The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others.
If you feel it is necessary and proper for us to be guiding the fates of other countries, I suppose.
The fact that they aren't extinct yet.
Israel would be extinct without our aid, obviously. This, however, does not mean the Jews would be extinct. You're committing the common error of equating Jews with Israel. This had not been the case for almost 2000 years until mid-last-century.
If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
See above. By your logic we should be not only evacuating the US to allow the native american tribes to take back their ancestral homelands, but seeking out the proper persons who are the true heirs to Babylon.
So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.
Not only that, but really if you want to go the whole way on that, the Caananites had it first, even by Jewish reckoning. I have no problem giving the land back to their descendants. Do you?
The same can be said of Palestinians.
Sure. Except that the Palestinians were there for the Jews' 2 millenia absence from the place.
Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?
Simply put, because there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east. But that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state (as if a concentrated effort by a organized nation state couldn't conquer them just as well all in one place as Nazi Germany did with them spread out across Europe), nor the American evangelicals who believe the return to existence of Israel is a sign of imminent messianic return.
The simple fact is that the creation of the state of Israel is justified by the Holocaust of WWII. There is no other way that the survival of Israeli people and culture can be assured without an independent state, and there is no other region of the world that could be used by the Israeli people other than their own historic region.
Wow. Now, while I would have to agree that killing large amounts of people based on their ethnicity is a Bad Thing(tm), how exactly does that entitle them to their own country? Furthermore, how does it make the survival of that ethnic group the responsibility of everyone in the world? How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups? And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?
Additionally, "the only one they can use"? It was kind of in use before they came back. How was that area more appropriate (ignoring the geopolitical reasonings by the US and what not) for use than any other in terms of letting them set up a government and economy? For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now. If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.
You're obviously confused. Terrorism is a type of crime. There is not "crime" in a different category as "terrorism". McVeigh was a terrorist, just a domestic one. One does not need a giant organization behind oneself to be a terrorist.
I looked at them about 2 years ago, and I _think_ that they now let you do commissionless dividend reinvestment, but I can't recall exactly.
I think my problem with them was that they were still mostly meatspace-based. Mailing things seems so unnecessary.
Well, missions are only _really_ necessary in some cases (and really, the most profitable ones are combat missions anyway). The real game is with Corporate interactions.
In any case, logging off while training skills? Yeah, if that's all you're doing, the game isn't worth it to you. That's why you play the other parts:P
Most people haven't read a lot of judicial decisions, but it's no uncommon for them to have clever (if obfuscated) wording showing wit and distain for stupid plaintifs/defendants.
They released ads in one country, and people with guilty social consciences complained in a totally different country. People need to get a grip, not every country in the world is socially obsessed with black vs. white race relations.
You might start approaching a state of correctness if this was a properly declared war, but it isn't. Congress never declared war, and, as evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling this morning, not everything the President does is automatically legal.
Seriously, how you can think that the president has some sort of monarch-like powers granted to him by the Constitution shows that, at the very least, you weren't paying attention in civics class.
You're promoting the guy who isn't as dedicated to the company and as committed to his job, over the guy who excels in both of those categories. Seriously, do you think that's the sensible thing to do?
This presumes of course that the dedicated employee even wants a promotion.
My point being that it certainly seems that the core usage of biz-speak is to obfuscate, not simply to encapsulate complex meaning into single words / acronyms. I'm fully prepared to hear arguments for it only seeming that way because there's more "business" than there are technical fields and subfields, but it won't make me feel any less scornful;)
And, like the programming terms, it is not meant to obfuscate things, no matter how it sounds to an outsider, it is simply specific terms with defined meanings, which make communications eaiser between those who understand them.
That's a delightfully optimistic view of biz-speak. While some of what you imply is indeed true (most, if not all, fields have jargon), biz-speak is well known to use words that mean one thing in standard English, but are simply euphamisms that are used for various concepts. The most common of these is the use of "issue" to mean "problem". If there's a "problem", people get worried, but an "issue" seems less pressing, less stressful, less in need of me suing the bejesus out of you because the product you sold me is broken.
And that's of course where technical people get annoyed.
Besides, businesses create costs in the US - but they pay taxes there too and not in India.
Probably not as much as you think they do. What do you think accounting departments and finance wizzes are for? Not to mention oodles of business-friendly ways to write off things and reduce tax burden.
With the costs they save on labour, they pay out increased dividends.
This presumes that the stocks you're owning pay dividends. This is not the case for a very large percentage of companies.
While its is true that the money they save on labour _may_ show up on the balance sheet as net profit, that assumes the rest of the company is well managed and not wasteful.
Slashdot Mirror
If you feel it is necessary and proper for us to be guiding the fates of other countries, I suppose.
The fact that they aren't extinct yet.
Israel would be extinct without our aid, obviously. This, however, does not mean the Jews would be extinct. You're committing the common error of equating Jews with Israel. This had not been the case for almost 2000 years until mid-last-century.
If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
See above. By your logic we should be not only evacuating the US to allow the native american tribes to take back their ancestral homelands, but seeking out the proper persons who are the true heirs to Babylon.
So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.
Not only that, but really if you want to go the whole way on that, the Caananites had it first, even by Jewish reckoning. I have no problem giving the land back to their descendants. Do you?
The same can be said of Palestinians.
Sure. Except that the Palestinians were there for the Jews' 2 millenia absence from the place.
Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?
Simply put, because there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east. But that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state (as if a concentrated effort by a organized nation state couldn't conquer them just as well all in one place as Nazi Germany did with them spread out across Europe), nor the American evangelicals who believe the return to existence of Israel is a sign of imminent messianic return.
Wow. Now, while I would have to agree that killing large amounts of people based on their ethnicity is a Bad Thing(tm), how exactly does that entitle them to their own country? Furthermore, how does it make the survival of that ethnic group the responsibility of everyone in the world? How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups? And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?
Additionally, "the only one they can use"? It was kind of in use before they came back. How was that area more appropriate (ignoring the geopolitical reasonings by the US and what not) for use than any other in terms of letting them set up a government and economy? For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now. If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.
You're obviously confused. Terrorism is a type of crime. There is not "crime" in a different category as "terrorism". McVeigh was a terrorist, just a domestic one. One does not need a giant organization behind oneself to be a terrorist.
If the comment up the page is any indication of their financial health, they could handle a protracted legal battle with the RIAA.
I looked at them about 2 years ago, and I _think_ that they now let you do commissionless dividend reinvestment, but I can't recall exactly. I think my problem with them was that they were still mostly meatspace-based. Mailing things seems so unnecessary.
It still doesn't run EVE right, so what's the point?
So how do you avoid the problem of employers astroturfing?
1. Standing in the upper third of college class or major subdivision at time of application; or
Not difficult.
Eve does this, incidentally.
In any case, logging off while training skills? Yeah, if that's all you're doing, the game isn't worth it to you. That's why you play the other parts :P
I suppose that depends on what one considers "midrange", I suppose.
A winnar is you.
Most people haven't read a lot of judicial decisions, but it's no uncommon for them to have clever (if obfuscated) wording showing wit and distain for stupid plaintifs/defendants.
Still bothers me, though.
They released ads in one country, and people with guilty social consciences complained in a totally different country. People need to get a grip, not every country in the world is socially obsessed with black vs. white race relations.
The female end?
But recent experience has convinced me that there's more than a few people who actually believe this is true. So, better safe than sorry, I guess.
He was given _some_ powers. That doesn't even begin to approach being able to declare everything he does on a whim to be legal.
Seriously, how you can think that the president has some sort of monarch-like powers granted to him by the Constitution shows that, at the very least, you weren't paying attention in civics class.
This presumes of course that the dedicated employee even wants a promotion.
Huh?
My point being that it certainly seems that the core usage of biz-speak is to obfuscate, not simply to encapsulate complex meaning into single words / acronyms. I'm fully prepared to hear arguments for it only seeming that way because there's more "business" than there are technical fields and subfields, but it won't make me feel any less scornful ;)
That's a delightfully optimistic view of biz-speak. While some of what you imply is indeed true (most, if not all, fields have jargon), biz-speak is well known to use words that mean one thing in standard English, but are simply euphamisms that are used for various concepts. The most common of these is the use of "issue" to mean "problem". If there's a "problem", people get worried, but an "issue" seems less pressing, less stressful, less in need of me suing the bejesus out of you because the product you sold me is broken.
And that's of course where technical people get annoyed.
Probably not as much as you think they do. What do you think accounting departments and finance wizzes are for? Not to mention oodles of business-friendly ways to write off things and reduce tax burden.
With the costs they save on labour, they pay out increased dividends.
This presumes that the stocks you're owning pay dividends. This is not the case for a very large percentage of companies.
While its is true that the money they save on labour _may_ show up on the balance sheet as net profit, that assumes the rest of the company is well managed and not wasteful.
Wait wait, people sell their IDs on Ebay? What's the point?