Could you post a link to one of those pictures? The next comfortable bar stool I sit on will be the first one. I also can't recall ever seeing one with a "forward leaning seat".
Well the Libertarian's aren't even close to garnering enough votes to make difference so no they aren't a viable option.
This train of thought is perpetuated by the media and is self-defeating. Penn Jillette addressed this brilliantly in his novel "Sock". From the POV of a sock monkey he said:
Maybe you can't see this. Maybe you have to be a crazy monkey to see this, but it's insane. There's some election. Let's say it's for president. And the third-party candidate gets enough percentage points in some poll so that the meat puppets have to deal with her. This is hypothetical, so let's make it a woman. It doesn't do any harm to be progressive and fair in fiction. So they say, "Nancy Lord has to convince the electorate that she's a viable candidate. She has to show them that she can really win." Who are they talking to? Who is "they"? Who is "the electorate"? That's us, right? (By "us," I mean "y'all." They're not counting sock monkeys.) So, it's saying, "She has to convince you that she has a chance to win with you." Well, if we want her, we vote for her and she wins. Her "chances" don't matter. The media don't want you to "waste your vote" by voting for a loser. But you can't waste your vote voting for a loser you want. You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil. That's game theory that even this monkey understands. Who are they talking to? Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
She is regularly compared to a monkey by just about everyone that knows her;-)
Her verbal communication skills are at or above par for her age. (She's two now, and rarely signs anymore.) She doesn't have any disablities that we know of.
I'm working from a sample of one, but it seems pretty clear to me that babies begin to develop the mental faculties of communication well before they develop the physiological capablity to speak.
I'm pretty skeptical that this will have any long term impact. Honestly the psychological relief it gave her parents was worth it.
The fact that you think "please bye-bye" is a novel and meaningful sentence cracked me up.
Yeah, it's pretty funny out of context. The point is that no one ever said that to her. She was able to express her emotional state using the sign she knew.
Your kids threw out some signs and you interpreted them.
As usual, AC, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. She isn't mine. The point wasn't "look how smart my (friend's) kid is!" The point was that the summary seemed to imply that 10 months olds understanding language is earth-shattering, and that I disagree.
I don't find this surprising at all. My friend's daughter started learning sign language before 10 months. At her first birthday she constructed a novel and meaningful sentence in sign. She, apparently, was tired and overstimulated and started telling people to "Please bye-bye."
Anyway, at or about 10 months she could request several of her favorite foods, and was pretty disciplined about saying please and thank you! She could also identify a helicopter by its sound and give her variation on the sign for helicopter.
It would cover the 20 years in the life of Luke Skywalker growing up that remains a mystery to most film-goers.
McCallum said there would be "a whole bunch of new characters" and the series would be "much more dramatic and darker".
It seems only natural that the adolescent antics of a farm boy would be darker and more dramatic than his subsequent struggle to free the galaxy from the tyrannical grip of his father and an evil wizard.
(I want to drown George Lucas in Rick McCallum's blood.)
Yes, indeed, you can get a refund greater than your total tax payments for the year. That is to say that you can have a negative tax liability. (A negative liability is a credit, right?)
I didn't RTFA, but the difference between a tax break (deduction) and a credit is that a credit can go negative (from the treasury's point of view).
IOW, a $500 deduction will eliminate your tax liability on $500 of income, but a $500 credit will result in a $500 check drawn on the treasury if you have no income.
(I'm against all tax credits, as they form a back-door entitlement.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have some reference for that statement?
-Peter
It's just a jump to the left . . .
-Peter
PS: Here I go again, proving there should be a "-1: I don't get it" moderation option.
Is that to say that you would want an exception for legitimate popular rebellion?
Anything to say about enforcement?
-Peter
With all this talk of "HEAT" and "jets" you are obviously too informed to be a part of this conversation.
I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
-Peter
How would you enforce it? Would you want that provision to apply to rebels trying to overthrow a dictatorship?
-Peter
Could you post a link to one of those pictures? The next comfortable bar stool I sit on will be the first one. I also can't recall ever seeing one with a "forward leaning seat".
-Peter
One of us doesn't understand contract law.
(Actually, I imagine neither of us really understand it, but only you have proven it.)
-Peter
You could have gotten away with lying about your job, but you got greedy.
-Peter
Good call! That is exactly what I was thinking of when I posted!
-Peter
PS: Would the cock-knocker that modded my previous posts (and three other old posts) please have a look at my journal?
-P
I've never played the game. Are the robots made of meat?
-Peter
I tied Cat 5 around my disk and jumped from a tree.
You probably want to grow up to be just like me.
-Peter
I figured the summary was screwed up, but the article isn't any clearer about how one uses fibre to carry an RF signal.
-Peter
This train of thought is perpetuated by the media and is self-defeating. Penn Jillette addressed this brilliantly in his novel "Sock". From the POV of a sock monkey he said:
She is regularly compared to a monkey by just about everyone that knows her ;-)
Her verbal communication skills are at or above par for her age. (She's two now, and rarely signs anymore.) She doesn't have any disablities that we know of.
I'm working from a sample of one, but it seems pretty clear to me that babies begin to develop the mental faculties of communication well before they develop the physiological capablity to speak.
I'm pretty skeptical that this will have any long term impact. Honestly the psychological relief it gave her parents was worth it.
-Peter
Very nice.
To be clear, I meant as opposed to by sight. Not sure she would know what the hell a 'coper is by sight.
-Peter
Ha! That was one of my friend's daughter's first signs as well. She loves cheese.
(Twists right palm against left palm.)
-Peter
Yeah, it's pretty funny out of context. The point is that no one ever said that to her. She was able to express her emotional state using the sign she knew.
As usual, AC, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. She isn't mine. The point wasn't "look how smart my (friend's) kid is!" The point was that the summary seemed to imply that 10 months olds understanding language is earth-shattering, and that I disagree.
-Peter
I don't find this surprising at all. My friend's daughter started learning sign language before 10 months. At her first birthday she constructed a novel and meaningful sentence in sign. She, apparently, was tired and overstimulated and started telling people to "Please bye-bye."
Anyway, at or about 10 months she could request several of her favorite foods, and was pretty disciplined about saying please and thank you! She could also identify a helicopter by its sound and give her variation on the sign for helicopter.
-Peter
On the down side, they claim XHTML 1.0 Strict, but the pages they produce aren't even well-formed. (Notably, they don't close br, hr, and img tags.)
They also use divs where they should be using spans (if they must use these generic tags). And they leave out some required attributes.
Overall, it's a pretty sloppy job.
-Peter
It seems only natural that the adolescent antics of a farm boy would be darker and more dramatic than his subsequent struggle to free the galaxy from the tyrannical grip of his father and an evil wizard.
(I want to drown George Lucas in Rick McCallum's blood.)
-Peter
Yes, indeed, you can get a refund greater than your total tax payments for the year. That is to say that you can have a negative tax liability. (A negative liability is a credit, right?)
-Peter
As is typical with "liberals", they underestimate the individual, but overestimate the institution.
(For the record, and in the interest of balance, I think that "conservatives" are generally wrong-headed as well.)
-Peter
I only wish I was trying to be funny.
-Peter
It's clear that the greatest protection our civil rights have is abject incompetence.
-Peter
I didn't RTFA, but the difference between a tax break (deduction) and a credit is that a credit can go negative (from the treasury's point of view).
IOW, a $500 deduction will eliminate your tax liability on $500 of income, but a $500 credit will result in a $500 check drawn on the treasury if you have no income.
(I'm against all tax credits, as they form a back-door entitlement.)
-Peter