Currently Romney has the most delegates because he has support from delegates not tied to elections. Romney has 18, Santorum has 8, Paul has 7 delegates total.
Which just shows how clearly the elections are a sham.
Bullshit. People still need to work even if they are getting less back for it, unless they have some large savings built up. Actually, they need to work more, in order to support themselves. Of course, other people might decide not to hire.
I thought Perry was the Bush 3.0. Santorum is something else...a total Godbot. Maybe he can win the Republican primary, but I don't see any way he can win over significant numbers of people outside his base to secure a national election.
I tried Enso for a bit. It seems like a nice concept, but one thing that annoyed me to no end was having to type "open" over and over. I want to open something by default.
It's not healthy to just eat lentils and oatmeal. It's good to include some fruits, nuts, and greens, and these are pretty expensive except for bananas.
I can think of a third time: the organization is working for the betterment of humanity. Unfortunately, that's a rare one, so it's acceptable that you skipped it.
Actually, it's something between. It's more like a sit-in blocking the entrance to a store. A DDoS often involves connecting to the server several times a second, which is far more than normal use, so it can't really be equivalent to loitering, unless you are purposely loitering in the doorway.
I think corporations should not be allowed to donate to political parties and should not be allowed to endorse or advertise for political parties. But they ought to be able to donate to charities if they want to. I would even go so far as saying corporations should be allowed to advertise for a particular policy, but not for a particular candidate.
What would be even better is if the person who needed cash the most sold directly to the person who needed the asset the most. Middlemen (retailers) are useful for tangible things like staplers because they increase efficiency in transporting goods and provide customers with a large variety of products at a single location. But the finance market is just a bunch of digital debts being shuffled around, never to be consumed. There is no value to finance hedging.
These banks aren't just siphoning money, they are also siphoning talent away from more important projects. The people working on these things could be brilliant physicists or engineers, if they weren't sucked into the dark side.
Ok, now your argument is making some sense. There needs to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine what an acceptable level of risk is. That's a purpose for all these studies on the statistics of car crashes. Of course, that's only part of the problem, because the other half is to determine what the benefit of talking on phones in the car is. Some level of enjoyment, I guess. But how do you quantify that? Is your increase in enjoyment greater than a small probability of causing great suffering to someone else? There's also a question of fairness. Should you be allowed to risk someone else's life for your own increased enjoyment?
This is some fallacious reasoning. Distraction isn't a binary quantity, but rather is additive. Let's put this in algebraic terms: Distraction(driver with phone and no baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and no baby) Distraction(driver with phone and baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and with baby) Therefore, phone increases distraction. It's just not relevant if Distraction(driver with phone) is greater or less than Distraction(driver with baby). It's a red herring. I see this kind of argument often, but it just doesn't make any sense game theory wise.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently Romney has the most delegates because he has support from delegates not tied to elections. Romney has 18, Santorum has 8, Paul has 7 delegates total.
Which just shows how clearly the elections are a sham.
Bullshit. People still need to work even if they are getting less back for it, unless they have some large savings built up. Actually, they need to work more, in order to support themselves. Of course, other people might decide not to hire.
Taxing accumulated wealth would stimulate spending instead of saving, reducing inflation and moving money through the system. This is good.
I thought Perry was the Bush 3.0. Santorum is something else...a total Godbot. Maybe he can win the Republican primary, but I don't see any way he can win over significant numbers of people outside his base to secure a national election.
The correct acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States is SCOTUS.
Or, you know, they could just install windows. (lowercase w)
It sounds like the article is proposing a solution very similar to Humanized's Enso Launcher.
http://humanized.com/enso/launcher/
I tried Enso for a bit. It seems like a nice concept, but one thing that annoyed me to no end was having to type "open" over and over. I want to open something by default.
It's not healthy to just eat lentils and oatmeal. It's good to include some fruits, nuts, and greens, and these are pretty expensive except for bananas.
I can think of a third time: the organization is working for the betterment of humanity. Unfortunately, that's a rare one, so it's acceptable that you skipped it.
Quit your whining. Four years isn't a long time for phase 2 and 3 testing. Do you really want to mass inoculate people before you know it's safe?
How do vaccines manage to have so many side effects if they are made from killed viruses? And what does it mean to kill a virus?
It's legal to work until you drop here. And it's illegal to discriminate against someone for many employment related things on basis of old age.
I get the impression that human cadavers are still ok to dissect.
People create euphemisms for things they don't like to think about.
Actually, it's something between. It's more like a sit-in blocking the entrance to a store. A DDoS often involves connecting to the server several times a second, which is far more than normal use, so it can't really be equivalent to loitering, unless you are purposely loitering in the doorway.
Did you say that right? You said nonpolitical.
I think corporations should not be allowed to donate to political parties and should not be allowed to endorse or advertise for political parties. But they ought to be able to donate to charities if they want to. I would even go so far as saying corporations should be allowed to advertise for a particular policy, but not for a particular candidate.
Once they had their IPO, it doesn't matter what the founders' initial philosophy was. IPO is the very definition of selling out.
UMG would sue them. There's a reasonable chance the courts would grant an injunction,
What would be even better is if the person who needed cash the most sold directly to the person who needed the asset the most.
Middlemen (retailers) are useful for tangible things like staplers because they increase efficiency in transporting goods and provide customers with a large variety of products at a single location. But the finance market is just a bunch of digital debts being shuffled around, never to be consumed. There is no value to finance hedging.
These banks aren't just siphoning money, they are also siphoning talent away from more important projects. The people working on these things could be brilliant physicists or engineers, if they weren't sucked into the dark side.
Actually, texting while driving is banned in 28 states in USA,
That's a good idea. They could call them "add-ons" or maybe "plugins" or "extensions"
now this is just slandering, unless you have some evidence to back that up
Ok, now your argument is making some sense. There needs to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine what an acceptable level of risk is. That's a purpose for all these studies on the statistics of car crashes. Of course, that's only part of the problem, because the other half is to determine what the benefit of talking on phones in the car is. Some level of enjoyment, I guess. But how do you quantify that? Is your increase in enjoyment greater than a small probability of causing great suffering to someone else? There's also a question of fairness. Should you be allowed to risk someone else's life for your own increased enjoyment?
This is some fallacious reasoning. Distraction isn't a binary quantity, but rather is additive. Let's put this in algebraic terms:
Distraction(driver with phone and no baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and no baby)
Distraction(driver with phone and baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and with baby)
Therefore, phone increases distraction.
It's just not relevant if Distraction(driver with phone) is greater or less than Distraction(driver with baby). It's a red herring.
I see this kind of argument often, but it just doesn't make any sense game theory wise.