Your dad had a full blood workup. That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about a full workup to discover why I have hypertension. That involves CAT scans, MRIs of my kidneys, MRAs of my neck, etc.
And the heart doctor literally used the words "it's a million dollar workup."
If only. My family paid for Disney back when it didn't come on standard cable. It was show, show, show, show, show, with no commercials except between shows. The commercials were "at 8 tomorrow see Little Red Riding Hood" or whatever.
Once Disney became a regular channel on cable instead of a premium, they started showing commercials every 10 minutes for shows on Disney. For all intents and purposes, Disney is no longer commercial-free.
I wish I hadn't commented in this thread already, or I'd mod you up. As a Christian, it sickens me to see the Religious Right affiliate themselves with those who oppose loving their neighbors.
I'm sure the entire structure of Heaven is socialistic, the pearly gates are red, and the choir of angels sing "Shehuizhuyi Hao" to YHWH. It's just too bad that humans can be so selfish.
Or so I say as I sit in my parents house using the internet as opposed to volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.
I recently went to the doctor to do a full workup to figure out why I have high blood pressure. As of now, I'm diagnosed with "essential hypertension," meaning "we don't know what's causing it yet."
The cost of a full workup? "A million dollars."
I'm a grad student. I guess I'll continue treating the symptoms rather than the causes. *sigh*
Indeed. A couple days ago, my mom was talking about the band, and my sister (14 years old, and no stranger to good music, as she has two well-versed college-slash-grad-school brothers trained in guitar and classically trained in piano) chimes in: "Who are The Beatles?"
People my sister's age don't seem to know who they are.
Is Jobs willing to prevent WIndows, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Jobs?
The calculations may be repeated by anyone because the records are public. It's inflammatory because it sets a ridiculous definition of "small donor" at $200 in order to drive eyeballs looking for big stuff since the election is now over. There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign. The big-time guys donate the full amount.
And I'm only interested in stirring up discussion, not proving a point. If you don't believe me, that's fine. But I'm merely pointing out why I didn't go do the calculation myself. This should have been obvious from my clear citation to a random commenter. I could have left that part out and it's likely I wouldn't have had a response here asking for a source.
That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200.
If you change the cutoff to $999, you get a percentage for Obama of 53%, compared to Bush's 38%. At least, so one commenter alleges on your linked article.
That's terribly fascinating! However, the word "awful" now doesn't only mean "full of fear," either. It is most often used today to mean "exceptionally bad."
Thus, my original point still stands. However, I am a bit older and a bit wiser--the "wiser" is thanks to you.
Yes, just as "homophobe" only means "afraid of that which is the same as them," "you" is only the polite form of indicating the addressee ("ye" being the casual form), "villa" only means "farm," "awful" only means "deserving of awe," and "girl" only means "young child of either sex,".
Although the DoD is not just military. The NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency are both in the DoD, and they are civilian (to be fair, the DIA also employs military and the NSA is headed up by a military officer). Not to mention the head of the DoD is a civilian.
There is also the National Security Council (10 out of 11 in the Council are non-military). Also, the President (a civilian) is the head of the military.
I understand your concern, but we tore down the wall between civilian and military a long time ago.
how hard it is sometimes to stay upbeat when faced with some of the complete idiocy that intelligent, tech-savvy readers often have to deal with in their day-to-day lives
in the summary, my first thought was
In related news, 12-year-old boys think they are so mature for their age; suburban, upper-middle-class emo kids think no one understands their pain; and high school girls think their poetry is amazing.
People realized fairly quickly that XP Home was utter crap.
You must be very out of touch with the average computer user. I cannot claim to know them all, but a cross-section of my friends (I'm in law school, so very few of my friends are techies) use either OS X (Mac Books are very widespread at my school) or XP Home (because that is what came installed by default on a lot of Dell/IBM/Sony laptops when we all started law school 2.5 years ago).
XP Home is still very heavily used. If "people" realized XP Home is crap, they still continued to use it!
Unless, of course, you are implying that lawyers aren't peopl--oh. Haha. I get it now. Funny.
Of course, you say that with the knowledge that Facebook already actively polices its site for user-contributed content, I'm sure. Try posting nudity or pornography on their site.
The common carrier statutes you're likely thinking about focus more on protecting the common carrier against vicarious liability rather than the display of materials that are absolutely legal to show minors in the first place.
It's against the law to show minors pornography. It's not against the law to show nudity to minors. At least, not to my knowledge. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, as we together search for Truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to the starving person.
Your dad had a full blood workup. That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about a full workup to discover why I have hypertension. That involves CAT scans, MRIs of my kidneys, MRAs of my neck, etc.
And the heart doctor literally used the words "it's a million dollar workup."
For reference, I'm in Texas.
If only. My family paid for Disney back when it didn't come on standard cable. It was show, show, show, show, show, with no commercials except between shows. The commercials were "at 8 tomorrow see Little Red Riding Hood" or whatever.
Once Disney became a regular channel on cable instead of a premium, they started showing commercials every 10 minutes for shows on Disney. For all intents and purposes, Disney is no longer commercial-free.
He used "penii." You understood "penii." Thus, it's a real word.
Pop music is like chocolate: it may taste really good, but in the back of your mind, you know it's bad for you.
I wish I hadn't commented in this thread already, or I'd mod you up. As a Christian, it sickens me to see the Religious Right affiliate themselves with those who oppose loving their neighbors.
I'm sure the entire structure of Heaven is socialistic, the pearly gates are red, and the choir of angels sing "Shehuizhuyi Hao" to YHWH. It's just too bad that humans can be so selfish.
Or so I say as I sit in my parents house using the internet as opposed to volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.
I recently went to the doctor to do a full workup to figure out why I have high blood pressure. As of now, I'm diagnosed with "essential hypertension," meaning "we don't know what's causing it yet."
The cost of a full workup? "A million dollars."
I'm a grad student. I guess I'll continue treating the symptoms rather than the causes. *sigh*
Indeed. A couple days ago, my mom was talking about the band, and my sister (14 years old, and no stranger to good music, as she has two well-versed college-slash-grad-school brothers trained in guitar and classically trained in piano) chimes in: "Who are The Beatles?"
People my sister's age don't seem to know who they are.
Is Jobs willing to prevent WIndows, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Jobs?
The calculations may be repeated by anyone because the records are public. It's inflammatory because it sets a ridiculous definition of "small donor" at $200 in order to drive eyeballs looking for big stuff since the election is now over. There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign. The big-time guys donate the full amount.
And I'm only interested in stirring up discussion, not proving a point. If you don't believe me, that's fine. But I'm merely pointing out why I didn't go do the calculation myself. This should have been obvious from my clear citation to a random commenter. I could have left that part out and it's likely I wouldn't have had a response here asking for a source.
That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200.
If you change the cutoff to $999, you get a percentage for Obama of 53%, compared to Bush's 38%. At least, so one commenter alleges on your linked article.
Except that there are probably millions of people who would be jobless were the government to stop funding whole departments.
By your definition, trillions would be saved. That's a whole lot of jobs destroyed in one fell swoop.
How would the economy react to about .5~1 percent more unemployment overnight?
The Consumerist has answered your questions.
So? A university helps fund its energy use, professor salaries, etc., by income generated from patents.
That's terribly fascinating! However, the word "awful" now doesn't only mean "full of fear," either. It is most often used today to mean "exceptionally bad."
Thus, my original point still stands. However, I am a bit older and a bit wiser--the "wiser" is thanks to you.
Don't forget "green hat." Those are hackers who shut down computers across the globe in order to reduce the world's carbon footprint.
Yeah, the past 400 years of usage of "decimate" have really indicated that the word only means "take away 10%." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=decimate&searchmode=none
Yes, just as "homophobe" only means "afraid of that which is the same as them," "you" is only the polite form of indicating the addressee ("ye" being the casual form), "villa" only means "farm," "awful" only means "deserving of awe," and "girl" only means "young child of either sex,".
Here's a tip: words change meaning.
I would wager since 1961. ;)
Although the DoD is not just military. The NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency are both in the DoD, and they are civilian (to be fair, the DIA also employs military and the NSA is headed up by a military officer). Not to mention the head of the DoD is a civilian.
There is also the National Security Council (10 out of 11 in the Council are non-military). Also, the President (a civilian) is the head of the military.
I understand your concern, but we tore down the wall between civilian and military a long time ago.
I agree. When I read
in the summary, my first thought was
Sorry. That should say "vicarious liability for copyright infringement."
You must be very out of touch with the average computer user. I cannot claim to know them all, but a cross-section of my friends (I'm in law school, so very few of my friends are techies) use either OS X (Mac Books are very widespread at my school) or XP Home (because that is what came installed by default on a lot of Dell/IBM/Sony laptops when we all started law school 2.5 years ago).
XP Home is still very heavily used. If "people" realized XP Home is crap, they still continued to use it!
Unless, of course, you are implying that lawyers aren't peopl--oh. Haha. I get it now. Funny.
Of course, you say that with the knowledge that Facebook already actively polices its site for user-contributed content, I'm sure. Try posting nudity or pornography on their site.
The common carrier statutes you're likely thinking about focus more on protecting the common carrier against vicarious liability rather than the display of materials that are absolutely legal to show minors in the first place.
It's against the law to show minors pornography. It's not against the law to show nudity to minors. At least, not to my knowledge. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, as we together search for Truth.