used drugs. Maybe you're imagining a neighbourhood in an American city or something with a bunch of unknown faces walking around. Imagine something much more like a small island with ten other year-round houses on it and some summer cottages. That is my neighbourhood.
Okay then, one question. If druggies only open up to other druggies, then how do the druggies know who are the druggies up to whom they are going to open before they open? They would have to determine who does the drugs first. But how would they determine who does drugs first if the others who do drugs are not going to tell them unless they know that they do drugs first? Someone at some point has to just offer one of their friends some drugs. There's no broadcasting to the world, but friends figure it out. In fact, I know you're making stuff up, because I've lived in areas where people do use drugs. You hear your neighbour talking in her backyard and you walk over to see how she is doing, and she is smoking a joint in her backyard with some friends. She offers you some. Or you go over to a friend of a friend's house and they have a bong on their coffee-table. Or one of your friends tells you about the mushroom trip he went on (I've heard those tales many times). Or one of your friends tells you how he tried cocaine and it made him "feel invincible". (I've heard that one too). That's how it works, there's no big secret-handshake into the drug-user world, but there need not be any "broadcasting to the world" either.
The difference is that the neighbourhood I live in now, you never walk into a neighbours backyard and one of them is smoking a joint. You never go to a neighbour's house and they have a bong lying around. And I do walk in to my neighbours' backyards and I do go to their houses all the time, because I personally know them. And no one ever tells you about any drug use whatsoever in the neighbourhood. My lifestyle (which is your explanation for why I wouldn't hear about my own friends using drugs) hasn't changed between from before and now, so why did I hear about drug-use in the other neighbourhoods but not in this one? The better explanation for this lack of evidence is that the drug use just isn't there.
It would probably be much better to compare the rates in the same country before and after legalisation rather than compare the rates between two countries before legalisation with two the rates in two different countries after legalisation.
I wrote gymnosperm but I should have wrote angiosperm.
How do you figure drugs are everywhere? I know who my neighbours are, and I know they don't do drugs. They are people I meet and socialise with all the time. What are they, secretly doing drugs by themselves? And they take to shutting themselves and pretending that no one is home so that no one else sees them when they take them or in the period after? And they hide all their drugs and related paraphernalia like criminals whenever someone goes to their house, so that no one may find out that way? I'll have to say that my neighbours seem like far too reasonable of people to live such lives of subterfuge and constant worry about keeping up appearances.
Sure, many may die if you cut all the leaves off, but most? Probably not. And there are many factors to consider too. If you cut all the leaves off a maple or a tamarack in Vermont in November, the effect won't be very significant at all. But even if you cut all the leaves off a tropical plant in a regular tropical environment for example, the plant may very well die, but also may very well just lose a lot of its mass but in turn sprout some new leaves built from the nutrients stored in its stems and roots.
You could cut a gymnosperm tree clean down (let alone cut off all the leaves), but then you may yet see a little sprout come up from the stump -- the same organism.
"Okay I'm ready."
"You are?"
"Yes."
"Okay I'll be at the door."
*Five minutes later.*
"Hey! Are you ready yet?"
"I told you I was ready!"
"Ohhhh...kay."
Dear Sirs and Madam,
I wish to complain about that last complaint. I can assure you that all groomers of haddock and every other species in order Gadiformes are indeed transvestites. This is in fact a necessary grade to be reached in the apprenticeship process for the Gadiformes Groomers Guild (GGF). If the former complainant indeed knows of any non-transvestite groomers as such, then he should report them both to the GGF and to the Ministry of Fish Groomers in Luton at once!
Angrily,
Mr. Pint