"This is how it is, and how it ever will be, with most Muslim countries."
Glad to see that you have a much more nuanced view of the world than those simplistic Muslims. Sheesh, can't believe you got modded insightful for that.
If you want to see a news piece that skillfully portrays the complexities of recent Iranian culture and politics, the article below was really great. Not suprisingly, it's from the Telegraph, a British and not American news outlet. Seems like the American media is too busy playing cheerleader for Bush and Co.'s war propaganda (just as they did for Iraq) to actually look at Iran. And you can bet after Bush gets his way and we nuke Iran they'll be crying about what a horrible mistake we've made... again.
I agree, nexarius. The question is not whether or not humans are using semantics when describing computers as symbol manipulators; the question is how good the argument is for ascribing that definition to the term "computer."
They say that they're confident that their product will "raise up educational standards." That's a pretty bold statement for a company with writers who use phrases like "raise up" for their press releases.
So your solution is to throw out the rules, remove all the stopgaps? I really fail to see how that's going to make campaigns cheaper. Sure, contributors wouldn't be hiring lawyers, but come on. Look, the reason I don't make significant contributions to political campaigns (besides the fact that there aren't many candidates that i can get behind) has nothing to do with the expense of lawyers -- it's that, like most Americans, the amount that i could afford to contribute would be a drop in the bucket compaered to what major contributors give. The only people who are annoyed at having to give lawyers a cut are the super rich who HAVE ridiculous amounts of disposable income.
"Those of us who agree with the Constitution"... "wish the bill was simply to delete all of the laws that prohibit political speech in the U.S. That way maybe people who aren't billionaire liberals like George Soros might be able to compete without having to hire a bunch of lawyers first to find the loopholes."
Are you really serious? You want to remove limits to campaign contributions so that campaigns will cost LESS? Either you're engaging in doublespeak, or you have NO clue how the world works! Without limits to campaign contributions, every add you saw on TV would be a campaign add, because they'd have trillions of dollars!
That's not how I read the AAAS newsletter. Now, i'm not familiar with academic administration so i've never seen state standards, but i would image they're a very long document. I read the article as saying that the AAAS documents are meant as an aid to state lawmakers so they don't have to write out a 1000 page document or whatever. The AAAS seems to be saying in esence, "write your own book." If Kansas lawmakers want to draft education standards that the AAAS doesn't believe are worthwhile, the AAAS isn't going to let them draw text in these standards from AAAS documents. This isn't going to stop anyone from teaching science. It just means the lawmakers are going to have to work a little harder.
Actually, I believe what he said was that you have to cite the source that quotes the original IF THAT'S WHERE YOU FIND IT. So where did you find your quote, hmm? Did you read the original?
Again, you're misstating the case of the people arguing against you in order to make it easier to attack. BTW, are you an attorney?
Slashdot Mirror
For making such a demonstrably false statement, Google should file a countersuit for libel.
"This is how it is, and how it ever will be, with most Muslim countries."
... again.
o nid=OFKPRCKAXH4MXQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/cam paigns/iran/casey.xml
Glad to see that you have a much more nuanced view of the world than those simplistic Muslims. Sheesh, can't believe you got modded insightful for that.
If you want to see a news piece that skillfully portrays the complexities of recent Iranian culture and politics, the article below was really great. Not suprisingly, it's from the Telegraph, a British and not American news outlet. Seems like the American media is too busy playing cheerleader for Bush and Co.'s war propaganda (just as they did for Iraq) to actually look at Iran. And you can bet after Bush gets his way and we nuke Iran they'll be crying about what a horrible mistake we've made
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessi
In Soviet Russia, space goes to YOU!
This sounds like a problem that only Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich could solve ... or maybe Atreyu ...
The IRS must have needed "special" Y2K-compliant computers.
If the Feds aren't allowed to get the naked ladies off the internet, THEN WE'RE LETTING THE TERRORISTS WIN.
I agree, nexarius. The question is not whether or not humans are using semantics when describing computers as symbol manipulators; the question is how good the argument is for ascribing that definition to the term "computer."
They say that they're confident that their product will "raise up educational standards." That's a pretty bold statement for a company with writers who use phrases like "raise up" for their press releases.
So your solution is to throw out the rules, remove all the stopgaps? I really fail to see how that's going to make campaigns cheaper. Sure, contributors wouldn't be hiring lawyers, but come on. Look, the reason I don't make significant contributions to political campaigns (besides the fact that there aren't many candidates that i can get behind) has nothing to do with the expense of lawyers -- it's that, like most Americans, the amount that i could afford to contribute would be a drop in the bucket compaered to what major contributors give. The only people who are annoyed at having to give lawyers a cut are the super rich who HAVE ridiculous amounts of disposable income.
"Those of us who agree with the Constitution"... "wish the bill was simply to delete all of the laws that prohibit political speech in the U.S. That way maybe people who aren't billionaire liberals like George Soros might be able to compete without having to hire a bunch of lawyers first to find the loopholes."
Are you really serious? You want to remove limits to campaign contributions so that campaigns will cost LESS? Either you're engaging in doublespeak, or you have NO clue how the world works! Without limits to campaign contributions, every add you saw on TV would be a campaign add, because they'd have trillions of dollars!
That's not how I read the AAAS newsletter. Now, i'm not familiar with academic administration so i've never seen state standards, but i would image they're a very long document. I read the article as saying that the AAAS documents are meant as an aid to state lawmakers so they don't have to write out a 1000 page document or whatever. The AAAS seems to be saying in esence, "write your own book." If Kansas lawmakers want to draft education standards that the AAAS doesn't believe are worthwhile, the AAAS isn't going to let them draw text in these standards from AAAS documents. This isn't going to stop anyone from teaching science. It just means the lawmakers are going to have to work a little harder.
Actually, I believe what he said was that you have to cite the source that quotes the original IF THAT'S WHERE YOU FIND IT. So where did you find your quote, hmm? Did you read the original? Again, you're misstating the case of the people arguing against you in order to make it easier to attack. BTW, are you an attorney?