Fuck man, for crying out loud! give a fucking alternative or shut the hell up. No killing people is only a solution when other solutions work. It is not one when they are trying to kill you and refused to listen or recieve diplomacy or anything else that has already failed.
You act as if going for the gun was the first choice. You must be hiding under your bed and not paying fucking attention. It has been the last choice and is still one of the last choices. IF you don't want people to get killed, then you are going to have to point to something else that works. This entire bullshit that it will come back to you is fucking idiocy when it is already there before we started killing. You must be intentionally keeping yourself ignorant in order not to see that.
Hell, I asked you about a solution other then killing and you don't have one. So am I supposed to gather that you think we should abandon allies around the globe and let two bit terrorist worshiping a pedophile in the name of allah which is little more then the third hashing of the jewish god force them into giving up their freedoms and human rights? Are we supposed to bow to these people too?
People like you irritate the fuck out of me. Your only solution is to stop the killing but you don't say then do what. Well the killing wasn't the first response, it was the last in a line of responses that will have a few more. If you offered one alternative to killing that hasn't already been tried and failed, I would support you idea of not killing. But you have absolutely nothing at all. That fucking weak man. That's like saying "Can't we just get along", when obviously the answer seems to be no and we have tried. Why don't you go back to sucking that glass dick or what ever they call the bong nowadays and leave the real world to people actually paying attention.
You must be from the south. Don't you call it 'the war of northern agression'? Talk about rewriting history...
You think you know it all but just don't know anything. I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history. Lincoln only got 40% of the popular vote with an 81% turnout. He won because the rest of the vote against him was split between 3 other guys. That doesn't seem like the will of the people to me, but hey, you can rewrite history in your fantasy land. Just remember, it doesn't work in real life.
WTF??? Your example doesn't make any sense. What do aliens and welfare have to do with one another?
It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right? Or are there times when it doesn't make sense to do what the people want? I mean you can't have it both ways, because then you aren't making any sense.
Because they were brainwashed by the church to believe in witches!!!
It doesn't matter, at one point in time they were brain washed into believing slavery was ok, black and Indians were less then human with the later needing killed on sight, Homosexuals should be beaten to death and that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Some of that was acted on and perfectly acceptable because it was the will of the people. Then people in charge started outlawing it, and so on. The popular opinion was that women should not have a say in politics, try reading about the woman's suffrage movement a little. How the people determine their will is not important if their will is. What you are now attempting to say is that the will of the people is only important if you agree with it. That's fine and all, but don't cry when others do the same damn thing.
This ruling tossed out a female tire company managerâ(TM)s complaint that she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work over roughly two decades. President Barack Obama signed a law overturning the courtâ(TM)s decision shortly after taking office. The courtâ(TM)s ruling in that case âoedefied common senseâ and âoecontradicted decadesâ of precedent.
And you go on to cite an opinion piece as your reference. There is a reason why it is called opinion and not news. It even has opinion written in bold letters at the top of the page.
But lets look at this anyways. The court held that A: Ledbetter did not file her grievances within the time period the law allows and she still didn't charge discrimination during the supposed time, she attempted to go back for an appearance of an effect later. (so in essence, she was perfectly fine with her pay until she realized she wasn't getting enough retirement and then alledge discrimination in order to get more but didn't show any) It was Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter's claim is untimely.
B: In a 1986 ruling, it was determined that an em-ployer violates Title VII and triggers a new EEOC charging period whenever the employer issues paychecks using a discriminatory pay structure. It is not, as Ledbetter contends, a "paycheck accrual rule" under which each paycheck, even if not accompanied by discrimina-tory intent, triggers a new EEOC charging period during which the complainant may properly challenge any prior discriminatory con-duct that impacted that paycheck's amount, no matter how long ago the discrimination occurred.
It goes on to say Ledbetter has not adduced evi-dence that Goodyear initially adopted its performance-based pay sys-tem in order to discriminate based on sex or
The MAJOR difference in this case was as follows: Unlike with electric or water, where you are talking about stranding a good chunk of folks without basic utilities, here we are talking about a huge multinational corporation who was basically trying to lowball everyone and give them a pittance for their land, and when they refused they simply stole the land at the end of a gun named government.
And at the time when the electric grid was being built by eminent domain and private companies, it wasn't a basic utility. In fact, only a handful of rich people had access to it. Same thing with the original telephones and indoor plumbing. Of course the plumbing also carried a health and sanitation factor and was sometimes controlled by the cities.
There is no technical difference between then and now except the side details. Those are irrelevant.
I'd say that was a pretty big difference, and I'm seeing this ruling being used in my own state (AR) as an excuse for natural gas wildcatters to steal the mineral rights from folks. They say "take what pittance we offer or we'll just get the state to take it from you". This ruling means your right to own property ends when any corporation decides they like your land PERIOD. You no longer have any choice whether you sell or not, or even the power to negotiate, because they will simply stick a gun in your face called "eminent domain" and take it from you.
First, it's not a big difference. Second, you state has some fucked up laws. In almost every other state, and according to federal law, they pay you a percentage of the going rate for the amount under your land. They have no claim to disturb your land unless they can get a right of way which had been around in the same capacity since the beginning of civilizations.
Now, if you paid attention to the supreme court ruling, you would know that they said unless the state has a law forbidding it. So if you are seeing a problem, it can be changed by a change in your state law. IF you don't understand that, then you are not understanding what the ruling said.
You know, for years everyone made fun of the survival nuts, buying up enough weapons to fight WW3 and their "crazy talk" of "the government will take your lands, your rights, and eventually your freedom". Well they don't really sound so crazy anymore, do they? Since 9/11 we have seen more and more of our liberties taken away, and treasonous bribery become simply a way of life. Who would have ever thought that we would win the cold war only to become the Soviets?
OK, now I know you are crazy.. What rights did you have before 9/11 that you do not have now?
Maybe for a few 'deliverance' style inbred white boys south of the mason-dixon, but no, the majority of the people wanted to abolish slavery.
Lol.. OK, rewrite history to show your point. Lincoln was almost defeated in his election because his opponent said he wanted blacks to be equals with the whites. Lincoln had to go around calling them niggers and stating that he only wanted better treatment for them because they should at least have as good of a life as an oxen.
No, the majority at that time did not want to end slavery, they only wanted to end the harsh treatment of the slaves. If the majority of people wanted to end slavery, congress could have ended it by law and not because of the southern state seceding from the union.
No. The salem witch trials was the will of the few people in the church, and the rest went along because to go against the will of the church meant they would be burned too. Never underestimate the influence of crackpot religions on the uneducated.
It doesn't matter what the root of the situation was, the rest of the people- read majority of them- accepted it and wanted it. The reasons why they accepted it or wanted it is irrelevant. You signified the will of the people, If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare, divert all of those resources to programs to invent intense energy beam weapons for our defense, and the majority of people agreed or went along with it, it would still be the will of the people no matter how stupid or misconceived it was.
Your not saying that the will of the people is only important when you agree with it are you? The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials.
It becomes one when there is clear conservative bias in the courts forcing their will on the people.
What will? the laws and stuff are made by the people in power and they are limited to the constitution and they were elected. The courts can only act if a law is in conflict with another law or the constitution so what will is being imposed that wasn't already there? You are not one of those living document people who think the constitution needs to change with society despite a mechanism built inside the constitution for changing it as long as the change is constitutional are you? If so then you need to shut the hell up. This is because 1: you most likely have a distorted view of reality and 2: you can't complain about unconstitutional laws or government actions when you won't even follow the letter of it.
Do some research of your own. Look at the amount of overturned laws - the vast majority are due to a conservative group in the supreme court.
Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you. The fact that we have unconstitutional laws should be way more alarming then that we have a court which is actually tackling the problem when it's presented to them. Over turning bad laws is not a problem. IF you can show where there was no basis to over turn these laws then your claim might have some credit. But the courts have to use precedent and the laws and constitution for the basis of their rulings. You have showed nothing other then they were doing their jobs as proof of your conspiracy.
If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals? I don't believe you have any basis in reality unless you are upset that the judges did not ignore the constitution and laws in order to keep a bad law in place.
You are either lieing or Vonage is providing false information on their website and claiming that you are paying the fees. Follow the fucking link, it specifically says they charge those reoccurring fees on your bill.
I'm not sure why Vonage would find it viable to place incorrect information on their website when their intent is to get customers and explain the billing.
Do you want to post of copy of your invoice so we can call Vonage the liar or should we just assume that you are confused?
The entire concept of the Kyoto protocols wasn't that is costs money, it's that it was supposed to redistribute money, wealth, and it was built around a fallacy with an intent to scam in order to do so.
Now before we go any further, whether or not you believe in man made global warming is irrelevant to this point, that was only the death, doom and gloom the kyoto protocol was hiding under to sell it. It never had the ability to stop man made global warming.
Now for some background on it, During the late 1980's there was several groups who were attempting to pressure the wealthy nations to forgive the third world debt that was accumulated from the OPEC oil embargo in which those third world countries borrowed money to explore oil potentials in hopes of getting rich from the US not being sold middle east oil. This movement followed the global warming debate and the Kyoto protocols and pretty much disappeared the year the Kyoto protocols were being created/released. Now originally, the Kyoto protocols were one of those secret treaties where you knew about it but they kept the details secret until a couple years later. It wasn't until the US considered ratification after Bill Clinton signed an intent that the detailed became really apparent.
Now here are the details, they pick 38 of the wealthiest countries, assigned a 1990 goal of Co2 emissions knowing that population growth had already made it impossible to achieve with the technology as young as 8 years later. Then they built in a bypass, you can offshore you carbon production to either another country who has limits or a county without limits or you can keep your production and not count it by simply buying Carbon credits from those countries. Of course out of the 157 or so countries that signed on to it, only 37 or so have limits and if you purchase credits from a limited country, they have to stay under their limits.
Well, this clearly shows where the problems are. Europe imports from China and India tripled in the fist five years after implementation. The only reason some of the countries appear to be hitting their marks is because we are in a world recession and most of the carbon was offset by just moving it to other countries. Because of Kyoto and Europe's, participation, the rate of increase in carbon emissions has not declined, in fact it has increased and it is primarily due to the utilization of third world countries to meet the Kyoto guidelines.
So the fallacy was that it would stop global warming and the reality is that it was just a complex political movement to funnel moneys to third world countries that were indebted to 1st world nations already.
It's one thing to keep your environment clean and having to pay more when it goes to your community. It's entirely another when you have to pay more for a lie and the money goes to foreign nations who are indebted to you because they wanted to take advantage of inflated prices during an oil shortage. Europe as a whole has increased Co2 production since 1998 and they have done so on pace with the US's increases over the same amount of time. If you add the offshoring into the mix, you will clearly see there has been no reduction and in fact an increase in production of carbon emissions. You may not think being lied to and sold a broken bill of goods is a bad thing, but the only so called advantage to what was billed as a world problem is local results that only look good if you ignore the external reality imposed by the treaty on the world. In short, your gains may make you feel good, but you have to ignore every other country in order to make those claims legit and it's a little disingenuous to only consider local advantage to a global problem when the direct result of the rest of the globe can be in part attributed to the smoke and mirrors that Kyoto was designed to put in place.
Your plan is kill people to solve problems which makes you a mass murderer.
When you go and kill people over there you must expect they they will attempt to kill you back there or if they can over here. The more people you kill the greater the odds that you'll create a terrorist of their families.
That is why the not killing option works out in the long run for the better dude mass murderer.
So let me get this straight, You think that when all else fails, we should do nothing, even when they are killing us and our friends. You are fucking crazy if you actually think that is a viable option. You will lose your freedoms, your basic human rights, and most likely your own life.
To solve problems sometimes you have to learn to think radically dude. Not killing is radical at this point especially for countries like the USA, Britain, Canada, etc....
Think radically? Like what, I asked you for what else would work that hasn't already been tried and failed and you offer nothing but "don't kill dude" even though the alternative is to either sit back and let them kill us or our allies. Like I asked before and before that, Show me what this radical thinking is and tell me something other then "don't kill". What would solve our problems and keep us and our allies safe without losing basic human rights, freedoms, or our lives which hasn't already been tried and failed.
If you cannot come up with anything, then you are just a stupid crank who isn't looking at the situation through the facts or are omitting it to keep some fallacy of a worldview.
It's not up to me to come up with answers... your the one killing people... it's up to you to stop it.
It is too up to you to come up with the answers. You are the one claiming it should be done differently except that different already failed. Now, if there is an effective alternative to killing, we would be more then fucking happy to use it. So either admit you are a clueless bitch or tell us what is so awesome that will work instead of failing. Neither of the two wars we are in were the results a hasty decisions. They were the product of all other options failing. So tell me, what option did we miss that hasn't already failed or admit you are a fucktard that has no clue.
So stop killing people. Stop your government's mass murder. Stop it.
Like I said, point out the alternative that hasn't already failed and I'm sure we would be glad to do it. Until then, stay out of the path of bullets and don't get onto the side we are shooting at.
Why, there are many printers that Linux supports. The problem is that the manufacturer doesn't directly support them so it's currently difficult figuring out which one were. That's were asking a community of people who uses *nix comes in handy. And yes, there is a difference between Linux supporting something and the manufacturer supporting it. Often that difference is only in where to look for drivers and capabilities and who to ask for help. It's not difficult, especially if you take your time and look around.
If you would just look around, you would see that almost every Zebra printer is supported, Brothers generally are too. The only reason he would need to purchase a windows PC is if he was intellectually lazy and didn't look. Obviously that isn't the case seeing how he was checking with the rest of us.
Add about 3 more people in line with a site commander having to check off on it all and you are exactly right. Years ago, before 9/11 and DHS, I was bringing a a shipment of car alternators from Nuevo larado Mexico, I picked them up at the customs center which is technically in the middle of the border between the US and Mexico. Anyways, I was held up for 6 days waiting to get an inspection on the freight and it was just like you mentioned but it took another 3 or 4 people to process everything because of the seal on the container-trailer and all needs to be documented the entire time it's in their custody. Something as simple as a seal not matching will send it to the back of the line until it gets sorted out and the inspecting agent will not open the doors unless the seal matched. In my case, it was a matter of backlogged paperwork from understaffed and over worked agents doing the best they can.
This only happened one time to me in the 20 or so times I picked up from that spot. But that is exactly what can happen and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened this time with more emphasis on searching more and more because of national security threats and all.
What is necessary? Should the government take half your income and sack away trillions of dollars over the years because they haven't spent it? And you know that politicians will never have enough, they are always wanting to spend on something, even if it just wasting good money after bad.
No, Arizona's next door neighbor had high taxes and they were failing to pay their employees. Income tax returns were getting IOUs. This isn't about underfunding the government at all. It's about how the economy zapped a lot of the income and therefor funding out of the system. There are several states with high (and higher) taxes which are in worse trouble. Ignoring them doesn't make you point valid, it makes it ignorant.
You smoking something. What laws were overturned unjustly? Where was it decided that the constitution applied but didn't in reality? There are only two ways a law can be overturned. One is if it's in conflict with another law and the intent of either isn't clear, and the other is when it is in conflict with the constitution. SO what was unprecedented about conflicts with the constitution?
And if I was you, I would be more worried about lawmakers not paying attention to the constitution then I would about judges correcting that mistake. There might be things in there that you don't agree with or limits to government powers you dislike, but when you ignore it, you open the doors to ignore what you like about it too. And yes, I will be there pointing and saying I told you so when your freedom of speech or religion is gone or your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone and so on. In fact, I'm laughing already.
Yea, conservative that went against the will of the people like Lincoln who ended slavery or Kennedy who did a lot of work on civil rights (who was a conservative even though he ran as a democrat).
You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around. The will of the people was to continue doing a lot of things that we find outrageous and extremely distasteful today. The Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people. I don't think you have actually looked at history and paid enough attention to know how dangerous the will of the people is.
And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue. Whoever told you that was blowing smoke up your ass just to fool you into party line voting for their version of an asshat. Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Actually, the arguments on the city side said the benefit was the entire community because of the shift in the tax base and employment opportunities.
It's not different of an argument as you already state was acceptable. The only difference is that you seem to think it only applies to public works but the Electrical grid was originally put up by private companies and wasn't a public entity until recently when the communications deregulation act made it so. Other examples of this happening in the past were private roads that had tolls places in them, built and operated by private corporations. Railroads is another exercise of eminent domain that has historically been used for private enterprise.
The US supreme court ruled in no different way then before, the arguments and details were just outrageous and evoked a sense of compassion when examined this time.
As the story goes, what you put past my eyes and ears becomes my business.
Seriously, we have just as much right to point and laugh at the clowns over there as they do at us. The EU is a bad deal, it has brought you the Koyoto accords, the wipo WTC and WPPT, it has brought this bullshit ruling up and the loss of sovereignty as it seems. It needs dismantled and restarted from scratch. It's like a rotted tire, you can patch it several times but it's going to eventually fail catastrophically. Replace it before that happens.
Only because Vonage is there providing competition at a lower price. If Vonage didn't exist do you really think the telecoms would supply voip at that price? No they would supply it at a similar price to their wired offerings so they dont undercut themselves.
Ok, your one anecdotal point disproves every fucking thing else in the world. I get it, because of vonage nothing else is true unless you somehow magically will it to be.
And to note, you are still paying the Regulatory and Compliance Fee for each phone number plus the Federal Program Fee and 911 fees on top of your vonage bill as I already stated. They didn't take a hit in profits, they just passed it along to the consumer as I already stated. Now please show me where I am wrong.
There are many answers other than the simplistic let's kill them solution that you resort to making you one of the bad guys on the planet.
And I asked you what your big plan was. So give it up, how do you deal with dictators that machingun down civilians asking for basic human rights or regularly behead people for not believing enough in the same god. Sometimes there is evil and you have to do bad things to stop it. That doesn't make you evil, it makes you serious about doing good. Get out of your fantasy land.
Clearly you're blind to the horror that you unleash upon the world happily justifying it by thinking dead and murder and killing are the only answers.
What? Have you been paying attention? We were giving the Taliban (b)millions of dollars in aid packages just before 9/11 happened. What in the hell else do you think we should have done that we didn't already do? Talking didn't work, Osama claimed 9/11 was in response to our support for Israel, so should we have let a 2 bit terrorist threaten us into standing by and letting good people die because they have a problem with a religion that doesn't acknowledge Mohamed the pedophile who married a 6 year old girl? Fuck dude, what else could be done?
Seriously, what could have been done that wasn't already tried and failed? Giving up to the will of terrorist who would push their views over you with the threat of deadly force? Answer this or lose all credibility in this talk.
Get a brain. Learn about communication. Diplomacy. Education. Other solutions that don't involved making yourself a mass murderer.
As I said, what the fuck else could have been done that hasn't already failed? Diplomacy failed, education failed, comminication failed, What the fuck was the other options? Or are you just bitching about the impossible with no real thought to hear yourself blabber?
Of course, the government has already subsidized the road that the bus or car drives on. With rail, the railroad currently has to buy the land and build out the infrastructure. Even with toll roads, the government subsidizes them in a major way - so competition is currently nowhere near fair.
Lets slow down a bit here skippy. The state is already heavily invested in the project and we even got 900K from the last stimulus for it. This is all besides the fact that the state already owns the existing right of way from older freight tracks that were no longer in service. You are completely skewing the concept by claiming there isn't any subsidies for the light rail. It is actually more then fair and the costs of building the line including the trains are being picked up by the state and three cities.
As for the airports, That too is outside of the range of the federal government except where it is used as a port of entry (international airports) or strategic air reserves (like the military aspect of the interstate highway system). They claim there is a national security risk from huge planes falling from the sky. I can see it as a risk we don't want but not as national security. BTW, airlines have to pay terminal access fees that compensate much of the costs associated with government involvement in the air infrastructure. Not too much of a disadvantage if you ask me. I think you are exaggerating a bit either to prove a point or because you haven't just look at the entire situation.
No obviously I don't support such horrific practices as "female genital mutilation" however using murder, death and killing to solve it isn't the answer and in fact makes YOU a worse problem and a terrorist to them!
Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people. Yea, tell me how that worked out for people like Nick Burg or the numerous journalist beheaded in Iraq or the innocent civilians who were doing nothing more then attempting to live a normal life when the suicide bomb went off in the crowded market place and then when people rushed to help, another went off in attempts to kill the people giving aid to the innocent civilians. I hope you don't think that is a viable alternative to war. Of course to appease them, we would have to give up freedoms and believe like they do, perhaps you have already done that.
No one wants to be the killed person. Yes, killing others who you consider worse than you isn't the answer not even in war as it will not make you safer for it will generate more people who consider you a terrorist that needs killing. By politically advocating the death and murder of people you're giving them political power to kill you back. Thus the cycle perpetuates itself and makes you a monster.
Your doing pretty good at mandating what the answer isn't, so please tell me what the answer is. I'm sure you have some obvious iron clad method that no other country has been able to implement to date but will somehow work because you want it to.
Perfect example. I got pissed off with the phone fees so I switched to Vonage. They offer better service, more reliable and cheaper. There will always be competition that springs up if the price by a near monopoly gets too high.
Vonage wasn't even around when this fee went on. In fact, it wasn't until recently that Vonage was even considered a telecommunications service. Then this has been disproven by a court ruling saying they are not. Showing them as an example pf getting around the fees doesn't really prove your point. But because they got out from under the fees doesn't mean they weren't subject to them at some point. That's why it went to court. You were subject to the fee for at least 4 years before vonage or VOIP providers came about in 2001-2002.
Now, the only reason you have an alternative as you pointed out is because Vonage doesn't meet the criteria, tell me how that will work for manufacturing costs of existing products. It won't and Yes, I can get VoIP from the telecoms for about the same price as Vonage.
Yea, that is Republican protectionism which is proven to not work. Agreements like NAFTA and the free trade in the EU remove these concepts. Eventually this will be worldwide.
Wow.. You are fucking delusional aren't you? Republican protectionism... The congress was control by democrats, in fact, most all of the tariffs imposed required both sides of the isle to come right along with it. Even with the trade tariffs after WWI which contributed heavily to the great depression was a democrat ordeal. But democrat or republican doesn't really matter here because it doesn't disprove the point, it just shows how delusional you are.
No but from my experience software programmers often dont have the social skills to communicate properly in a discussion. They resort to name calling and condescention instead of explaining the facts. They often do this to distract from the fact that they are making an argument about a topic they have no real clue about. You are sadly mistaken if you think name calling is the only way to get someones attention.
SO far, it seems like you are the one without a clue. How you reconcile that is beyond me.
I think you are fundamentally missing the point that US labour costs minimum $8/hr while labour in China is about 5cents per day. For labour intensive production like textiles and manufacturing, you simply cannot compete. Many import tarrifs are designed to help make this more balanced (but I generally disagree with any sorf of forced tariff). I cannot think of many forced fees that are not related to import protectionism issues, so in general I believe your argument is invalid.
Lol... No you are missing some key points here. When we inflate the costs of production, they are wanting to create tariffs in order to equalize the difference. But you are illustrating my point about the government inflating costs. The only way for it to be provided cheaper is to either move it off shore (in which the case with tax and trade wouldn't work because of the tariffs and the democrats want to put in place)
But lets look at some other numbers. Of the 50 US states, the states can increase the minimum wage to above the federal minimum of $7.25/hour. Of the 20 or so states which has done that, the 15 which are more then 20% higher are driving our current unemployment numbers. They had a higher unemployment first and were the first to reach double digits. We now have businesses that are relocating to other states in order to get out from under the artificial costs increases and businesses remaining in those states who can't afford to compete outside of them. The costs of similar items in these states are higher then costs in other states with lower costs, even at major chain
We clearly have very different notions of the "empirical", as well as radically different philosophies of science.
Empirical, as in witnessing or recreating through experiments and the collection of date through that..
You can trust your guesses and assumptions but you can't ignore the fact that's what they are. You know, in the realm of atoms and so on, we can trust them to a point but we have to understand that a better assumption can come along or we can even view them and discover our interpretations are wrong. In the quantum fields, a lot of our understandings are being challenged and the rules don't seem to work as we might expect with normal mechanics. This is more evidence that we need to keep the mind open.
Have you read much philosophy of science? Because it sure seems like you haven't. The way you're using the the words, all science is "guesses" and "(well supported) assumptions". Which is a strange way of talking about it. Of course any scientific hypothesis could be wrong (that's almost axiomatic), the question is how well supported they are. The ones I mentioned are very well supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.
Some but probably not enough.
But no matter how supported they are, you have to acknowledge that we made assumptions to the evidence availible to present the models we are working with. It didn't argue that they were wild guesses or wild assumptions as if a stab in the dark. The fact just remains, they fact until such time the process can be observed or recreated in an experiment. Testing to see if something could be true isn't really the same empirical evidence that it is true. However, the lack of empirical evidence doesn't make it not true, it just makes you want to assume it could be.
There are quite a few fitting theories on why the dinosaurs died out other then the meteor impact. They aren't main stream but Changes in gravitational forces is one, volcanic eruptions is another which also explains temperature changes and concentrating of fossils during flood run off. Curiously, the gravitational change theory supports why some survived while the largest did not. But the most interesting part I find is that there are pockets of fossils the seem to have been deposited long after the mass extinction even 65 million years ago. There are even some fringe evidence of Dinosaurs being alive then humans were with Incas having Currier pouches pottery and jewelry depicting them long before the concept was even known to modern man or the appearance was visualized by our modern conception of them.
Anyways, the problem I had was not with the theories popular today, it's that they are not being treated as such and are being claimed as fact where we haven't demonstrated that yet.
I think what you are referring to as currents is the displacement of the liquid and the weight of the surrounding liquid pushing it back.
However, the concept of water or liquid moving little around the object compared to more movement further away is a matter of friction and displacement. It gets a little more complicated to explain when you deal with buoyancy and displacement as other factors such as surface tension and gravity become involved but it's mainly a matter of friction. If you are neutrally buoyant (*neither float up or sink when submerged) you have essentially equaled the mass density of the liquid. In this case, if the friction of the liquid moving across you body or the structure is greater then the friction of the liquid moving amongst itself, then the liquid will move more where the less friction is. This concept allow pockets of the liquid closest to the body to move less then slightly further away.
This is also why you remain wet when getting out of the shower. It probably illustrates the concept better then using a swimming pool. The friction between the water and your skin is more then the power of gravity and the weight of the water to over come. But because the friction between the water and water molecules is less, you do not exist the shower with a 3 inch thick block of water surrounding you because the weight of the water overcome the friction between itself.
Now that was the overly simplified version and I'm not sure I'm qualified to give the complex version. But the principles are the same. Even if you take a flat surface like a diner plate and expose it to water, turning it upside down will not cause all the water to run off because the friction to the surface is more then the friction between the water molecules and the weight of them.
Nice, I like the way you worked calling him a racist into the fact that you are oblivious to the repeated and often surfacing incompetence of government programs.
I mean welfare was/is a flop that doesn't help people get ahead or out of poverty and instead encourages dependency, HMO's that Senator Ted Kennedy initiated and is now calling a flop himself in favor of government health care, this fuckcluster by the patent office, Army veterans hospitals falling apart (Walter Reed), the department of education who couldn't do math well enough to provide and accounting of their funding, GSEs like Fannie mae and Freddie mac losing billions of dollars in the same types of accounting irregularities and much much more within the last decade or so should be enough evidence that the government simply is not the best candidate to preside over your health care.
But hey, we can call him a racist for pointing out how ill advised this might be when pointing out a specific clusterfuck by the patent office and ignore all the rest. We can even point out all the flaws from the last system the liberal put in place (HMO act 1973) as excuses for moving to the new and forget about the failings was a direct cause of government screwing things up. And as long as we call him a racist (not someone who likes to drive fast for competition) we can ignore everything and make the alarmist look like the bad people. Good job.
The feds shouldn't be investing anything in the trains. It's not in their constitutional powers to do so. They have stretched their abilities and ignored the constitution to do it so far which is why I find it highly amusing when someone complains about them ignoring the constitution or the bill of rights when they are supporting just that with inane proposals like investing in trains.
The state of Ohio is recently investing in commuter trains through the largest three cities (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleavland). It's funny because they expect the costs to be $70 for a round trip ticket from Columbus Ohio to Cleavland, then you have to find transportation after your at your destination. A buss ride along the same distance is $31.00 with the same problems of transportation to the last mile of the trip where a semi-modern car will cost roughly $40 round trip without issues for covering the last mile, having to adjust your schedule around the train or bus schedule, or put up with annoying strangers.
Not a good deal.. And that was after the state shells out a huge investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck man, for crying out loud! give a fucking alternative or shut the hell up. No killing people is only a solution when other solutions work. It is not one when they are trying to kill you and refused to listen or recieve diplomacy or anything else that has already failed.
You act as if going for the gun was the first choice. You must be hiding under your bed and not paying fucking attention. It has been the last choice and is still one of the last choices. IF you don't want people to get killed, then you are going to have to point to something else that works. This entire bullshit that it will come back to you is fucking idiocy when it is already there before we started killing. You must be intentionally keeping yourself ignorant in order not to see that.
Hell, I asked you about a solution other then killing and you don't have one. So am I supposed to gather that you think we should abandon allies around the globe and let two bit terrorist worshiping a pedophile in the name of allah which is little more then the third hashing of the jewish god force them into giving up their freedoms and human rights? Are we supposed to bow to these people too?
People like you irritate the fuck out of me. Your only solution is to stop the killing but you don't say then do what. Well the killing wasn't the first response, it was the last in a line of responses that will have a few more. If you offered one alternative to killing that hasn't already been tried and failed, I would support you idea of not killing. But you have absolutely nothing at all. That fucking weak man. That's like saying "Can't we just get along", when obviously the answer seems to be no and we have tried. Why don't you go back to sucking that glass dick or what ever they call the bong nowadays and leave the real world to people actually paying attention.
You think you know it all but just don't know anything. I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history. Lincoln only got 40% of the popular vote with an 81% turnout. He won because the rest of the vote against him was split between 3 other guys. That doesn't seem like the will of the people to me, but hey, you can rewrite history in your fantasy land. Just remember, it doesn't work in real life.
It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right? Or are there times when it doesn't make sense to do what the people want? I mean you can't have it both ways, because then you aren't making any sense.
It doesn't matter, at one point in time they were brain washed into believing slavery was ok, black and Indians were less then human with the later needing killed on sight, Homosexuals should be beaten to death and that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Some of that was acted on and perfectly acceptable because it was the will of the people. Then people in charge started outlawing it, and so on. The popular opinion was that women should not have a say in politics, try reading about the woman's suffrage movement a little. How the people determine their will is not important if their will is. What you are now attempting to say is that the will of the people is only important if you agree with it. That's fine and all, but don't cry when others do the same damn thing.
And you go on to cite an opinion piece as your reference. There is a reason why it is called opinion and not news. It even has opinion written in bold letters at the top of the page.
But lets look at this anyways.
The court held that
A: Ledbetter did not file her grievances within the time period the law allows and she still didn't charge discrimination during the supposed time, she attempted to go back for an appearance of an effect later. (so in essence, she was perfectly fine with her pay until she realized she wasn't getting enough retirement and then alledge discrimination in order to get more but didn't show any) It was Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter's claim is untimely.
B: In a 1986 ruling, it was determined that an em-ployer violates Title VII and triggers a new EEOC charging period whenever the employer issues paychecks using a discriminatory pay structure. It is not, as Ledbetter contends, a "paycheck accrual rule" under which each paycheck, even if not accompanied by discrimina-tory intent, triggers a new EEOC charging period during which the complainant may properly challenge any prior discriminatory con-duct that impacted that paycheck's amount, no matter how long ago the discrimination occurred.
It goes on to say Ledbetter has not adduced evi-dence that Goodyear initially adopted its performance-based pay sys-tem in order to discriminate based on sex or
Lol.. Life wasn't the way it is today, always.
And at the time when the electric grid was being built by eminent domain and private companies, it wasn't a basic utility. In fact, only a handful of rich people had access to it. Same thing with the original telephones and indoor plumbing. Of course the plumbing also carried a health and sanitation factor and was sometimes controlled by the cities.
There is no technical difference between then and now except the side details. Those are irrelevant.
First, it's not a big difference. Second, you state has some fucked up laws. In almost every other state, and according to federal law, they pay you a percentage of the going rate for the amount under your land. They have no claim to disturb your land unless they can get a right of way which had been around in the same capacity since the beginning of civilizations.
Now, if you paid attention to the supreme court ruling, you would know that they said unless the state has a law forbidding it. So if you are seeing a problem, it can be changed by a change in your state law. IF you don't understand that, then you are not understanding what the ruling said.
OK, now I know you are crazy.. What rights did you have before 9/11 that you do not have now?
Lol.. OK, rewrite history to show your point. Lincoln was almost defeated in his election because his opponent said he wanted blacks to be equals with the whites. Lincoln had to go around calling them niggers and stating that he only wanted better treatment for them because they should at least have as good of a life as an oxen.
No, the majority at that time did not want to end slavery, they only wanted to end the harsh treatment of the slaves. If the majority of people wanted to end slavery, congress could have ended it by law and not because of the southern state seceding from the union.
It doesn't matter what the root of the situation was, the rest of the people- read majority of them- accepted it and wanted it. The reasons why they accepted it or wanted it is irrelevant. You signified the will of the people, If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare, divert all of those resources to programs to invent intense energy beam weapons for our defense, and the majority of people agreed or went along with it, it would still be the will of the people no matter how stupid or misconceived it was.
Your not saying that the will of the people is only important when you agree with it are you? The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials.
What will? the laws and stuff are made by the people in power and they are limited to the constitution and they were elected. The courts can only act if a law is in conflict with another law or the constitution so what will is being imposed that wasn't already there? You are not one of those living document people who think the constitution needs to change with society despite a mechanism built inside the constitution for changing it as long as the change is constitutional are you? If so then you need to shut the hell up. This is because 1: you most likely have a distorted view of reality and 2: you can't complain about unconstitutional laws or government actions when you won't even follow the letter of it.
Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you. The fact that we have unconstitutional laws should be way more alarming then that we have a court which is actually tackling the problem when it's presented to them. Over turning bad laws is not a problem. IF you can show where there was no basis to over turn these laws then your claim might have some credit. But the courts have to use precedent and the laws and constitution for the basis of their rulings. You have showed nothing other then they were doing their jobs as proof of your conspiracy.
If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals? I don't believe you have any basis in reality unless you are upset that the judges did not ignore the constitution and laws in order to keep a bad law in place.
You are either lieing or Vonage is providing false information on their website and claiming that you are paying the fees. Follow the fucking link, it specifically says they charge those reoccurring fees on your bill.
I'm not sure why Vonage would find it viable to place incorrect information on their website when their intent is to get customers and explain the billing.
Do you want to post of copy of your invoice so we can call Vonage the liar or should we just assume that you are confused?
The entire concept of the Kyoto protocols wasn't that is costs money, it's that it was supposed to redistribute money, wealth, and it was built around a fallacy with an intent to scam in order to do so.
Now before we go any further, whether or not you believe in man made global warming is irrelevant to this point, that was only the death, doom and gloom the kyoto protocol was hiding under to sell it. It never had the ability to stop man made global warming.
Now for some background on it, During the late 1980's there was several groups who were attempting to pressure the wealthy nations to forgive the third world debt that was accumulated from the OPEC oil embargo in which those third world countries borrowed money to explore oil potentials in hopes of getting rich from the US not being sold middle east oil. This movement followed the global warming debate and the Kyoto protocols and pretty much disappeared the year the Kyoto protocols were being created/released. Now originally, the Kyoto protocols were one of those secret treaties where you knew about it but they kept the details secret until a couple years later. It wasn't until the US considered ratification after Bill Clinton signed an intent that the detailed became really apparent.
Now here are the details, they pick 38 of the wealthiest countries, assigned a 1990 goal of Co2 emissions knowing that population growth had already made it impossible to achieve with the technology as young as 8 years later. Then they built in a bypass, you can offshore you carbon production to either another country who has limits or a county without limits or you can keep your production and not count it by simply buying Carbon credits from those countries. Of course out of the 157 or so countries that signed on to it, only 37 or so have limits and if you purchase credits from a limited country, they have to stay under their limits.
Well, this clearly shows where the problems are. Europe imports from China and India tripled in the fist five years after implementation. The only reason some of the countries appear to be hitting their marks is because we are in a world recession and most of the carbon was offset by just moving it to other countries. Because of Kyoto and Europe's, participation, the rate of increase in carbon emissions has not declined, in fact it has increased and it is primarily due to the utilization of third world countries to meet the Kyoto guidelines.
So the fallacy was that it would stop global warming and the reality is that it was just a complex political movement to funnel moneys to third world countries that were indebted to 1st world nations already.
It's one thing to keep your environment clean and having to pay more when it goes to your community. It's entirely another when you have to pay more for a lie and the money goes to foreign nations who are indebted to you because they wanted to take advantage of inflated prices during an oil shortage. Europe as a whole has increased Co2 production since 1998 and they have done so on pace with the US's increases over the same amount of time. If you add the offshoring into the mix, you will clearly see there has been no reduction and in fact an increase in production of carbon emissions. You may not think being lied to and sold a broken bill of goods is a bad thing, but the only so called advantage to what was billed as a world problem is local results that only look good if you ignore the external reality imposed by the treaty on the world. In short, your gains may make you feel good, but you have to ignore every other country in order to make those claims legit and it's a little disingenuous to only consider local advantage to a global problem when the direct result of the rest of the globe can be in part attributed to the smoke and mirrors that Kyoto was designed to put in place.
So let me get this straight, You think that when all else fails, we should do nothing, even when they are killing us and our friends. You are fucking crazy if you actually think that is a viable option. You will lose your freedoms, your basic human rights, and most likely your own life.
Think radically? Like what, I asked you for what else would work that hasn't already been tried and failed and you offer nothing but "don't kill dude" even though the alternative is to either sit back and let them kill us or our allies. Like I asked before and before that, Show me what this radical thinking is and tell me something other then "don't kill". What would solve our problems and keep us and our allies safe without losing basic human rights, freedoms, or our lives which hasn't already been tried and failed.
If you cannot come up with anything, then you are just a stupid crank who isn't looking at the situation through the facts or are omitting it to keep some fallacy of a worldview.
It is too up to you to come up with the answers. You are the one claiming it should be done differently except that different already failed. Now, if there is an effective alternative to killing, we would be more then fucking happy to use it. So either admit you are a clueless bitch or tell us what is so awesome that will work instead of failing. Neither of the two wars we are in were the results a hasty decisions. They were the product of all other options failing. So tell me, what option did we miss that hasn't already failed or admit you are a fucktard that has no clue.
Like I said, point out the alternative that hasn't already failed and I'm sure we would be glad to do it. Until then, stay out of the path of bullets and don't get onto the side we are shooting at.
Why, there are many printers that Linux supports. The problem is that the manufacturer doesn't directly support them so it's currently difficult figuring out which one were. That's were asking a community of people who uses *nix comes in handy. And yes, there is a difference between Linux supporting something and the manufacturer supporting it. Often that difference is only in where to look for drivers and capabilities and who to ask for help. It's not difficult, especially if you take your time and look around.
If you would just look around, you would see that almost every Zebra printer is supported, Brothers generally are too. The only reason he would need to purchase a windows PC is if he was intellectually lazy and didn't look. Obviously that isn't the case seeing how he was checking with the rest of us.
If you have the skills to do so. Many people are lacking that and the time to get it going but for whatever reason, they are still using OSS.
That's what OSS is about, freedom. Sometimes you might just need to pay a little more for it.
Add about 3 more people in line with a site commander having to check off on it all and you are exactly right. Years ago, before 9/11 and DHS, I was bringing a a shipment of car alternators from Nuevo larado Mexico, I picked them up at the customs center which is technically in the middle of the border between the US and Mexico. Anyways, I was held up for 6 days waiting to get an inspection on the freight and it was just like you mentioned but it took another 3 or 4 people to process everything because of the seal on the container-trailer and all needs to be documented the entire time it's in their custody. Something as simple as a seal not matching will send it to the back of the line until it gets sorted out and the inspecting agent will not open the doors unless the seal matched. In my case, it was a matter of backlogged paperwork from understaffed and over worked agents doing the best they can.
This only happened one time to me in the 20 or so times I picked up from that spot. But that is exactly what can happen and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened this time with more emphasis on searching more and more because of national security threats and all.
A lot of them are. Maybe not for the reasons you are thinking but a lot of them are very proud to be Americans and are very patriotic.
What is necessary? Should the government take half your income and sack away trillions of dollars over the years because they haven't spent it? And you know that politicians will never have enough, they are always wanting to spend on something, even if it just wasting good money after bad.
No, Arizona's next door neighbor had high taxes and they were failing to pay their employees. Income tax returns were getting IOUs. This isn't about underfunding the government at all. It's about how the economy zapped a lot of the income and therefor funding out of the system. There are several states with high (and higher) taxes which are in worse trouble. Ignoring them doesn't make you point valid, it makes it ignorant.
You smoking something. What laws were overturned unjustly? Where was it decided that the constitution applied but didn't in reality? There are only two ways a law can be overturned. One is if it's in conflict with another law and the intent of either isn't clear, and the other is when it is in conflict with the constitution. SO what was unprecedented about conflicts with the constitution?
And if I was you, I would be more worried about lawmakers not paying attention to the constitution then I would about judges correcting that mistake. There might be things in there that you don't agree with or limits to government powers you dislike, but when you ignore it, you open the doors to ignore what you like about it too. And yes, I will be there pointing and saying I told you so when your freedom of speech or religion is gone or your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone and so on. In fact, I'm laughing already.
Yea, conservative that went against the will of the people like Lincoln who ended slavery or Kennedy who did a lot of work on civil rights (who was a conservative even though he ran as a democrat).
You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around. The will of the people was to continue doing a lot of things that we find outrageous and extremely distasteful today. The Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people. I don't think you have actually looked at history and paid enough attention to know how dangerous the will of the people is.
And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue. Whoever told you that was blowing smoke up your ass just to fool you into party line voting for their version of an asshat. Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Actually, the arguments on the city side said the benefit was the entire community because of the shift in the tax base and employment opportunities.
It's not different of an argument as you already state was acceptable. The only difference is that you seem to think it only applies to public works but the Electrical grid was originally put up by private companies and wasn't a public entity until recently when the communications deregulation act made it so. Other examples of this happening in the past were private roads that had tolls places in them, built and operated by private corporations. Railroads is another exercise of eminent domain that has historically been used for private enterprise.
The US supreme court ruled in no different way then before, the arguments and details were just outrageous and evoked a sense of compassion when examined this time.
As the story goes, what you put past my eyes and ears becomes my business.
Seriously, we have just as much right to point and laugh at the clowns over there as they do at us. The EU is a bad deal, it has brought you the Koyoto accords, the wipo WTC and WPPT, it has brought this bullshit ruling up and the loss of sovereignty as it seems. It needs dismantled and restarted from scratch. It's like a rotted tire, you can patch it several times but it's going to eventually fail catastrophically. Replace it before that happens.
Ok, your one anecdotal point disproves every fucking thing else in the world. I get it, because of vonage nothing else is true unless you somehow magically will it to be.
And to note, you are still paying the Regulatory and Compliance Fee for each phone number plus the Federal Program Fee and 911 fees on top of your vonage bill as I already stated. They didn't take a hit in profits, they just passed it along to the consumer as I already stated. Now please show me where I am wrong.
And I asked you what your big plan was. So give it up, how do you deal with dictators that machingun down civilians asking for basic human rights or regularly behead people for not believing enough in the same god. Sometimes there is evil and you have to do bad things to stop it. That doesn't make you evil, it makes you serious about doing good. Get out of your fantasy land.
What? Have you been paying attention? We were giving the Taliban (b)millions of dollars in aid packages just before 9/11 happened. What in the hell else do you think we should have done that we didn't already do? Talking didn't work, Osama claimed 9/11 was in response to our support for Israel, so should we have let a 2 bit terrorist threaten us into standing by and letting good people die because they have a problem with a religion that doesn't acknowledge Mohamed the pedophile who married a 6 year old girl? Fuck dude, what else could be done?
Seriously, what could have been done that wasn't already tried and failed? Giving up to the will of terrorist who would push their views over you with the threat of deadly force? Answer this or lose all credibility in this talk.
As I said, what the fuck else could have been done that hasn't already failed? Diplomacy failed, education failed, comminication failed, What the fuck was the other options? Or are you just bitching about the impossible with no real thought to hear yourself blabber?
Lets slow down a bit here skippy. The state is already heavily invested in the project and we even got 900K from the last stimulus for it. This is all besides the fact that the state already owns the existing right of way from older freight tracks that were no longer in service. You are completely skewing the concept by claiming there isn't any subsidies for the light rail. It is actually more then fair and the costs of building the line including the trains are being picked up by the state and three cities.
As for the airports, That too is outside of the range of the federal government except where it is used as a port of entry (international airports) or strategic air reserves (like the military aspect of the interstate highway system). They claim there is a national security risk from huge planes falling from the sky. I can see it as a risk we don't want but not as national security. BTW, airlines have to pay terminal access fees that compensate much of the costs associated with government involvement in the air infrastructure. Not too much of a disadvantage if you ask me. I think you are exaggerating a bit either to prove a point or because you haven't just look at the entire situation.
Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people. Yea, tell me how that worked out for people like Nick Burg or the numerous journalist beheaded in Iraq or the innocent civilians who were doing nothing more then attempting to live a normal life when the suicide bomb went off in the crowded market place and then when people rushed to help, another went off in attempts to kill the people giving aid to the innocent civilians. I hope you don't think that is a viable alternative to war. Of course to appease them, we would have to give up freedoms and believe like they do, perhaps you have already done that.
Your doing pretty good at mandating what the answer isn't, so please tell me what the answer is. I'm sure you have some obvious iron clad method that no other country has been able to implement to date but will somehow work because you want it to.
Vonage wasn't even around when this fee went on. In fact, it wasn't until recently that Vonage was even considered a telecommunications service. Then this has been disproven by a court ruling saying they are not. Showing them as an example pf getting around the fees doesn't really prove your point. But because they got out from under the fees doesn't mean they weren't subject to them at some point. That's why it went to court. You were subject to the fee for at least 4 years before vonage or VOIP providers came about in 2001-2002.
Now, the only reason you have an alternative as you pointed out is because Vonage doesn't meet the criteria, tell me how that will work for manufacturing costs of existing products. It won't and Yes, I can get VoIP from the telecoms for about the same price as Vonage.
Wow.. You are fucking delusional aren't you? Republican protectionism... The congress was control by democrats, in fact, most all of the tariffs imposed required both sides of the isle to come right along with it. Even with the trade tariffs after WWI which contributed heavily to the great depression was a democrat ordeal. But democrat or republican doesn't really matter here because it doesn't disprove the point, it just shows how delusional you are.
SO far, it seems like you are the one without a clue. How you reconcile that is beyond me.
Lol... No you are missing some key points here. When we inflate the costs of production, they are wanting to create tariffs in order to equalize the difference. But you are illustrating my point about the government inflating costs. The only way for it to be provided cheaper is to either move it off shore (in which the case with tax and trade wouldn't work because of the tariffs and the democrats want to put in place)
But lets look at some other numbers. Of the 50 US states, the states can increase the minimum wage to above the federal minimum of $7.25/hour. Of the 20 or so states which has done that, the 15 which are more then 20% higher are driving our current unemployment numbers. They had a higher unemployment first and were the first to reach double digits. We now have businesses that are relocating to other states in order to get out from under the artificial costs increases and businesses remaining in those states who can't afford to compete outside of them. The costs of similar items in these states are higher then costs in other states with lower costs, even at major chain
Empirical, as in witnessing or recreating through experiments and the collection of date through that..
You can trust your guesses and assumptions but you can't ignore the fact that's what they are. You know, in the realm of atoms and so on, we can trust them to a point but we have to understand that a better assumption can come along or we can even view them and discover our interpretations are wrong. In the quantum fields, a lot of our understandings are being challenged and the rules don't seem to work as we might expect with normal mechanics. This is more evidence that we need to keep the mind open.
Some but probably not enough.
But no matter how supported they are, you have to acknowledge that we made assumptions to the evidence availible to present the models we are working with. It didn't argue that they were wild guesses or wild assumptions as if a stab in the dark. The fact just remains, they fact until such time the process can be observed or recreated in an experiment. Testing to see if something could be true isn't really the same empirical evidence that it is true. However, the lack of empirical evidence doesn't make it not true, it just makes you want to assume it could be.
There are quite a few fitting theories on why the dinosaurs died out other then the meteor impact. They aren't main stream but Changes in gravitational forces is one, volcanic eruptions is another which also explains temperature changes and concentrating of fossils during flood run off. Curiously, the gravitational change theory supports why some survived while the largest did not. But the most interesting part I find is that there are pockets of fossils the seem to have been deposited long after the mass extinction even 65 million years ago. There are even some fringe evidence of Dinosaurs being alive then humans were with Incas having Currier pouches pottery and jewelry depicting them long before the concept was even known to modern man or the appearance was visualized by our modern conception of them.
Anyways, the problem I had was not with the theories popular today, it's that they are not being treated as such and are being claimed as fact where we haven't demonstrated that yet.
I think what you are referring to as currents is the displacement of the liquid and the weight of the surrounding liquid pushing it back.
However, the concept of water or liquid moving little around the object compared to more movement further away is a matter of friction and displacement. It gets a little more complicated to explain when you deal with buoyancy and displacement as other factors such as surface tension and gravity become involved but it's mainly a matter of friction. If you are neutrally buoyant (*neither float up or sink when submerged) you have essentially equaled the mass density of the liquid. In this case, if the friction of the liquid moving across you body or the structure is greater then the friction of the liquid moving amongst itself, then the liquid will move more where the less friction is. This concept allow pockets of the liquid closest to the body to move less then slightly further away.
This is also why you remain wet when getting out of the shower. It probably illustrates the concept better then using a swimming pool. The friction between the water and your skin is more then the power of gravity and the weight of the water to over come. But because the friction between the water and water molecules is less, you do not exist the shower with a 3 inch thick block of water surrounding you because the weight of the water overcome the friction between itself.
Now that was the overly simplified version and I'm not sure I'm qualified to give the complex version. But the principles are the same. Even if you take a flat surface like a diner plate and expose it to water, turning it upside down will not cause all the water to run off because the friction to the surface is more then the friction between the water molecules and the weight of them.
Nice, I like the way you worked calling him a racist into the fact that you are oblivious to the repeated and often surfacing incompetence of government programs.
I mean welfare was/is a flop that doesn't help people get ahead or out of poverty and instead encourages dependency, HMO's that Senator Ted Kennedy initiated and is now calling a flop himself in favor of government health care, this fuckcluster by the patent office, Army veterans hospitals falling apart (Walter Reed), the department of education who couldn't do math well enough to provide and accounting of their funding, GSEs like Fannie mae and Freddie mac losing billions of dollars in the same types of accounting irregularities and much much more within the last decade or so should be enough evidence that the government simply is not the best candidate to preside over your health care.
But hey, we can call him a racist for pointing out how ill advised this might be when pointing out a specific clusterfuck by the patent office and ignore all the rest. We can even point out all the flaws from the last system the liberal put in place (HMO act 1973) as excuses for moving to the new and forget about the failings was a direct cause of government screwing things up. And as long as we call him a racist (not someone who likes to drive fast for competition) we can ignore everything and make the alarmist look like the bad people. Good job.
The feds shouldn't be investing anything in the trains. It's not in their constitutional powers to do so. They have stretched their abilities and ignored the constitution to do it so far which is why I find it highly amusing when someone complains about them ignoring the constitution or the bill of rights when they are supporting just that with inane proposals like investing in trains.
The state of Ohio is recently investing in commuter trains through the largest three cities (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleavland). It's funny because they expect the costs to be $70 for a round trip ticket from Columbus Ohio to Cleavland, then you have to find transportation after your at your destination. A buss ride along the same distance is $31.00 with the same problems of transportation to the last mile of the trip where a semi-modern car will cost roughly $40 round trip without issues for covering the last mile, having to adjust your schedule around the train or bus schedule, or put up with annoying strangers.
Not a good deal.. And that was after the state shells out a huge investment.