It sounds like you've really studied these male torture scenes. Hey, that's cool. Whatever. I'm not that curious, but I'm sure there are others who share your, uh, tastes.
I wonder how different the study would be if the subject of the, um, shocks wasn't an average woman but some burly dude like the Gears of War soldiers or maybe Daniel Craig as Bond
If the U.S. didn't get into wars all the time, then wouldn't that both save lives and cost less money?
True, if the US didn't go into wars, Germany would not have invaded France 3x, Japan would never have bombed Pearl Harbor, Kuwaitis would be doing the happy dance every day and the Taliban would make sure that nothing bad ever happened to non-Muslims either in Afghanistan or abroad. Damn, should have thought of that sooner.
No. I've heard glowing reports that Macs are at or above 10% but nothing solid. Still not there (despite my owning one and planning on buying another one.)
While these leaders used religious symbolism and pomp to further their cause, they were decidedly antireligious or at least areligious. Some points:
** It was not that belief was required but the flow of knowledge controlled. Germans thought Americans bloodthirsty savages, much like, well, modern Germans and the North Koreans. ** The vast majority of those killed were not imprisoned 'like the Spanish Inquisition'. Look at the number of Ukranians who died in their fields under Stalin. ** While each of those mentioned did have some 'perfect state' to which they would ascend things typically got worse which would point out the importance of point one. ** The fault usually lay with some enemy not the people. For Hitler it was the Juden. For North Korea, it is America. Same with Islam.
I think the key here is less about religion and more about the facets of totalitarianism. Christianity got most of this out of its system during the War of Spanish Succession and Glorious Revolution. Islam and Secular Humanism have not come to the realization that the philosophy does not cure fanaticism and take a holier than thou approach towards Christians, not realizing that the humility that Christians display could be of some value. Of course, this doesn't account for the Luddites that think creation happened by the book. The lengths to which folks go is frightening. But at least they don't worship a rock and blow people up.
What about the need to balance that harm against the potential harm warming could cause? I think we should be able to reasonably agree, as a society, to take out an "insurance policy" in the form of reduced emissions in order to gain more security in the future from radical climate change.
Crop failures, water shortages, regional refugee crises, loss of biodiversity... all those things would also harm our economy.
Ironically, Bush has implemented almost all of the protocols via the EPA (or at least as much as is reasonable) without having actually signed the document.
He has also drastically pushed alternative fuel and fuel saving tax credits to the point that hybrids are becoming a common sight on the roads and folks get tax credit for replacing inefficient heaters/windows/doors and adding insulation.
I would not, however, expect anyone to notice. The news is too busy pushing that Ken Lay met with Cheney during this planning than actually reading the report or reporting on how it is changing society.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 5, Informative
it was the Bush administration which refused to ratify it that's all.
And the Clinton administration. Kyoto protocol was passed on December 12, 1997. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
Bush has problems with China and India (two of the top polluters) being exempt. This is not a Republican issue, although I encourage you to yell at Reid and Pelosi to pass it.
Relavant wikipedia section:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[37], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[38] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" -- which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 -- the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide [39]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.[40] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.
I think this 'new' trend actually started a few weeks ago with Google. Curious that while revenues are falling for print media they've oversatured the online market to the point they're propping up a medium that is antiquated and only speaks with one voice.
You should bone up on Federalism and Alexander Hamilton. Government is not a zero sum game. The current fiscal imbalance comes from two things: Medicare expansion and the War on Terror. Both were inevitable. Medicare expansion had been a dem talking point for at least a decade. The War on Terror had been going on as well (we had troops flying over Iraq and on the borders since the cease fire of '91.) Tax cuts were necessary to fight off the Clinton recession of 2000. It worked. Bush has had a better economic expansion that even Clinton had despite inheriting a bigger recession and having to fight a war in his first year in office. And the fruits are coming - the deficit is going down because of increased revenues.
Governments can only exist if they borrow money. Jefferson, one of the original Republicans and a man with great hatred for Hamilton, wanted to destroy Treasury when he was elected as the first non-Federalist. Even his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin realized that to undo what Hamilton did would destroy the US.
Bush has extensive business experience and the debt/repayment cycle is part of that. You have to use money to make money and sometimes you have to borrow money to make that happen.
Only idiots put all their 401k money into their firms stock. Since only 60% was in Enron stock (which was likely discounted) that means 40% wasn't. So who is to blame because these employees were foolish enough to buy ONLY Enron stock for their retirement? The taxpayers? If you're not smart enough to diversify, then you're probably not going to be smart enough to manage retirement wealth. I love the 51 year old 'exec' who lost her $150K nest egg and is living with her mother. What kind of 'exec' only has $150K in ONE stock at age 51? Hint: not a terrible effective one. I wonder if there's a corollary between the intelligence of these employees and the fact that it's tits up?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that would be the Inuit.
I knew it!
It sounds like you've really studied these male torture scenes.
Hey, that's cool. Whatever. I'm not that curious, but I'm sure there are others who share your, uh, tastes.
*runs away*
this little venture will take off like a Saturn V rocket with a barrage of strapon scramjets.
I personally support any paradigm that warrants an analogy with 'strapons'.
Clinton was impeached 3 times for
He was not, however, removed from office. He was impeached. 3 times. Get it straight.
I wonder how different the study would be if the subject of the, um, shocks wasn't an average woman but some burly dude like the Gears of War soldiers or maybe Daniel Craig as Bond
Look, it's cool if you swing that way...really.
After that, it's not really philosophy, merely, "deep." i.e. it sounds nice, but means nothing.
i.e. Existentialism.
Ob: The Django ate my baby.
I'll go after zombie Elvis if someone else wants to get zombie Freddy Mercury.
No way. I don't want that zombie AIDS shit getting on me...
If the U.S. didn't get into wars all the time, then wouldn't that both save lives and cost less money?
True, if the US didn't go into wars, Germany would not have invaded France 3x, Japan would never have bombed Pearl Harbor, Kuwaitis would be doing the happy dance every day and the Taliban would make sure that nothing bad ever happened to non-Muslims either in Afghanistan or abroad.
Damn, should have thought of that sooner.
protect that microsoft stock!
Grow up.
It's not a stock - it's his money, idiot.
If early comments I've heard are any indication, most gays will yawn and walk on by the Zune.
'Tis true...there's no brown in their flag.
No. I've heard glowing reports that Macs are at or above 10% but nothing solid.
Still not there (despite my owning one and planning on buying another one.)
Thanks for the links. Preshadit.
There's definitely more than 5% share right now
Please cite your source.
What has to happen so that you'll make a Mac version? What has to happen for a Linux version?
I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.
You forgot the GiMP.
While these leaders used religious symbolism and pomp to further their cause, they were decidedly antireligious or at least areligious.
Some points:
** It was not that belief was required but the flow of knowledge controlled. Germans thought Americans bloodthirsty savages, much like, well, modern Germans and the North Koreans.
** The vast majority of those killed were not imprisoned 'like the Spanish Inquisition'. Look at the number of Ukranians who died in their fields under Stalin.
** While each of those mentioned did have some 'perfect state' to which they would ascend things typically got worse which would point out the importance of point one.
** The fault usually lay with some enemy not the people. For Hitler it was the Juden. For North Korea, it is America. Same with Islam.
I think the key here is less about religion and more about the facets of totalitarianism. Christianity got most of this out of its system during the War of Spanish Succession and Glorious Revolution. Islam and Secular Humanism have not come to the realization that the philosophy does not cure fanaticism and take a holier than thou approach towards Christians, not realizing that the humility that Christians display could be of some value.
Of course, this doesn't account for the Luddites that think creation happened by the book. The lengths to which folks go is frightening. But at least they don't worship a rock and blow people up.
We all hope that this marvel of IT world will be used for things better than video streaming!
What is more important than video streaming? Oh wait, gaming.
Sorry.
What about the need to balance that harm against the potential harm warming could cause? I think we should be able to reasonably agree, as a society, to take out an "insurance policy" in the form of reduced emissions in order to gain more security in the future from radical climate change.
Crop failures, water shortages, regional refugee crises, loss of biodiversity... all those things would also harm our economy.
Ironically, Bush has implemented almost all of the protocols via the EPA (or at least as much as is reasonable) without having actually signed the document.
He has also drastically pushed alternative fuel and fuel saving tax credits to the point that hybrids are becoming a common sight on the roads and folks get tax credit for replacing inefficient heaters/windows/doors and adding insulation.
I would not, however, expect anyone to notice. The news is too busy pushing that Ken Lay met with Cheney during this planning than actually reading the report or reporting on how it is changing society.
And the Clinton administration. Kyoto protocol was passed on December 12, 1997. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
Bush has problems with China and India (two of the top polluters) being exempt. This is not a Republican issue, although I encourage you to yell at Reid and Pelosi to pass it.
Relavant wikipedia section:
They didn't.
That's why they died.
Curiously, the ones using Project determined which other mice would die.
I think this 'new' trend actually started a few weeks ago with Google.
Curious that while revenues are falling for print media they've oversatured the online market to the point they're propping up a medium that is antiquated and only speaks with one voice.
simotaniously? (spelling)
That's not spelling, that's mangling.
You should bone up on Federalism and Alexander Hamilton. Government is not a zero sum game.
The current fiscal imbalance comes from two things: Medicare expansion and the War on Terror. Both were inevitable. Medicare expansion had been a dem talking point for at least a decade. The War on Terror had been going on as well (we had troops flying over Iraq and on the borders since the cease fire of '91.)
Tax cuts were necessary to fight off the Clinton recession of 2000. It worked. Bush has had a better economic expansion that even Clinton had despite inheriting a bigger recession and having to fight a war in his first year in office.
And the fruits are coming - the deficit is going down because of increased revenues.
Governments can only exist if they borrow money. Jefferson, one of the original Republicans and a man with great hatred for Hamilton, wanted to destroy Treasury when he was elected as the first non-Federalist. Even his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin realized that to undo what Hamilton did would destroy the US.
Bush has extensive business experience and the debt/repayment cycle is part of that. You have to use money to make money and sometimes you have to borrow money to make that happen.
Only idiots put all their 401k money into their firms stock.
Since only 60% was in Enron stock (which was likely discounted) that means 40% wasn't.
So who is to blame because these employees were foolish enough to buy ONLY Enron stock for their retirement? The taxpayers?
If you're not smart enough to diversify, then you're probably not going to be smart enough to manage retirement wealth. I love the 51 year old 'exec' who lost her $150K nest egg and is living with her mother. What kind of 'exec' only has $150K in ONE stock at age 51? Hint: not a terrible effective one.
I wonder if there's a corollary between the intelligence of these employees and the fact that it's tits up?
You see, my friends ridiculed me for getting an Archos Jukebox instead of an iPod.
Guess they never saw the money making potential.