it's not anti-legal-system, it's anti-99%. They LOVE the MAFIAA being able to sue everyone purely for the sake of making money doing so, they just don't want their precious megacorporations to ever be vulnerable in return.
Do I LOOK like an expert in bat psychology to you? All things being equal the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Either there was a pocket of the disease in the other location already or it was somehow carried there. Maybe it was an animal, maybe a person in the incubation period, we don't know and probably never will.
Back in the mid 1900s sure, but today even Ebola's average of 13 days between infection and onset of symptoms is plenty for someone to get on a plane with a transfer in JFK International...
Second off women are NOT overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, they are in fact more likely to be the PERPETRATOR of non-reciprocal violence than men, excerpted from an article on the subject:
"in nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases," and men incurred significant injuries ('http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a') ('http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941').
"In addition to the CDC data, a recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women commit half of all partner violence and are just as controlling as men ('http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n') ('http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf').
A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners ('http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/'). The University of Washington recently found similar results ('http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm').
In fact, although men are less likely to report the violence - which distorts crime data, virtually all randomized sociological surveys show women initiate domestic violence as often as men and use weapons more than men, that men suffer one-third of injuries, and that self-defense explains only a small portion of domestic violence by either sex. Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University summarizes this data in an online bibliography at ('http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm').
A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced severe violence from female partners who used violence to control them ('http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7q0032j88817218/fulltext.pdf').
A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13 percent of men were assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, 37 percent with a weapon, and 14 percent required medical attention ('http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/8/786').
Multiply that across all of K-12, add in the profound disciplinary differences, getting drugged at twice the rate of girls, enormous hostility and refusal of services scholarships or incentives... we're looking at a very serious problem it's going to take a generation to fix.
And this is a perfect example of exactly what I was talking about. Using 95% of a handful of CEO positions being male to try and paint over the enormous number of men *dying* on the very bottom while women vastly outnumber them (almost more than 3:1) everywhere else other than that miniscule handful of the previous generation's holdouts in the very top.
Men are 70-90% of the homeless and well over 90% of workplace deaths and suicides but barely 1/3 of college graduates. Not only ARE we in a situation where men are unable to follow a career in these fields, we're in a situation where men are unable to follow a career in virtually EVERY field or in many cases even *continue to live*.
The closest non-horrible way to do it I can think of would be codifying the right to privacy and control of personal images/data when it comes to publication for mass consumption. It wouldn't hurt people taking photographs in public, news crews, or similar because of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. It's plain on its face that someone has a reasonable expectation that pornographic images given to a then-sexual partner are expected to be for that individuals consumption alone, whereas you have no reasonable expectation not to show up briefly walking past a news camera.
So it sounds like what we'd need is some kind of closed loop inside the suit that can plug into a massive buried system that uses the ground as a heatsink, letting personnel dump waste heat into the ground.
SF groups in the military as we know them really got their start with the Strategic Operations Executive in WW2, and their missions basically consisted of going behind enemy lines and wrecking shit.
And decades ago you could pay for college with a minimum wage job, too. Now engineering departments are filled with foreign adjuncts with accents so thick they could insulate chernobyl and that gives departments an excuse to constantly flunk people and claim they're just "rigorous" instead of shit at teaching.
I'm glad you call that a silly question because that's exactly what it is. You may as well ask me if two plus two equals an apple for all that question is related to the situation at hand.
You can try as hard as you want to shill for the traitors who've decided to burn the constitution for profit, exposing their treason is by definition not a crime.
Snowden would be a traitor in any *autocratic* nation in the world. By definition you cannot be a traitor if your "betrayal" was in keeping with your oath of citizenship and protecting the nation and people from illegal acts.
Or to put it another way: It's not stealing to take a purse back from a purse thief and give it back to its owner.
An overwhelming majority of students go to local state community colleges and universities, once again your argument basically boils down to the circular conclusion that if someone wasn't as lucky as you it MUST be some kind of personal failure. You're starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mate my model M has a 5 pin DIN connector. Din->Ps/2->USB.
it's not anti-legal-system, it's anti-99%. They LOVE the MAFIAA being able to sue everyone purely for the sake of making money doing so, they just don't want their precious megacorporations to ever be vulnerable in return.
PC's have been capable of 2048x1536 at 100hz since xbox 360 came out. Expecting consoles to be "just" a decade behind PC's seems reasonable.
Do I LOOK like an expert in bat psychology to you? All things being equal the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Either there was a pocket of the disease in the other location already or it was somehow carried there. Maybe it was an animal, maybe a person in the incubation period, we don't know and probably never will.
Good thing there's no such things as mammals that fly OH WAIT
So bird is a distinct possibility then, as is concurrent infections from pre-existing sources.
My guess would be a bird, or that it was carried by an animal or person that for whatever reason wasn't affected.
Back in the mid 1900s sure, but today even Ebola's average of 13 days between infection and onset of symptoms is plenty for someone to get on a plane with a transfer in JFK International...
First off the wage gap myth is exactly that, it's been debunked a dozen times over:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Second off women are NOT overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, they are in fact more likely to be the PERPETRATOR of non-reciprocal violence than men, excerpted from an article on the subject:
"in nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases," and men incurred significant injuries ('http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a') ('http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941').
"In addition to the CDC data, a recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women commit half of all partner violence and are just as controlling as men ('http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n') ('http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf').
A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners ('http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/').
The University of Washington recently found similar results ('http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm').
In fact, although men are less likely to report the violence - which distorts crime data, virtually all randomized sociological surveys show women initiate domestic violence as often as men and use weapons more than men, that men suffer one-third of injuries, and that self-defense explains only a small portion of domestic violence by either sex. Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University summarizes this data in an online bibliography at ('http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm').
A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced severe violence from female partners who used violence to control them ('http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7q0032j88817218/fulltext.pdf').
A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13 percent of men were assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, 37 percent with a weapon, and 14 percent required medical attention ('http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/8/786').
Multiply that across all of K-12, add in the profound disciplinary differences, getting drugged at twice the rate of girls, enormous hostility and refusal of services scholarships or incentives... we're looking at a very serious problem it's going to take a generation to fix.
And this is a perfect example of exactly what I was talking about. Using 95% of a handful of CEO positions being male to try and paint over the enormous number of men *dying* on the very bottom while women vastly outnumber them (almost more than 3:1) everywhere else other than that miniscule handful of the previous generation's holdouts in the very top.
It's silly to ignore the larger context that while there's a lot of men in this field they're outnumbered almost 3:1 virtually *everywhere else*.
82% of CS graduates, barely 1/4 of college graduates as a whole. Paints a different picture when you stop excluding the context.
Men are 70-90% of the homeless and well over 90% of workplace deaths and suicides but barely 1/3 of college graduates. Not only ARE we in a situation where men are unable to follow a career in these fields, we're in a situation where men are unable to follow a career in virtually EVERY field or in many cases even *continue to live*.
I'd say we've got a pretty big freaking problem.
Given that men are barely 1/3 of college graduates I'm strongly doubting his story, unless he's dealing with people solidly in previous generations.
Meanwhile wallstreet and congress...
Probably the best test is to try and build a bigass low pressure container and fill it with the closest thing we can make to martian soil.
The closest non-horrible way to do it I can think of would be codifying the right to privacy and control of personal images/data when it comes to publication for mass consumption. It wouldn't hurt people taking photographs in public, news crews, or similar because of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. It's plain on its face that someone has a reasonable expectation that pornographic images given to a then-sexual partner are expected to be for that individuals consumption alone, whereas you have no reasonable expectation not to show up briefly walking past a news camera.
So it sounds like what we'd need is some kind of closed loop inside the suit that can plug into a massive buried system that uses the ground as a heatsink, letting personnel dump waste heat into the ground.
Wouldn't mars be frostbitingly COLD though?
SF groups in the military as we know them really got their start with the Strategic Operations Executive in WW2, and their missions basically consisted of going behind enemy lines and wrecking shit.
And decades ago you could pay for college with a minimum wage job, too. Now engineering departments are filled with foreign adjuncts with accents so thick they could insulate chernobyl and that gives departments an excuse to constantly flunk people and claim they're just "rigorous" instead of shit at teaching.
I'm glad you call that a silly question because that's exactly what it is. You may as well ask me if two plus two equals an apple for all that question is related to the situation at hand.
You can try as hard as you want to shill for the traitors who've decided to burn the constitution for profit, exposing their treason is by definition not a crime.
Snowden would be a traitor in any *autocratic* nation in the world. By definition you cannot be a traitor if your "betrayal" was in keeping with your oath of citizenship and protecting the nation and people from illegal acts.
Or to put it another way: It's not stealing to take a purse back from a purse thief and give it back to its owner.
An overwhelming majority of students go to local state community colleges and universities, once again your argument basically boils down to the circular conclusion that if someone wasn't as lucky as you it MUST be some kind of personal failure. You're starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it.