Exactly. I really dont see how their stock is worth over $300 a share. They are overvalued, and that is exactly why they had a second public offering a few months ago.
I dont really trust mapquest for best routes. Me and some buddies used mapquest to get directions to the Verizon Wireless Amphetheter for a concert some number of years ago, we followed the directions exactly and ended up on the south side of houston, being led to an empty lot next to an abandon store building. Of course that was 6 years ago or so, so they might have changed.
And I totally agree on the multistop routes. It would be really cool to be able to click on the route line, and drag it to another point on the map and have goolge adjust the route accordingly.
talk about google earth, not google maps (i know, so much google stuff. it gets confusing). It's seperate application that you have to download and install on your computer. I think you have to pay for some of the really high rez stuff too. Havent used it first hand so im not sure.
We should look at her previous arguments, but not who she represented or what she argued for, but how she argued. Were her arguments sloppy and did she lose a lot of cases? Or were her arguemnts tight, and logical and she won most of her cases. She's gonna argue for her client either way, and lots of lawyers end up arguing cases they dont agree with or at least are ambilivent towards.
I agree with your post, but thought this sentence was sloppy logic.
Miers probably just started thinking about being judge yesterday, and that's definitely a bad thing.
This is your subjective, totally uninformed opinion. Dont take that "uninformed" part as a insult though. We're all uninformed when it comes to what Miers thinks about in her day to day life. Im just saying, thats a pretty unqualified statement to make.
Yeah, what does what microsoft should have done have to do with the Supreme Court nominee? They hired her firm, she argued their case. Or am I missing the point of the/. article? Are we bashing Microsoft or Bush's Nominee?
Oil will last, just maybe not cheap oil. As technology and the price of oil increases, new methods for accessing oil become viable. Seriously, oil shale in Colorado and tar sands in Alberta have more oil in them (some estimate as much as 3 times) than all of Saudi Arabia. The new process for accessing the oil that is mentioned in the link, promises to be financially feasible at current oil prices, and evironmentally friendly.
If oil prices continue to rise though, given time, alternative sources of energy and conservation will be devolped because people will demand them. Just the other day I saw a commercial for cars that's main selling point was the cars' fuel efficiency. Did you ever see fuel efficiency mentioned as anything other than a tertiary benefit in the decade before?
Finally it fits the original quote
on
Google Ant
·
· Score: 5, Funny
ok ill not argue you any more about circumcision, despite your hilarious delusions on that subject. However, you do not have a grasp of the facts or the arguments you argue.
Stem cells are not banned at all, billions of dollars have been spent on stem cell research in the US. For the CDC and condoms, maybe you could actually look at what they say, from their website: Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,
I hear the word fuck all the time on tv, I see nudity all the time on tv. Not during the day on broadcast or public channels though, but I can still hear fuck and see tits if I want.
Kansas may be having a dicussion right now about Intelligent Design, but thats a discussion that the people of Kansas will vote on and decide, not some religious decree from a religious dictator (for the record I think ID is stupid and should not be taught), even if it was taught, thats only Kansas and parents do not have to send their children to school, they can teach them at home, or at a private school.
and yes, half the country is against abortion (I am not) and for freeing the Iraqi people and death penalty (I am). Do you have any more arguments that the first link on google doesnt completely disprove?
Im sorry, I simply dont understand your logic. Now I am a slave to religion because MY PARENTS CHOSE to have me circumcized? I would advise you to drop your religious arguments because your religious hatred of the US is illogical and ridiculous.
However that is not the issue of the article, though it was the issue of our argument. The internet is not china's, the article isnt even proposing giving china their internet. The internet is not the UN's to take. I agree that countries should be able to say what they want on their internet. However, I do not agree that they should be able to censor it how they want. I do not think China should be able to jail political dissidents, or run protestors over with tanks, or filter their country's networks from using words such as "freedom", "democracy" and "liberty". They can say whatever they want with regards to how the TLD have been handled so far, America isnt stopping chinese people from saying what they want, China already is doing that, and you wish to give them more control.
Im sorry, but I dont think my not including your entire quote changed either argument much. Additionally your incorrect usage of grammar did not help in quoting you that you claim the US is a police state run by "religious fanatics", run by "a military industiral complex" and and run by? "we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote".
Also, while you claim it "that it would be impossible for an Atheist to ever get elected as President" I believe I just got through explaing how it is possible. It is perhaps not probable for various reasons, but nothing in the law makes it impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the NYTimes and almost every newspaper I've ever read.
Exactly. I really dont see how their stock is worth over $300 a share. They are overvalued, and that is exactly why they had a second public offering a few months ago.
I sure hope MS isnt getting into the porn business. Just think of the virus outbreaks! And the movie titles:
Microsoft Windows: Backdoor Trojan 5
I dont really trust mapquest for best routes. Me and some buddies used mapquest to get directions to the Verizon Wireless Amphetheter for a concert some number of years ago, we followed the directions exactly and ended up on the south side of houston, being led to an empty lot next to an abandon store building. Of course that was 6 years ago or so, so they might have changed.
And I totally agree on the multistop routes. It would be really cool to be able to click on the route line, and drag it to another point on the map and have goolge adjust the route accordingly.
they're already here, but we call them "American Troops"
married SlashDotters.
Who?
bastion of democracy and freedom
You cant be in china, they dont allow those words.
talk about google earth, not google maps (i know, so much google stuff. it gets confusing). It's seperate application that you have to download and install on your computer. I think you have to pay for some of the really high rez stuff too. Havent used it first hand so im not sure.
The reason she is being made a Senator (stupid system if you ask me)
What? Tell my that was a typo.
You werent wearing your hat were you?
Yes, yes it is...
A little, but then again, lots of SC justices had no judging expierience. Thurgood Marshall for one off the top of my head.
We should look at her previous arguments, but not who she represented or what she argued for, but how she argued. Were her arguments sloppy and did she lose a lot of cases? Or were her arguemnts tight, and logical and she won most of her cases. She's gonna argue for her client either way, and lots of lawyers end up arguing cases they dont agree with or at least are ambilivent towards.
I agree with your post, but thought this sentence was sloppy logic.
Miers probably just started thinking about being judge yesterday, and that's definitely a bad thing.
This is your subjective, totally uninformed opinion. Dont take that "uninformed" part as a insult though. We're all uninformed when it comes to what Miers thinks about in her day to day life. Im just saying, thats a pretty unqualified statement to make.
Then blame the judge for not following your logic and throwing the case out, not the lawyer who argued her client's case.
ha, I didnt expect that.
except that not everyone in the suit was actually using the "brakes", nor intended to use the "brakes".
Yeah, what does what microsoft should have done have to do with the Supreme Court nominee? They hired her firm, she argued their case. Or am I missing the point of the /. article? Are we bashing Microsoft or Bush's Nominee?
What was she supposed to argue? "My client is guilty."?
The author of the WSJ article, Glenn Reynolds, also conducted an interview with him by email. It can be found on Instapundit.com
Oil will last, just maybe not cheap oil. As technology and the price of oil increases, new methods for accessing oil become viable. Seriously, oil shale in Colorado and tar sands in Alberta have more oil in them (some estimate as much as 3 times) than all of Saudi Arabia. The new process for accessing the oil that is mentioned in the link, promises to be financially feasible at current oil prices, and evironmentally friendly.
If oil prices continue to rise though, given time, alternative sources of energy and conservation will be devolped because people will demand them. Just the other day I saw a commercial for cars that's main selling point was the cars' fuel efficiency. Did you ever see fuel efficiency mentioned as anything other than a tertiary benefit in the decade before?
"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords."
ok ill not argue you any more about circumcision, despite your hilarious delusions on that subject. However, you do not have a grasp of the facts or the arguments you argue.
Stem cells are not banned at all, billions of dollars have been spent on stem cell research in the US.
For the CDC and condoms, maybe you could actually look at what they say, from their website: Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,
I hear the word fuck all the time on tv, I see nudity all the time on tv. Not during the day on broadcast or public channels though, but I can still hear fuck and see tits if I want.
Kansas may be having a dicussion right now about Intelligent Design, but thats a discussion that the people of Kansas will vote on and decide, not some religious decree from a religious dictator (for the record I think ID is stupid and should not be taught), even if it was taught, thats only Kansas and parents do not have to send their children to school, they can teach them at home, or at a private school.
For you're Georgia claim, perhaps you should read the news(or at least use google): Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
and yes, half the country is against abortion (I am not) and for freeing the Iraqi people and death penalty (I am). Do you have any more arguments that the first link on google doesnt completely disprove?
Im sorry, I simply dont understand your logic. Now I am a slave to religion because MY PARENTS CHOSE to have me circumcized? I would advise you to drop your religious arguments because your religious hatred of the US is illogical and ridiculous.
However that is not the issue of the article, though it was the issue of our argument. The internet is not china's, the article isnt even proposing giving china their internet. The internet is not the UN's to take. I agree that countries should be able to say what they want on their internet. However, I do not agree that they should be able to censor it how they want. I do not think China should be able to jail political dissidents, or run protestors over with tanks, or filter their country's networks from using words such as "freedom", "democracy" and "liberty". They can say whatever they want with regards to how the TLD have been handled so far, America isnt stopping chinese people from saying what they want, China already is doing that, and you wish to give them more control.
Im sorry, but I dont think my not including your entire quote changed either argument much. Additionally your incorrect usage of grammar did not help in quoting you that you claim the US is a police state run by "religious fanatics", run by "a military industiral complex" and and run by? "we're it's legal to give money to politicians to change their vote".
Also, while you claim it "that it would be impossible for an Atheist to ever get elected as President" I believe I just got through explaing how it is possible. It is perhaps not probable for various reasons, but nothing in the law makes it impossible.