> A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels
How do you or anyone else know this? Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?
You're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast, not exit-polling. Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across *regions.* (and, perhaps "ethnic group" could be correlated to region.)
Do any service providers disable *bluetooth* on their handsets?
Why? Surely, bluetooth capabilities don't cause an extra burden of technology they need to support, since bluetooth doesn't impact the provider's wireless network, right? (like, say, transferring a photo from your phone to your laptop?)
American cities are failing to provide the infrastructure to do anything like that and the few people who might be interested are far outweighed by the majority... Exactly as the parent said, it's a matter of culture....Why have we not applied political and economic decisions with *different* results from what you describe?
I like being able to see OVER traffic. If everyone acted as you, what would you do then?
Seeing "over" the traffic seems like a poor excuse to get a larger car, and if everyone did it, it would become a never-ending arms race.
Why not charge a $0.50 deposit, for the return of every broken mercury bulb?
If the deposit is high enough (and considers inflation over the lifetime of the bulb) -- far fewer people will simply throw these things away.
A deposit will also help incentive-ize the creation the infrastructure for people to redeem their deposit, either at the point-of-sale, a recycling center, or even an automated station in the center of town.
Although I wouldn't mod you as a troll, saying "irrational Obama supporters" is trollish.
Your other points are valid, but remember: 1.) Obama didn't make the rules of the game. 2.) The Clintons never complained about the rules before, especially when they went through 2 primaries in the 1990's.
Finding out more about the *origins* of life is far more interesting than terraforming,in my view.
Terraforming is a far-off prospect, at best -- and quite possibly, not even feasible anywhere in this solar system. (the "gravity problem" of Mars may be impossible to overcome.)
On the other hand, if more of these extremophiles and endoliths are found, and their DNA sequenced -- we could gain true insights in to the first lifeforms that lived on earth and how they arose. Furthermore, it is exactly their *slow metabolism* that may make it possible for such organisms to live for thousands or millions of years. (validating panspermia a real possibility.)
Ron Paul on religion:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. [...] The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." Barack Obama:
"I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I." [...] "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
"We should even have a government blogging team where people in agencies are constantly telling all of you, the taxpayers, the citizens of America, everything that's going on so that you have up to the minute information about what your government is doing so that you, too, can be informed and hold the government accountable."
I know it is easier to repeat Republican/Clinton "talking points" about Obama's "empty rhetoric." It's ironic, because many of the same people will admit that Obama's speeches sound "inspirational." Perhaps they sound inspiration because there are actually abstract ideas and principles organizing his agenda?
Clinton, on the other hand, has a huge swarm of disconnected policy proposals -- which is probably contributes to her being a flat, boring speaker.
Step 1: You have a large stockpile of dollars, that are increasingly not worth much.
Step 2: Cut cables.
Step 3: Attack Iran.
Step 3-A: Stock Markets panick; U.S. securities start to plummet. (followed by U.S. dollar)
Step 3-B: A whole bunch of people in and around the middle east cannot gid rid of their dollars, or U.S. securities -- they cannot buy Gold or Euros on the international market. (Satellite and land lines are jammed by re-routed, regular traffic.)
Step 4: While a large portion of the world's money is cut-off, buy U.S. stocks at a premium.
Corruption. Hillary takes lots of corporate money from lobbyists, and her many "consulting" gigs. (many people call this "bribery.")...Saying "every politician does it" is no excuse: Obama has stuck by his pledge to refuse corporate lobbyist PAC money in his presidential bid.
Suit Sheds Light on Clintons' Ties to a Benefactor
"During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events. " This is called Corruption. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are corrupt to the core:
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated ($31.1 million!) to Clinton Foundation
The "lack of experience" accusation against Obama is a Republican/Clinton "talking point" that is widely circulated, and many people have apparently bought into it. It is also false.
EXPERIENCE Obama is a scholar of Constitutional law, and has more years of experience as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate. The fact that much of his advocacy and legislation experience are "local" is an asset, not a liability -- one that has probably kept him closer to understanding regular folks' concerns. (it is not the board of WalMart.) This has also kept him less susceptible to the cumulative impact of the vast corruption that is occurring on the national scale.
Hillary, if anything, has the *wrong* type of experience - e.g.: taking lots of corporate money in the form of lobbyist campaign donations and her many "consulting" gigs. (many people call this "bribery.")...Saying "every politician does it" is no excuse: Obama has stuck by his pledge to refuse corporate lobbyist PAC money in his presidential bid.
ISSUES Many people assert that there is only a razor-thin difference between Clinton and Obama's policy proposals.
First of all, I don't think Clinton and Obama are interchangeable: There are many policy proposals from Obama where practically *nothing* is forthcoming from Clinton. For example, Obama will (and already has, as Senator) take steps to:
* limit the influence of corporate lobbyists
* increase transparency of government
* Technology and Communications: safegaurd privacy, "net neutrality", prevent consolidation of media, support open standards...
None of the above items are even on Clinton's radar. (The last one involves a complicated set of "21st century" issues that every politician should be taking a stand on, because they affect: our economy, job creation, privacy,... as well the functioning of democracy, itself.)
Secondly: where Clinton and Obama's policy initiatives do coincide, it is often because of compromises each candidate has made. The difference is that Clinton has moved to the "left" -- trying to make herself marginally "electable" while attempting to maximize benefit to her corporate sponsors. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to maximize benefit for real, living people -- and he has to make comprises to get legislation passed by a sea of politicians who operate like Clinton. Clinton's policies are a swarm of disconnected proposals -- with few unifying themes save that some donor's interests are being protected -- while sounding "liberal" enough to maintain electability within her party. I think Obama, on the other hand, is actually applying principles to organize and apply his policy details.
CHARACTER Most of Obama's presidential campaign contributions have come from a large number of small donors. (He has far more donors that Clinton -- while Clinton has relied on a smaller cadre of big-time donors.) Clinton, on the other hand, has actually said that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans." (Although you might wish it were otherwise, you cannot deny that "where you get your money from" indicates in the strongest possible terms whose interests you will be looking out for. )
I strongly urge you to support Obama over Clinton on Tuesday.
So, you go for the "been there first"/experience argument?
how about the Clinton/Bush ticket?
81: Bush [VP]
82: Bush [VP]
83: Bush [VP]
84: Bush [VP]
85: Bush [VP]
86: Bush [VP]
87: Bush [VP]
88: Bush [VP]
89: Bush
90: Bush
91: Bush
92: Bush
93: Clinton
94: Clinton
95: Clinton
96: Clinton
97: Clinton
98: Clinton
99: Clinton
00: Clinton
01: Bush
02: Bush
03: Bush
04: Bush
05: Bush
06: Bush
07: Bush
08: Bush
09: Clinton?
10: Clinton?
11: Clinton?
12: Clinton?
13: Clinton?
14: Clinton?
15: Clinton?
16: Clinton?
(...actually, that's probably longer than many voters have been *alive*)
but, "smaller jurisdictions" (read: "states") are *already* receiving a disproportionate representation in the Senate.
Why should Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota each get two senators -- while California also gets two, even though its population is is about TEN times the size of the other four, combined?
Compared to residents of CA, people in those four states are basically getting FORTY TIMES the representation in the upper chamber of congress.
Third, good job making every single english-only page twice the size it needs to be.
...with UTF-16, yes.
UTF-8 uses a variable number of bytes to represent characters beyond the ASCII plane. Within the ASCII plane, it uses one byte per character.
If anything, certain non-English text would see a "doubling in size" -- but only when UTF-8 is substituted for character encodings tailored to foreign languages w/ small alphabets. (alphabets that do not overlap w/ ASCII and whose characters can be encoded in 7 or 8 bits -- but then, you wouldn't be able to encode standard HTML markup tags) (eg: certain Russian/Cyrillic encodings?)
However, w/ the use of compression, it will all be a wash.
Slashdot Mirror
> openly run their mouth about the situation, and inadvertently marginalized the reformist element in Iran
s/inadvertently/intentionally/
> A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels
How do you or anyone else know this? Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?
You're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast, not exit-polling. Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across *regions.* (and, perhaps "ethnic group" could be correlated to region.)
Here is a something regulators should consider:
Do any service providers disable *bluetooth* on their handsets?
Why? Surely, bluetooth capabilities don't cause an extra burden of technology they need to support, since bluetooth doesn't impact the provider's wireless network, right? (like, say, transferring a photo from your phone to your laptop?)
>come up with something trickier that requires no js.
Nest a span in your anchor/link, and put a unique background-image on *that.*
a.testlink:visited span#unique-id {
background-image: url(unique-id.py);
}
And then, everyone on the Enterprise DIES -- b/c CTRL-click is the default binding for right-click on a Mac.
Even if she was the first to patent in the USA, doesn't th patent still have to be *valid*?
Why not charge a $0.50 deposit, for the return of every broken mercury bulb?
If the deposit is high enough (and considers inflation over the lifetime of the bulb) -- far fewer people will simply throw these things away.
A deposit will also help incentive-ize the creation the infrastructure for people to redeem their deposit, either at the point-of-sale, a recycling center, or even an automated station in the center of town.
> because the correlation just means 3 things:
FALSE:
4.) There is a (currently unknown) variable X, such that:
X => more drinking
AND
X => bad scientist
Although I wouldn't mod you as a troll, saying "irrational Obama supporters" is trollish.
Your other points are valid, but remember: 1.) Obama didn't make the rules of the game. 2.) The Clintons never complained about the rules before, especially when they went through 2 primaries in the 1990's.
Math Rock is finally being honored -- That's SO awesome!
Finding out more about the *origins* of life is far more interesting than terraforming,in my view.
Terraforming is a far-off prospect, at best -- and quite possibly, not even feasible anywhere in this solar system. (the "gravity problem" of Mars may be impossible to overcome.)
On the other hand, if more of these extremophiles and endoliths are found, and their DNA sequenced -- we could gain true insights in to the first lifeforms that lived on earth and how they arose. Furthermore, it is exactly their *slow metabolism* that may make it possible for such organisms to live for thousands or millions of years. (validating panspermia a real possibility.)
[...]
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." Barack Obama: "I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."
[...]
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
Which approach Sounds better?
Discuss.* Hire bloggers at government agencies
* Blogger in Chief?
Here is a quote from Clinton:
"We should even have a government blogging team where people in agencies are constantly telling all of you, the taxpayers, the citizens of America, everything that's going on so that you have up to the minute information about what your government is doing so that you, too, can be informed and hold the government accountable."At least the issue is on his radar, unlike Clinton.
I know it is easier to repeat Republican/Clinton "talking points" about Obama's "empty rhetoric." It's ironic, because many of the same people will admit that Obama's speeches sound "inspirational." Perhaps they sound inspiration because there are actually abstract ideas and principles organizing his agenda?
Clinton, on the other hand, has a huge swarm of disconnected policy proposals -- which is probably contributes to her being a flat, boring speaker.
Step 1: You have a large stockpile of dollars, that are increasingly not worth much.
Step 2: Cut cables.
Step 3: Attack Iran.
Step 3-A: Stock Markets panick; U.S. securities start to plummet. (followed by U.S. dollar)
Step 3-B: A whole bunch of people in and around the middle east cannot gid rid of their dollars, or U.S. securities -- they cannot buy Gold or Euros on the international market. (Satellite and land lines are jammed by re-routed, regular traffic.)
Step 4: While a large portion of the world's money is cut-off, buy U.S. stocks at a premium.
Step 5: PWN the U.S.A.!
Step 6: Profit!!!
The "lack of experience" accusation against Obama is a Republican/Clinton "talking point" that is widely circulated, and many people have apparently bought into it. It is also false.
...Saying "every politician does it" is no excuse: Obama has stuck by his pledge to refuse corporate lobbyist PAC money in his presidential bid.
... as well the functioning of democracy, itself.)
EXPERIENCE
Obama is a scholar of Constitutional law, and has more years of experience as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate. The fact that much of his advocacy and legislation experience are "local" is an asset, not a liability -- one that has probably kept him closer to understanding regular folks' concerns. (it is not the board of WalMart.) This has also kept him less susceptible to the cumulative impact of the vast corruption that is occurring on the national scale.
Hillary, if anything, has the *wrong* type of experience - e.g.: taking lots of corporate money in the form of lobbyist campaign donations and her many "consulting" gigs. (many people call this "bribery.")
ISSUES
Many people assert that there is only a razor-thin difference between Clinton and Obama's policy proposals.
First of all, I don't think Clinton and Obama are interchangeable: There are many policy proposals from Obama where practically *nothing* is forthcoming from Clinton. For example, Obama will (and already has, as Senator) take steps to:
* limit the influence of corporate lobbyists
* increase transparency of government
* Technology and Communications: safegaurd privacy, "net neutrality", prevent consolidation of media, support open standards...
None of the above items are even on Clinton's radar. (The last one involves a complicated set of "21st century" issues that every politician should be taking a stand on, because they affect: our economy, job creation, privacy,
Secondly: where Clinton and Obama's policy initiatives do coincide, it is often because of compromises each candidate has made. The difference is that Clinton has moved to the "left" -- trying to make herself marginally "electable" while attempting to maximize benefit to her corporate sponsors. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to maximize benefit for real, living people -- and he has to make comprises to get legislation passed by a sea of politicians who operate like Clinton. Clinton's policies are a swarm of disconnected proposals -- with few unifying themes save that some donor's interests are being protected -- while sounding "liberal" enough to maintain electability within her party. I think Obama, on the other hand, is actually applying principles to organize and apply his policy details.
CHARACTER
Most of Obama's presidential campaign contributions have come from a large number of small donors. (He has far more donors that Clinton -- while Clinton has relied on a smaller cadre of big-time donors.) Clinton, on the other hand, has actually said that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans." (Although you might wish it were otherwise, you cannot deny that "where you get your money from" indicates in the strongest possible terms whose interests you will be looking out for. )
I strongly urge you to support Obama over Clinton on Tuesday.
So, you go for the "been there first"/experience argument?
how about the Clinton/Bush ticket?
81: Bush [VP]
82: Bush [VP]
83: Bush [VP]
84: Bush [VP]
85: Bush [VP]
86: Bush [VP]
87: Bush [VP]
88: Bush [VP]
89: Bush
90: Bush
91: Bush
92: Bush
93: Clinton
94: Clinton
95: Clinton
96: Clinton
97: Clinton
98: Clinton
99: Clinton
00: Clinton
01: Bush
02: Bush
03: Bush
04: Bush
05: Bush
06: Bush
07: Bush
08: Bush
09: Clinton?
10: Clinton?
11: Clinton?
12: Clinton?
13: Clinton?
14: Clinton?
15: Clinton?
16: Clinton?
(...actually, that's probably longer than many voters have been *alive*)
Okay...
but, "smaller jurisdictions" (read: "states") are *already* receiving a disproportionate representation in the Senate.
Why should Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota each get two senators -- while California also gets two, even though its population is is about TEN times the size of the other four, combined?
Compared to residents of CA, people in those four states are basically getting FORTY TIMES the representation in the upper chamber of congress.
Wrong: The difference is that in this case, our tax dollars are paying for it.
Furthermore, in many cases it is illegal for the U.S. government target political propaganda at US citizens.
(And in this case, the propaganda misrepresents the truth, to the benefit of one political party.)
UTF-8 uses a variable number of bytes to represent characters beyond the ASCII plane. Within the ASCII plane, it uses one byte per character.
If anything, certain non-English text would see a "doubling in size" -- but only when UTF-8 is substituted for character encodings tailored to foreign languages w/ small alphabets. (alphabets that do not overlap w/ ASCII and whose characters can be encoded in 7 or 8 bits -- but then, you wouldn't be able to encode standard HTML markup tags) (eg: certain Russian/Cyrillic encodings?)
However, w/ the use of compression, it will all be a wash.
She would, but she is experiencing difficulty getting online.
I find your post "informative." You really "know" what you're talking about. NOTICE THE QUOTES?
See, you are completely wrong: no court had ANY of those "findings," as as you claim.
The judge described "errors" -- with quotes -- in order to reference the plaintiff's claims.
An 'error' is not the same thing as an error