Definitely OT, but I'm with ya. Good prices but apparently I'm the only person in the entire country who wears a 30x29 in their 560 line of jeans. In fact, judging by what retail stores carry, I'm just about the only person in the entire country who wears a 30x29 anything.
I guess it's true, America is getting fatter and those of us who are fit and trim are being tossed by the side of the road.
Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But how is that possible?
Professor Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [Holds up an egg and injects it with liquid from a syringe until the egg explodes.]
Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Must me talking about Match and/or Yahoo Personals. Both have lawsuits pending which accuse them of padding their membership rolls with fake ads. If you're still looking (or know people who are), try PlentyOfFish. Absolutely free and cruft is diligently removed.
As a side note, be aware that the majority of people who use online dating sites don't have the courtesy of replying to messages. In the case of women, they use the excuse, "I get so many a day I can't respond to them all!" while in the case of men it's, "Why would I want to talk to that dog?"
It's funny considering that people will claim they're outgoing, friendly and "living every day as if it were my last"*. Apparently friendly and outgoing only apply if you're a model (in the case of women) or George Clooney (in the case of men).
*If this were true, they wouldn't be spending it on a dating site. They would be out doing things that would get them jailed or killed because after all, if it's your last day, what does it matter?
But while the Infantry School would lecture against micromanagement, I can't say that I saw many of my seniors taking a hands off approach.
We have a quote of the week on our agency's intranet page (which sometimes stays up for two weeks). Earlier this month, the quote was:
If you tell people where to go but not how to get there, you will be amazed at the results. - General George S. Patton, Jr.
Another version of the quote is:
Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
Regardless, the point still stands. Micromanagement can be a killer both in the private sector as well as the military (though the military version is a bit more serious). Interestingly enough, Erwin Rommel actively pursued the less-is-more command style. He started the process when he first became an officer, wrote about it and refined it over the years. Since Patton was known to read Rommel's books, it is most likely that in addition to his own views on command, Patton learned and applied what Rommel (and others) had written. As any good leader should do.
Based on your comments, it appears there are officers who should also be reading, and heeding, Rommel's words.
Going on the presumption this stands, the next president, and future presidents, can do the same thing. If Obama happens to be elected and then does the same thing, he can fall back on, "My predecessor set the standard and I am just following his lead."
Oh sure, the Republicans will whine and moan and have hissy fits, but they brought it on themselves because they wanted the president to have these vast, uncharted powers despite their constant harping about judges not following the Constitution.
So don't look at this in a bad light, think of it as insurance. All whining and complaining can immediately be silenced by simply saying, "Bush did it so it must be ok."
I don't think they had the idea of people owning guns to protect their home and overthrow the government, but more for the idea of protecting the country against attack.
If one is protecting their country from attack, then by extension they are also protecting their homes.
Also, the reason behind that amendment was also to allow people to protect themselves from the government itself. Granted, Shays Rebellion was a failure and occurred during the Articles of Confederation, but few questioned the right of the people to use guns against the government. In fact, if you go to the Wiki page, you will see Jefferson's quote that you cited as well as the sentences leading up to that quote. In effect, Jefferson said that uprisings and rebellions are a good thing that should happen from time to time.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
Great. Just another piece of paper put out by an organization to make it exclusive. Sort of like attorneys. Can't be an attorney unless you pass the bar which in no way guarantees you are qualified to represent someone with the reverse also being true. Take a look at this article. Do you really want the guy who took 47 times to pass the exam to be representing you?
On the PM note, our CIO likes to think of himself as a PM, what with his MBA and all, but I wouldn't put him in charge of taking care of my cat for two days let alone any project. Disorganization and incompetence are two words which describe his skills. Not to mention no people skills whatsoever.
On the other hand, there are people out there who have the natural ability to organize tasks, communicate goals and have the phrase, "Plays well with others" stamped repeatedly in their personnel files but who will never be given the chance to manage projects because they don't have that little piece of paper.
Here's an idea which I'm sure will drive people nuts who have been in the business for a while: how about taking people under your wing and mentoring them on how project management works, what skills are involved and the other basics.
Better yet, for someone who shows an aptitude for organizing processes, put them in an entry-level job doing minor projects and let them grow. You'd be surprised at how well people who want to do PM perform under such conditions.
Does anyone remember the (admittedly bad) scene from Oceans 11 where the electronic wizard is on the roof of the parking garage, getting ready to push the red button to produce the EMP, and as he does so, puts his free hand over his groin area, turns his body to the side and grimaces?
I'm wondering if anyone at CERN will be doing something similar or will they all stand there in quiet reflection as they prepare the sky nets to catch Gordon's body after they fire the capacitors.
They set their camera to the B (bulb) setting which keeps the lens open as long as the button is depressed. Set your camera to where you want to take a picture, screw a cable release into the shutter release button of a camera, turn off all lights in the room, depress cable release button and tighten the screw to keep the shutter open, trigger your action and the flash to capture the action, loosen the cable release so the shutter now closes, turn on lights in room. Rinse and repeat as many times as you have exposures on your roll of film.
In the current case, they are using an electrical camera sans film so keeping the shutter open shouldn't be a problem.
True story: I have a cordless phone and one time I was talking with my mom and the phone acted a bit weird. She sounded somewhat quieter and there seemed to be static. I shook the phone thinking there was a loose connection and the static was gone but her voice was still quieter.
She asked me what was going on and I told her, "Eh, must be the wiretap on my phone."
As far as I can tell, I have not had that problem since that time.
The quiet, hard working guy who gets his job done on time and is generally really good at what he does, or the complaining loudmouth that nobody likes but at the same time nobody wants to get in his way?
You have no idea how true that statement is. Going through that nonsensical bullcrap now. I'm going to toot my own horn for a moment and go a bit offtopic but it is relevant.
For over a year I've been trying to move up the food chain, more project management/organization/whatever than the technical stuff. Not that I mind the technical stuff but I've found I'm more suited to the planning, organizational and completing of projects. I can grasp almost any technical subject and don't fear to ask a question for clarification if I'm not sure.
Without exception, every assignment given to me is completed on time (usually early) and correctly. In fact, while others are saying they have all this work to do, I'm free to sit on my fat ass and post here (hey, it's a government job. What can I say?) My yearly reviews are always very positive and tout my contributions and I'm always willing to take on more responsibilities or learn new skills.
Now, based on that, you would think it would be easy for me to move up, having demonstrated my competency and broad range of skills. You would think that but you'd be wrong. Despite practically doing the jobs I'm applying for, here I am, having to deal with incompetence and disorganization on a daily basis from folks higher up who literally can not find their asses. How bad is it? Our CISO (security officer) has forgotten her password to a security program on her laptop at least three times. Twice in one week!
The days of being rewarded for doing your job correctly and being indispensable are gone. As you intimated, the people who act like an asses and can sell ice to Eskimos in January are the ones who get ahead. Here is a column which discusses these matters.
P.S. If anyone is looking to fill an entry-level or mid-level project manager-type position, drop me a line.
Then there is this page from the National Institute for Standards and Technology. To quote the first line from the question about what is 12 A.M. and 12 P.M.:
The answer is that the terms 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. are wrong and should not be used.
Pedantic alert. There is no such thing as 12 PM (or AM for that matter). It is either 12 noon or 12 midnight.
To be a bit more ontopic, I will not d/l this version of Fx until there is an easy, non-extension way to disable the 'awesome bar'. I do not want to have something suggest to me where I want to go. I specifically disabled this option in the current version. I am quite capable of deciding what address I want to visit. I thought we wanted to move away from "Where do you want to go today?".
I'm a fan of Carl Sagan, but I do find it kind of amusing that he would easily reject one idea that there is no evidence for (God), but so willingly embrace another idea for which there is no evidence (intelligent extraterrestrial life).
Why amusing? It's a perfectly logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence. No one has ever provided any evidence or test to show that there is a supreme, omnipotent being watching over us. Nor has anyone ever provided any evidence to indicate how such a being could come into existence in the first place. The best anyone has ever offered is simply, "God/Vishnu/Chutulu/whatever has always existed." That is no evidence.
On the other hand, we have absolute, concrete evidence for what it takes for life to form. Granted, we have only a single data point, our planet, but using that as our reference, we can now search the cosmos for other bodies which exhibit similar conditions and explore them for signs of life, intelligent or otherwise. We can of course also listen for signs of intelligent life through radio waves or other sources. In other words, we are looking for evidence of other beings because we know that at least in one case, our planet, such beings exist and if intelligent life exists on this ball of rock, then there is a probability that life exists somewhere else under similar conditions.
This is where skepticism comes into play. If someone says "X product can do Y job better, and more cheaply, than a name brand product", they have to prove it. Until such time, people should remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Why do you think the folks who produce supplements are so adamant about not having to prove the claims they make? They know that if subjected to scientific testing, their products would be shown not to do what the manufacturer claims.
The same thing occurs with Sagan's (and others) stances on religion and why ID is not a scientific principle. Those concepts do not stand up to scientific rigor. If you want to believe that there is a God (or Gods), then by all means, go ahead. But don't equate a belief in something for which there is zero evidence to support said belief with an idea for which evidence already exists.
Personally, I find it annoyingly difficult to believe that McCain and Obama are the best we can hope for.
On those rare occasions that politics is broached in my presence, I think back to the movie Armegeddon and Bruce Willis' character's reaction to seeing who he has to help to get to the asteroid and neutralize the threat and what his comment is:
And this is the best that you - that the government, the U.S. government could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight boy scouts right here, that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?
I think the same thing when I see Obama or McCain as our two main choices. Out of all the people eligible to run for president in this country, this is it? You're telling me these are the ones we have to choose from? That out of 200 million possible people, these are our final choices?*
*Yes, I realize there are other parties and I occasionally vote for their candidates, but you have to take into consideration the intellect of the average American voter. If you're not a Republican or Democrat, you don't exist to them.
It will come down to votes either for or against Obama.
Absolutely agree. Though in my case, I can't see voting for either of the two main party candidates nor even Bob Barr. This is going to be a bad year for me to vote. I have not missed a single election since I was eligible (a few decades in the past) but this is the first presidential one I can remember where I really don't want to vote for ANY candidate. Even as a protest vote.
I live in PA and I can tell you that PA will go with Obabma. Yes, the race issue is prevelant in PA but again, Philly and Pittsburgh, combined with the two upper corners, have enough power to swing the votes.
It may be a close vote but in the end (for better or worse), Obama will take PA.
Obama's tax increases on the wealthy (those making over 200-250,000)
Here is what CNNMoneyy has compiled about the tax proposals from the two candidates: the link.
Note that for the range you cited, there would either be a decrease of $2,789 or an increase of $12. The ranges cited overlap the range you gave. Using the cited figures, it appears the people in the range you cited would actually get a tax break under Obama.
In both cases, there would be a net increase in the federal debt because neither candidate has proposed any spending cuts to offset the lost revenue. Under McCain's tax proposal, the debt could add an additional $4.5 trillion to the debt over ten years compared to Obama's $3.3 trillion.
The article lays out the differences between the two but guess what, it is only the highest earners in the country, those making over $600K, who would see a tax increase.
his decreases in military spending, among many other things, will have a strong negative effect on the economy,
So what you're saying is we need to keep feeding the military complex to keep the economy running because our decimated industrial base has moved the jobs overseas due to the huge tax reductions they've seen under Bush. Right?
Decreases in military spending having an effect on the economy only comes into play if the economy is relying on military spending. Which currently, thanks to Bush's lies, it does. Pulling back on military spending in and of itself is not a bad thing so long as the money which is not used to purchase weapons is either taken off the books, thus reducing overall government spending, or funneled to other programs.
Considering that five years into the occupation of Iraq we still have large numbers of troops who are not properly outfitted with protective vests despite the huge supplemental spending bills Bush keeps using to not show the true extent of the cost of the occupation, speaks volumes about whether large military budgets are worthwhile or not.
on quality of life,
Huh? How does a reduction in military spending equate to a strong negative effect on the quality of life? Oh right. The people who rely on the government spending billions of dollars to occupy a foreign country won't have their jobs. So I'm to understand you favor the government supplying jobs for communities rather than letting the free market and capitalism decide where jobs should grow and prosper. Gotcha.
Corporate tax increases alone will cause decreased job growth
Just like happened in the Clinton years when corporate taxes were raised and we had a strong economy, large job growth and rising wages. Or did you mean compared to the millions of jobs that have been lost since taxes were cut under the current administration?
higher consumer prices as the increases are always passed to the consumer, rather causing a reduction in profit.
Just like is happening now with higher fuel prices and yet corporations are still turning out higher profits. At least that's what I keep hearing from this administration and its backers at Fox. Didn't get the memo that corporate profits are up and those who say the markets will collapse are simply naysayers? Huh, I'll have to forward you my copy.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency.
You might want to check out the definition of big government because considering how much the size of government has expanded the last 8 years, six of which we had a Republican president and Republican-controlled House and Senate, I don't think Obama can do any worse.
This notwithstanding the fact that Obama with his sca
No, those figures are correct. Pennsylvania has gone Democratic the last four presidential elections and there is no reason to suspect it won't be the same this time around. When you consider that large portions of Pennsylvania's population are located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both Democratic strongholds, they can easily sway the vote to a Democratic candidate. Throw in the two upper corners of the state, both pro-union areas, and a Republican president has an uphill battle.
As far as Florida is concerned, I can only surmise that because of its population configuration, it leans more towards the Republican spectrum though that is not a foregone conclusion. Obviously it is somewhat of a swing state but with McCain's proposals to continue to prop up Israel at the expense of the American taxpayer, he gets the vote of those who adhere to the jewish faith. Throw in his continuation of the Cuban embargo and he gets the cuban vote. Right there are two large voting blocks in that state.
Unless something significant happens between now and November, I can't see those percentages changing.
Personally, I would not vote for a Thuggee or Satanist.
Which exactly proves my point. You are basing your decision on a person's religious views, not on what they have actually done. What if that Satanist ran a food bank, gave money to homeless institutions and rescued lost kittens but now wants to run for mayor or governor? Would you still not vote for that person specifically because of their religious views or would you base your decision on what they do?
without someone telling us what we can and cannot consider when deciding how to vote.
Yet, that is exactly what the christian right wants to have happen. Read on for the full spin-job. They want people of the cloth to be able to tell their people who to vote for based on the candidates supposed religious leanings.
There is a very logical reason not to have folks of the cloth getting involved in politics and it harkens back to the head of the British Empire also being head of the Church of England. In fact, we already have cases where catholic priests are withholding communion from people because of their political leanings or where they stand on certain issues. Article 1, article 2, and article 3 with the third one being an interesting take of a person beholden to a foreign government (i.e. The Vatican) telling American citizens that unless they follow the teachings of the foreign government, the citizen will be denied an act of their chosen faith.
Cases like this are precisely why there is a separation of Church and State in this country.
Don't forget that the earliest settlers of the colonies that became the U.S. were fleeing British religious persecution.
True, though in the case of the Puritans, they were forced out after they overthrew the British government for a time and tried to impose their strict religious views on everyone.
The fact remains the Founding Fathers knew the problems associated with mixing religion and politics which is why they specifically excluded any government-wide religion. Then there was the Treaty of Tripoli as further proof of our country's neutral stance on religion.
Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, we seem to be regressing to the point where people believe a person's religious views somehow reflect on the person they are. In some cases, there are those who do walk-the-walk but in most cases, people simply talk-the-talk. I could list a litany of people from all political backgrounds who claim to be religious in some manner yet who have failed miserably to live up to their basic beliefs.
Ones religious or non-religious views should never be the sole determining basis for who to vote for. Actions speak louder than words.
Because, for some unknown reason, a large portion of the people in the U.S. equate a person's religion with who they are. It's as if one of the reasons we broke from you folks has been completely forgotten.
Apparently, people believe that if you believe in some man-made myth of a supreme being who sits high in the sky watching everything you do, who tells you you must follow a set of rules they have set down or else you will be condemned to an eternity of pain and torture yet, who still cares and loves you*, you are somehow more worthy of an elected office than the atheistic heathens who do not believe in a supreme being.
And we can all see what a great job those religious-minded folks who have been elected to office have done.
*My apologies to George Carlin fans for not quoting his diatribe accurately. I just wanted to get the gist of his comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon, the only way you'll be able to get onto a plane is if you look like this.
Definitely OT, but I'm with ya. Good prices but apparently I'm the only person in the entire country who wears a 30x29 in their 560 line of jeans. In fact, judging by what retail stores carry, I'm just about the only person in the entire country who wears a 30x29 anything.
I guess it's true, America is getting fatter and those of us who are fit and trim are being tossed by the side of the road.
Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But how is that possible?
Professor Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [Holds up an egg and injects it with liquid from a syringe until the egg explodes.]
Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
As a side note, be aware that the majority of people who use online dating sites don't have the courtesy of replying to messages. In the case of women, they use the excuse, "I get so many a day I can't respond to them all!" while in the case of men it's, "Why would I want to talk to that dog?"
It's funny considering that people will claim they're outgoing, friendly and "living every day as if it were my last"*. Apparently friendly and outgoing only apply if you're a model (in the case of women) or George Clooney (in the case of men).
*If this were true, they wouldn't be spending it on a dating site. They would be out doing things that would get them jailed or killed because after all, if it's your last day, what does it matter?
We have a quote of the week on our agency's intranet page (which sometimes stays up for two weeks). Earlier this month, the quote was:
If you tell people where to go but not how to get there, you will be amazed at the results. - General George S. Patton, Jr.
Another version of the quote is:
Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
Regardless, the point still stands. Micromanagement can be a killer both in the private sector as well as the military (though the military version is a bit more serious). Interestingly enough, Erwin Rommel actively pursued the less-is-more command style. He started the process when he first became an officer, wrote about it and refined it over the years. Since Patton was known to read Rommel's books, it is most likely that in addition to his own views on command, Patton learned and applied what Rommel (and others) had written. As any good leader should do.
Based on your comments, it appears there are officers who should also be reading, and heeding, Rommel's words.
Going on the presumption this stands, the next president, and future presidents, can do the same thing. If Obama happens to be elected and then does the same thing, he can fall back on, "My predecessor set the standard and I am just following his lead."
Oh sure, the Republicans will whine and moan and have hissy fits, but they brought it on themselves because they wanted the president to have these vast, uncharted powers despite their constant harping about judges not following the Constitution.
So don't look at this in a bad light, think of it as insurance. All whining and complaining can immediately be silenced by simply saying, "Bush did it so it must be ok."
If one is protecting their country from attack, then by extension they are also protecting their homes.
Also, the reason behind that amendment was also to allow people to protect themselves from the government itself. Granted, Shays Rebellion was a failure and occurred during the Articles of Confederation, but few questioned the right of the people to use guns against the government. In fact, if you go to the Wiki page, you will see Jefferson's quote that you cited as well as the sentences leading up to that quote. In effect, Jefferson said that uprisings and rebellions are a good thing that should happen from time to time.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
to the phrase, "I'll just put my phone on vibrate."
On the PM note, our CIO likes to think of himself as a PM, what with his MBA and all, but I wouldn't put him in charge of taking care of my cat for two days let alone any project. Disorganization and incompetence are two words which describe his skills. Not to mention no people skills whatsoever.
On the other hand, there are people out there who have the natural ability to organize tasks, communicate goals and have the phrase, "Plays well with others" stamped repeatedly in their personnel files but who will never be given the chance to manage projects because they don't have that little piece of paper.
Here's an idea which I'm sure will drive people nuts who have been in the business for a while: how about taking people under your wing and mentoring them on how project management works, what skills are involved and the other basics.
Better yet, for someone who shows an aptitude for organizing processes, put them in an entry-level job doing minor projects and let them grow. You'd be surprised at how well people who want to do PM perform under such conditions.
Does anyone remember the (admittedly bad) scene from Oceans 11 where the electronic wizard is on the roof of the parking garage, getting ready to push the red button to produce the EMP, and as he does so, puts his free hand over his groin area, turns his body to the side and grimaces?
I'm wondering if anyone at CERN will be doing something similar or will they all stand there in quiet reflection as they prepare the sky nets to catch Gordon's body after they fire the capacitors.
They set their camera to the B (bulb) setting which keeps the lens open as long as the button is depressed. Set your camera to where you want to take a picture, screw a cable release into the shutter release button of a camera, turn off all lights in the room, depress cable release button and tighten the screw to keep the shutter open, trigger your action and the flash to capture the action, loosen the cable release so the shutter now closes, turn on lights in room. Rinse and repeat as many times as you have exposures on your roll of film.
In the current case, they are using an electrical camera sans film so keeping the shutter open shouldn't be a problem.
True story: I have a cordless phone and one time I was talking with my mom and the phone acted a bit weird. She sounded somewhat quieter and there seemed to be static. I shook the phone thinking there was a loose connection and the static was gone but her voice was still quieter.
She asked me what was going on and I told her, "Eh, must be the wiretap on my phone."
As far as I can tell, I have not had that problem since that time.
*cue spooky music*
You have no idea how true that statement is. Going through that nonsensical bullcrap now. I'm going to toot my own horn for a moment and go a bit offtopic but it is relevant.
For over a year I've been trying to move up the food chain, more project management/organization/whatever than the technical stuff. Not that I mind the technical stuff but I've found I'm more suited to the planning, organizational and completing of projects. I can grasp almost any technical subject and don't fear to ask a question for clarification if I'm not sure.
Without exception, every assignment given to me is completed on time (usually early) and correctly. In fact, while others are saying they have all this work to do, I'm free to sit on my fat ass and post here (hey, it's a government job. What can I say?) My yearly reviews are always very positive and tout my contributions and I'm always willing to take on more responsibilities or learn new skills.
Now, based on that, you would think it would be easy for me to move up, having demonstrated my competency and broad range of skills. You would think that but you'd be wrong. Despite practically doing the jobs I'm applying for, here I am, having to deal with incompetence and disorganization on a daily basis from folks higher up who literally can not find their asses. How bad is it? Our CISO (security officer) has forgotten her password to a security program on her laptop at least three times. Twice in one week!
The days of being rewarded for doing your job correctly and being indispensable are gone. As you intimated, the people who act like an asses and can sell ice to Eskimos in January are the ones who get ahead. Here is a column which discusses these matters.
P.S. If anyone is looking to fill an entry-level or mid-level project manager-type position, drop me a line.
GreenwichMeanTime.com and this thread from WordReference.com
Then there is this page from the National Institute for Standards and Technology. To quote the first line from the question about what is 12 A.M. and 12 P.M.:
The answer is that the terms 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. are wrong and should not be used.
Satisfied?
Pedantic alert. There is no such thing as 12 PM (or AM for that matter). It is either 12 noon or 12 midnight.
To be a bit more ontopic, I will not d/l this version of Fx until there is an easy, non-extension way to disable the 'awesome bar'. I do not want to have something suggest to me where I want to go. I specifically disabled this option in the current version. I am quite capable of deciding what address I want to visit. I thought we wanted to move away from "Where do you want to go today?".
Why amusing? It's a perfectly logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence. No one has ever provided any evidence or test to show that there is a supreme, omnipotent being watching over us. Nor has anyone ever provided any evidence to indicate how such a being could come into existence in the first place. The best anyone has ever offered is simply, "God/Vishnu/Chutulu/whatever has always existed." That is no evidence.
On the other hand, we have absolute, concrete evidence for what it takes for life to form. Granted, we have only a single data point, our planet, but using that as our reference, we can now search the cosmos for other bodies which exhibit similar conditions and explore them for signs of life, intelligent or otherwise. We can of course also listen for signs of intelligent life through radio waves or other sources. In other words, we are looking for evidence of other beings because we know that at least in one case, our planet, such beings exist and if intelligent life exists on this ball of rock, then there is a probability that life exists somewhere else under similar conditions.
This is where skepticism comes into play. If someone says "X product can do Y job better, and more cheaply, than a name brand product", they have to prove it. Until such time, people should remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Why do you think the folks who produce supplements are so adamant about not having to prove the claims they make? They know that if subjected to scientific testing, their products would be shown not to do what the manufacturer claims.
The same thing occurs with Sagan's (and others) stances on religion and why ID is not a scientific principle. Those concepts do not stand up to scientific rigor. If you want to believe that there is a God (or Gods), then by all means, go ahead. But don't equate a belief in something for which there is zero evidence to support said belief with an idea for which evidence already exists.
Scalia's comments
On those rare occasions that politics is broached in my presence, I think back to the movie Armegeddon and Bruce Willis' character's reaction to seeing who he has to help to get to the asteroid and neutralize the threat and what his comment is:
And this is the best that you - that the government, the U.S. government could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight boy scouts right here, that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?
I think the same thing when I see Obama or McCain as our two main choices. Out of all the people eligible to run for president in this country, this is it? You're telling me these are the ones we have to choose from? That out of 200 million possible people, these are our final choices?*
*Yes, I realize there are other parties and I occasionally vote for their candidates, but you have to take into consideration the intellect of the average American voter. If you're not a Republican or Democrat, you don't exist to them.
Absolutely agree. Though in my case, I can't see voting for either of the two main party candidates nor even Bob Barr. This is going to be a bad year for me to vote. I have not missed a single election since I was eligible (a few decades in the past) but this is the first presidential one I can remember where I really don't want to vote for ANY candidate. Even as a protest vote.
I live in PA and I can tell you that PA will go with Obabma. Yes, the race issue is prevelant in PA but again, Philly and Pittsburgh, combined with the two upper corners, have enough power to swing the votes.
It may be a close vote but in the end (for better or worse), Obama will take PA.
Here is what CNNMoneyy has compiled about the tax proposals from the two candidates: the link.
Note that for the range you cited, there would either be a decrease of $2,789 or an increase of $12. The ranges cited overlap the range you gave. Using the cited figures, it appears the people in the range you cited would actually get a tax break under Obama.
In both cases, there would be a net increase in the federal debt because neither candidate has proposed any spending cuts to offset the lost revenue. Under McCain's tax proposal, the debt could add an additional $4.5 trillion to the debt over ten years compared to Obama's $3.3 trillion.
The article lays out the differences between the two but guess what, it is only the highest earners in the country, those making over $600K, who would see a tax increase.
his decreases in military spending, among many other things, will have a strong negative effect on the economy,
So what you're saying is we need to keep feeding the military complex to keep the economy running because our decimated industrial base has moved the jobs overseas due to the huge tax reductions they've seen under Bush. Right?
Decreases in military spending having an effect on the economy only comes into play if the economy is relying on military spending. Which currently, thanks to Bush's lies, it does. Pulling back on military spending in and of itself is not a bad thing so long as the money which is not used to purchase weapons is either taken off the books, thus reducing overall government spending, or funneled to other programs.
Considering that five years into the occupation of Iraq we still have large numbers of troops who are not properly outfitted with protective vests despite the huge supplemental spending bills Bush keeps using to not show the true extent of the cost of the occupation, speaks volumes about whether large military budgets are worthwhile or not.
on quality of life,
Huh? How does a reduction in military spending equate to a strong negative effect on the quality of life? Oh right. The people who rely on the government spending billions of dollars to occupy a foreign country won't have their jobs. So I'm to understand you favor the government supplying jobs for communities rather than letting the free market and capitalism decide where jobs should grow and prosper. Gotcha.
Corporate tax increases alone will cause decreased job growth
Just like happened in the Clinton years when corporate taxes were raised and we had a strong economy, large job growth and rising wages. Or did you mean compared to the millions of jobs that have been lost since taxes were cut under the current administration?
higher consumer prices as the increases are always passed to the consumer, rather causing a reduction in profit.
Just like is happening now with higher fuel prices and yet corporations are still turning out higher profits. At least that's what I keep hearing from this administration and its backers at Fox. Didn't get the memo that corporate profits are up and those who say the markets will collapse are simply naysayers? Huh, I'll have to forward you my copy.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency.
You might want to check out the definition of big government because considering how much the size of government has expanded the last 8 years, six of which we had a Republican president and Republican-controlled House and Senate, I don't think Obama can do any worse.
This notwithstanding the fact that Obama with his sca
No, those figures are correct. Pennsylvania has gone Democratic the last four presidential elections and there is no reason to suspect it won't be the same this time around. When you consider that large portions of Pennsylvania's population are located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both Democratic strongholds, they can easily sway the vote to a Democratic candidate. Throw in the two upper corners of the state, both pro-union areas, and a Republican president has an uphill battle.
As far as Florida is concerned, I can only surmise that because of its population configuration, it leans more towards the Republican spectrum though that is not a foregone conclusion. Obviously it is somewhat of a swing state but with McCain's proposals to continue to prop up Israel at the expense of the American taxpayer, he gets the vote of those who adhere to the jewish faith. Throw in his continuation of the Cuban embargo and he gets the cuban vote. Right there are two large voting blocks in that state.
Unless something significant happens between now and November, I can't see those percentages changing.
Which exactly proves my point. You are basing your decision on a person's religious views, not on what they have actually done. What if that Satanist ran a food bank, gave money to homeless institutions and rescued lost kittens but now wants to run for mayor or governor? Would you still not vote for that person specifically because of their religious views or would you base your decision on what they do?
without someone telling us what we can and cannot consider when deciding how to vote.
Yet, that is exactly what the christian right wants to have happen. Read on for the full spin-job. They want people of the cloth to be able to tell their people who to vote for based on the candidates supposed religious leanings.
There is a very logical reason not to have folks of the cloth getting involved in politics and it harkens back to the head of the British Empire also being head of the Church of England. In fact, we already have cases where catholic priests are withholding communion from people because of their political leanings or where they stand on certain issues. Article 1, article 2, and article 3 with the third one being an interesting take of a person beholden to a foreign government (i.e. The Vatican) telling American citizens that unless they follow the teachings of the foreign government, the citizen will be denied an act of their chosen faith.
Cases like this are precisely why there is a separation of Church and State in this country.
True, though in the case of the Puritans, they were forced out after they overthrew the British government for a time and tried to impose their strict religious views on everyone.
The fact remains the Founding Fathers knew the problems associated with mixing religion and politics which is why they specifically excluded any government-wide religion. Then there was the Treaty of Tripoli as further proof of our country's neutral stance on religion.
Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, we seem to be regressing to the point where people believe a person's religious views somehow reflect on the person they are. In some cases, there are those who do walk-the-walk but in most cases, people simply talk-the-talk. I could list a litany of people from all political backgrounds who claim to be religious in some manner yet who have failed miserably to live up to their basic beliefs.
Ones religious or non-religious views should never be the sole determining basis for who to vote for. Actions speak louder than words.
Because, for some unknown reason, a large portion of the people in the U.S. equate a person's religion with who they are. It's as if one of the reasons we broke from you folks has been completely forgotten.
Apparently, people believe that if you believe in some man-made myth of a supreme being who sits high in the sky watching everything you do, who tells you you must follow a set of rules they have set down or else you will be condemned to an eternity of pain and torture yet, who still cares and loves you*, you are somehow more worthy of an elected office than the atheistic heathens who do not believe in a supreme being.
And we can all see what a great job those religious-minded folks who have been elected to office have done.
*My apologies to George Carlin fans for not quoting his diatribe accurately. I just wanted to get the gist of his comments.