Wal mart pays the same as other retailers. You are misinformed. They do help their employees collect government services, but it's not Walmart that put those people in that position. Obviously they'd go out of business if they offered an adequate wage, since everyone else would have such a huge price advantage over them. Most of the anti-walmart stuff you read is FUD, targated at them because they're the biggest retailer. And despite what everyone says, they got that way by having honest business practices (by working to prevent conflicts of interest with their buying staff, and by preventing unionization, which tends to drive down entry level wages for no good reason).
A subsidy is when the government supplements a business' income. I don't think failing to withdraw their income counts. Regardless, small businesses often pay no taxes, so it's hardly relevant to the argument. And I've never heard of a Walmart closing down, except to build a bigger one nearby.
No, the replacement rate is above 2 but below 3. Since it's impossible to father less than one child at a time, anyone having either two or three children could at the replacement rate, depending on how you measure it. Not to mention that since some people have one child, or no children, there is also a need for someone to pick up the slack.
When I first read what you had to say about this, I was a little shocked. But now that I've thought about it more I don't think politicians worry about inflicting a little collateral damage for the common good. I suppose it's only reasonable that the average citizen would treat a politician according a politician's standard. For their many words, they lead by example first and foremost, whether they want to believe it or not.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but it's not true. Violence is the underpinning of government and politics. It should not be a surprise to anyone when that violence makes it to the surface. While people like to think that policy is not violence, and that people can remain emotionally and physically detached from the goings on from government, the reality is that rule is maintained by force or the threat of force.
It's a simple truth that modern society has gone to great lengths to obscure and hide with words like "compromise" and "social contract". We like to paint a picture where most cooperatively accept rule and it's just a few bad apples that won't accept it and need to be controlled or removed. But the reality is that the government could come down on you next for whatever reason and you may not react to it kindly either. Say what you will about violence, it's a horrible thing, but at least it's honest.
I see a lot of people on here claiming the burden of proof lies with the people making the extraordinary claims. This is not true. The burden of proof always lies with the person with the interest and the ability to get such proof. So if you are going to call people stupid or say they are wrong, and you aren't willing to seek the proof, you are just talking out your ass.
I've never watched any of those shows, but I think they do a lot with temperature, infrared imaging, audio recording, and magnetic fields.
For non-haunted locations, the difficulty will be finding a quiet, dark place that doesn't seem spooky. Ideally, a house that is supposedly haunted but relatively new so that you can find another house of the same model that wouldn't be haunted for any reason. Probably a mobile home, since a lot of those are used for disreputable purposes, they're relatively cheap, and they make a lot of them.
Actually, this would be a good thing for the myth-busters, since they have the resources to buy a new (and therefore un-haunted) mobile home and modify it to match the "haunted" one exactly.
Have you used the iPhone or iPad's on-screen keyboard? You barely touch it. And it's screen is glass, so unless you have steel fingernails, you won't be scratching it up.
What I've found in using an iPad is that it barely matters that you can't look away, since the text is on the screen right next to the on-screen keyboard.
Were you a christian? I always have to ask myself "What Bible are these people reading?". There are a lot of disturbing things in the modern christian moment. It is seemingly divorced from the Bible, but claims the Bible is of central importance. It says you shouldn't question God, but almost all the protagonists in the Bible question God at some point (even Jesus!). It claims every word of the Bible is absolutely literally true, but the Bible never makes that claim. Most of the Bible is prophecy or poetry that can not possibly be taken literally and was clearly never meant to be taken that way. The books of the new Testament contradict themselves about the details of Jesus' life on earth, and how the Church should conduct itself. When they compiled it they knew these contradictions existed and they did not see fit to edit them out. Clearly the point is that the specifics are not known and are not essential to the religion.
It doesn't even makes sense to say that a book on spiritual matters is literally true, because literal means physical and spiritual refers to things that are not physical.
Christianity (true Christianity) is about lifestyle, not what you claim to believe, Jesus says as much in the Bible (as do most of the prophets).
I can't blame you if you rejected modern christianity. Any sane person should.
That's not the right way to think about it. With smallpox, since it is human-human and no one has the disease, your changes of contracting it is 0%. Any risk of complications from the vaccine at all is greater than your risk of contracting the disease.
It is inappropriate to pull out these 1 in a million type statistics to justify taking a risk. Any statistic is meaningless when taken out of context.
anti-vaccine quackery has doomed an unknown number of children to painful deaths by otherwise controllable diseases.
Vaccines work by preventing outbreaks of a disease. Typically, as long as you have 85% or so vaccinated, the vaccine will be effective. Individually, the vaccines have side effects that will have health repercussions on known percentage of children vaccinated (that's why they stopped vaccinating for smallpox once they decided they'd eradicated the disease, the vaccine itself kills a certain percentage of the people vaccinated). Statistically, it's better for you to be in the 15% than the 85%. As long as most people are vaccinated you aren't likely to contract the disease, but if you are vaccinated it puts you at risk for side effects.
iPhones may be cutting into iPod sales, but as the iPhone is a more profitable and expensive device, I doubt anyone at Apple is losing sleep over it. And people have been saying that Apples are too expensive to sell for decades (and they've consistently been wrong). iPhones have not been losing market share (their market share has consistently been increasing, and beating all analyst expectations), and they will increase even more once they are on Verizon.
Well, it's similar when you look at the increasing price. I bought it years ago when it was worth about 1/12 what it is today. Now, assuming it is still the same thing I bought, that means in order to cash out I need some new investor to put in $11 for every $1 I put in. Then I get the $12 when I only put in one, and he needs to find someone else to trick into giving him even more that he paid to me. Where it breaks down is in the assumption that the stock I am selling him is the same as the stock I bought. If it were the same, then I could see how you could call it a Ponzi scheme (although technically it isn't because everyone is aware of what's going on). Of course Apple is a different company, so the value is not really the same.
But Microsoft is a declining company, so that is reflected in their share price. If they had some hope for new growth on the horizon, maybe it would be worth something. But right now they're really just waiting to die. I'd need to see some major changes before I'd consider investing money there.
I know other people have beaten this point to death, but Apple is a highly profitable company. They could issue dividends if that's what their shareholders wanted. Their P/E is around 20, so they would beat inflation. Their operating margins are in the 40% range, so if they shut down all their new R&D and marketing and all that stuff you don't seem to value, they could issue huge dividends (while they go out of business, of course, but you would still probably get back what you put in). The stock is a good value. You just don't know it because you are so obsessed with dividends that you can't see the company itself as a sound operation and therefore a good value.
That said, you shouldn't invest in ways you don't understand, so you should stick to the dividend paying companies if that's what makes sense to you.
Tsvangirai lied to the people of Zimbabwe about opposing sanctions. Publicly he was against them because they hurt the people in Zimbabwe. Privately, he was for them and encouraged foreign governments to keep them up.
Mugabe does not have to misrepresent this situation in order for it to be damaging to Tsvangirai. Anytime you get caught in a lie like this it is damaging.
It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tsvangirai is doing is illegal or immoral.
It is immoral to manipulate someone by lying to them, even if it's a whole bunch of people. Lying subverts the democratic process, it does not promote it. I don't know whether or not it's illegal in Zimbabwe. It wouldn't be illegal in the US, but maybe it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Wal mart pays the same as other retailers. You are misinformed. They do help their employees collect government services, but it's not Walmart that put those people in that position. Obviously they'd go out of business if they offered an adequate wage, since everyone else would have such a huge price advantage over them. Most of the anti-walmart stuff you read is FUD, targated at them because they're the biggest retailer. And despite what everyone says, they got that way by having honest business practices (by working to prevent conflicts of interest with their buying staff, and by preventing unionization, which tends to drive down entry level wages for no good reason).
A subsidy is when the government supplements a business' income. I don't think failing to withdraw their income counts. Regardless, small businesses often pay no taxes, so it's hardly relevant to the argument. And I've never heard of a Walmart closing down, except to build a bigger one nearby.
Government regulations do not have that effect. Not even close. Quite the opposite, really.
I don't think WalMart receives subsidies.
No, the replacement rate is above 2 but below 3. Since it's impossible to father less than one child at a time, anyone having either two or three children could at the replacement rate, depending on how you measure it. Not to mention that since some people have one child, or no children, there is also a need for someone to pick up the slack.
When I first read what you had to say about this, I was a little shocked. But now that I've thought about it more I don't think politicians worry about inflicting a little collateral damage for the common good. I suppose it's only reasonable that the average citizen would treat a politician according a politician's standard. For their many words, they lead by example first and foremost, whether they want to believe it or not.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but it's not true. Violence is the underpinning of government and politics. It should not be a surprise to anyone when that violence makes it to the surface. While people like to think that policy is not violence, and that people can remain emotionally and physically detached from the goings on from government, the reality is that rule is maintained by force or the threat of force.
It's a simple truth that modern society has gone to great lengths to obscure and hide with words like "compromise" and "social contract". We like to paint a picture where most cooperatively accept rule and it's just a few bad apples that won't accept it and need to be controlled or removed. But the reality is that the government could come down on you next for whatever reason and you may not react to it kindly either. Say what you will about violence, it's a horrible thing, but at least it's honest.
I think she is on the NASA subcommittee.
I see a lot of people on here claiming the burden of proof lies with the people making the extraordinary claims. This is not true. The burden of proof always lies with the person with the interest and the ability to get such proof. So if you are going to call people stupid or say they are wrong, and you aren't willing to seek the proof, you are just talking out your ass.
I've never watched any of those shows, but I think they do a lot with temperature, infrared imaging, audio recording, and magnetic fields.
For non-haunted locations, the difficulty will be finding a quiet, dark place that doesn't seem spooky. Ideally, a house that is supposedly haunted but relatively new so that you can find another house of the same model that wouldn't be haunted for any reason. Probably a mobile home, since a lot of those are used for disreputable purposes, they're relatively cheap, and they make a lot of them.
Actually, this would be a good thing for the myth-busters, since they have the resources to buy a new (and therefore un-haunted) mobile home and modify it to match the "haunted" one exactly.
Have you used the iPhone or iPad's on-screen keyboard? You barely touch it. And it's screen is glass, so unless you have steel fingernails, you won't be scratching it up.
What I've found in using an iPad is that it barely matters that you can't look away, since the text is on the screen right next to the on-screen keyboard.
Just watch an episode of STNG and tell me how many keyboards you see.
Were you a christian? I always have to ask myself "What Bible are these people reading?". There are a lot of disturbing things in the modern christian moment. It is seemingly divorced from the Bible, but claims the Bible is of central importance. It says you shouldn't question God, but almost all the protagonists in the Bible question God at some point (even Jesus!). It claims every word of the Bible is absolutely literally true, but the Bible never makes that claim. Most of the Bible is prophecy or poetry that can not possibly be taken literally and was clearly never meant to be taken that way. The books of the new Testament contradict themselves about the details of Jesus' life on earth, and how the Church should conduct itself. When they compiled it they knew these contradictions existed and they did not see fit to edit them out. Clearly the point is that the specifics are not known and are not essential to the religion.
It doesn't even makes sense to say that a book on spiritual matters is literally true, because literal means physical and spiritual refers to things that are not physical.
Christianity (true Christianity) is about lifestyle, not what you claim to believe, Jesus says as much in the Bible (as do most of the prophets).
I can't blame you if you rejected modern christianity. Any sane person should.
That's not the right way to think about it. With smallpox, since it is human-human and no one has the disease, your changes of contracting it is 0%. Any risk of complications from the vaccine at all is greater than your risk of contracting the disease.
It is inappropriate to pull out these 1 in a million type statistics to justify taking a risk. Any statistic is meaningless when taken out of context.
The CDC has a lot of information about side effects, in case you are curious.
Vaccines work by preventing outbreaks of a disease. Typically, as long as you have 85% or so vaccinated, the vaccine will be effective. Individually, the vaccines have side effects that will have health repercussions on known percentage of children vaccinated (that's why they stopped vaccinating for smallpox once they decided they'd eradicated the disease, the vaccine itself kills a certain percentage of the people vaccinated). Statistically, it's better for you to be in the 15% than the 85%. As long as most people are vaccinated you aren't likely to contract the disease, but if you are vaccinated it puts you at risk for side effects.
Apple isn't in a down economy, though. It just seems everyone else is.
iPhones may be cutting into iPod sales, but as the iPhone is a more profitable and expensive device, I doubt anyone at Apple is losing sleep over it. And people have been saying that Apples are too expensive to sell for decades (and they've consistently been wrong). iPhones have not been losing market share (their market share has consistently been increasing, and beating all analyst expectations), and they will increase even more once they are on Verizon.
Well, it's similar when you look at the increasing price. I bought it years ago when it was worth about 1/12 what it is today. Now, assuming it is still the same thing I bought, that means in order to cash out I need some new investor to put in $11 for every $1 I put in. Then I get the $12 when I only put in one, and he needs to find someone else to trick into giving him even more that he paid to me. Where it breaks down is in the assumption that the stock I am selling him is the same as the stock I bought. If it were the same, then I could see how you could call it a Ponzi scheme (although technically it isn't because everyone is aware of what's going on). Of course Apple is a different company, so the value is not really the same.
You could say that about the price of anything.
But Microsoft is a declining company, so that is reflected in their share price. If they had some hope for new growth on the horizon, maybe it would be worth something. But right now they're really just waiting to die. I'd need to see some major changes before I'd consider investing money there.
I know other people have beaten this point to death, but Apple is a highly profitable company. They could issue dividends if that's what their shareholders wanted. Their P/E is around 20, so they would beat inflation. Their operating margins are in the 40% range, so if they shut down all their new R&D and marketing and all that stuff you don't seem to value, they could issue huge dividends (while they go out of business, of course, but you would still probably get back what you put in). The stock is a good value. You just don't know it because you are so obsessed with dividends that you can't see the company itself as a sound operation and therefore a good value.
That said, you shouldn't invest in ways you don't understand, so you should stick to the dividend paying companies if that's what makes sense to you.
If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.
Tsvangirai lied to the people of Zimbabwe about opposing sanctions. Publicly he was against them because they hurt the people in Zimbabwe. Privately, he was for them and encouraged foreign governments to keep them up.
Mugabe does not have to misrepresent this situation in order for it to be damaging to Tsvangirai. Anytime you get caught in a lie like this it is damaging.
It is immoral to manipulate someone by lying to them, even if it's a whole bunch of people. Lying subverts the democratic process, it does not promote it. I don't know whether or not it's illegal in Zimbabwe. It wouldn't be illegal in the US, but maybe it should be.