Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.
As for the size of the problem, it's not that big, the solutions are largely there, it's just that there isn't the political will to do it in places like the US and China. The technology to deal with it has largely been developed, it's just very expensive in many cases and always more expensive in the short run than doing nothing at all.
Yes, but too many folks like to think that the Bible and Christianity in general are the only path to eternal reward. The materials being plagiarized greatly diminishes the legitimacy of that viewpoint.
IV drug use is something that people can avoid. And it's pretty unusual for folks that aren't working as EMTs, military personnel or similar to come into contact with random blood. And in the case of the military, having HIV is automatic grounds for not being allowed to enlist. I would assume that it's grounds for discharge.
As for reproduction, it's not an issue, you only need to have sex with one person for that to happen. And ultimately, if everybody did have sex with precisely one partner or had the appropriate testing done, you wouldn't see HIV routinely being spread via sex.
You might still have some cases popping up, but a virus needs a certain number of new infections to keep from being quarantined or otherwise die out.
That's not prevalent enough to be much of an issue. What you're forgetting is that rape only spreads HIV in a subset of cases where one party has HIV already. And HIV would almost certainly have died out years ago if rape was the primary driver of new infections.
LOL, when I read the headline I thought they had put a PCI slot on the card itself. Which would be bitchin' for games that require a Voodoo card to run right.
But, I do see that you're interpretation is the correct one.
OK, so what's your proposal for keeping these issues from transcending state lines? I'm being serious, if this is a states' rights issue, then how do you keep the issue of uninsured people in one state from costing people in other states? Around here we have a Level 1 trauma center that covers 5 different states, and it's funded entirely by my county. For people who are in need of that degree of medical care that's where they end up unless there's somebody there that's authorized to say no on behalf of the victim.
That alone justifies this being a federal fix, unless you think it's more cost effective to build facilities like that in every single state.
Which is why the insurance commissioner in my home state has the power to evaluate premiums and the new healthcare law requires that insurers that spend too much on non-healthcare costs have to pay rebates to the customers for the difference.
That's not true there are exemptions for those that genuinely can't afford and those that have religious objections to the health care. But, do you have any evidence to support the notion that there are large numbers of people that don't have religious objections to healthcare that truly opt out permanently? As in don't go to the doctor even when they are seriously injured?
I see this argument over and over again that there are people being forced to pay for insurance that they're never going to use, but it ignores the fact that eventually everybody gets sick, and very, very few people genuinely have the kind of money that's required to pay for a stroke or cancer treatment, and it doesn't cause those folks to turn down treatment paid for by others.
Ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable health care definitely does fit with that particular bit of the constitution. And under the current system the easiest way to do that is to force insurance companies to cover all that apply. But in order for that to not result in only sick patients applying, there has to be some sort of a mandate which requires them to pay before they get sick. So that they get preventative care and can subsidize those that ultimately get sick.
There are two other options, one being single payer and the other being to reduce the medicare enrollment age to 0 so that everybody can be enrolled. Which would drive the conservatives even more nuts because that would only be the available through the government.
It's constitutional. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the health care overhaul legislation isn't constitutional. The Federal government has the right to regulate commerce. And, the reason why the costs have been spiraling out of control is that nobody truly opts out of health insurance. Eventually they do get sick at which point the doctors and hospitals turn the costs over to taxpayers or insurance companies.
At this point only a very small section of the law is even in question and it's unlikely that Kennedy is going to side with the folks claiming that it's unconstitutional.
Absolute worst case scenario is that it's thrown out in court and replaced with either Medicare for everybody or single payer, both of which are way beyond any challenge. The GOP just doesn't seem to understand that it's challenging the compromise that it was given and most of the other options are less palatable to them.
Beyond that, if this really is that obviously unconstitutional they shouldn't have been pushing for it in the past.
They aren't changing their name, CenturyLink is a different outfit that purchased them a while back. Same goes around here. I'm reserving judgement on the deal simply because the alternative is Comcast.
I doubt very much that the service will improve, but hope springs eternal.
And what about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that died when the US government wasn't able to prevent the ethnic cleansing that occurred when Saddam was deposed? Or would you rather ignore that problem?
Firstly the war powers act doesn't apply to this situation, that's not just the current Presidents view that's been the view going back to at least Clinton. Secondly, tens of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that follow President Bush's incompetent and ill advised conquest of Iraq where he didn't send enough personnel in to prevent it from happening.
And it might be sickening, but it doesn't make the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and numerous black sites any less crimes against humanity.
Really, since when is torturing people by order of a head of state not considered to be a crime against humanity? And seriously, considering the fact that he's owned up to ordering the torture, it takes some pretty substantial delusion to believe that he isn't a war criminal that needs to be brought to the Hague for trial.
President Bush got nearly 6 years of eyes turned away for him to engage in crimes against humanity. I find it really hard to believe that the press would have granted a Democratic President that much leeway to commit such crimes.
And you're right it is downright dishonest the double standard the media in this country has. They definitely prefer GOP candidates and the reporting shows.
That's a bit different. Scrolls is just a generic word that's been around for centuries. Minecraft is a word that I wasn't aware of at all until Notch created it. If it was in use at all prior to the game being conceived of, it wasn't in common use at the time.
I don't have anything against Bill in particular, he got his start around here and I saw him film one of the segments at the local park, I just wish he wouldn't feel the need to rely so heavily on gimmicks when there's so much really interesting stuff that's available for shows.
I haven't seen Beakman's World, so I won't be commenting on that.
Apparently there are DVDs available, I'll have to get a copy for myse, err nephew.
You're forgetting about both the Fair and the Reasonable portions of that. Also you're forgetting that Infineon wasn't paying royalties on those chips prior to Intel acquiring them and those would be the units that Samsung is suing Apple over.
Actually you're not correct. Apple paid through Intel after Intel acquired Infineon, however the units that Samsung is suing Apple over in this case were ones that were produced prior to Intel acquiring Infineon. Which means that Apple never paid Intel to pay the royalties on those particular units.
That helps, but ultimately math phobia seems to generally be the result of incompetent instruction and sometimes poor instruction plus some sort of learning disorder. It definitely could be a matter of a small sample size, but that seems to be the cause. That and the societal acceptance of math as being hard and scary.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what do you think the penalty for singing Kumbaya ought to be?
Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.
As for the size of the problem, it's not that big, the solutions are largely there, it's just that there isn't the political will to do it in places like the US and China. The technology to deal with it has largely been developed, it's just very expensive in many cases and always more expensive in the short run than doing nothing at all.
What evidence? You should provide it, otherwise people will think you're just trolling.
Yes, but too many folks like to think that the Bible and Christianity in general are the only path to eternal reward. The materials being plagiarized greatly diminishes the legitimacy of that viewpoint.
IV drug use is something that people can avoid. And it's pretty unusual for folks that aren't working as EMTs, military personnel or similar to come into contact with random blood. And in the case of the military, having HIV is automatic grounds for not being allowed to enlist. I would assume that it's grounds for discharge.
As for reproduction, it's not an issue, you only need to have sex with one person for that to happen. And ultimately, if everybody did have sex with precisely one partner or had the appropriate testing done, you wouldn't see HIV routinely being spread via sex.
You might still have some cases popping up, but a virus needs a certain number of new infections to keep from being quarantined or otherwise die out.
That's not prevalent enough to be much of an issue. What you're forgetting is that rape only spreads HIV in a subset of cases where one party has HIV already. And HIV would almost certainly have died out years ago if rape was the primary driver of new infections.
LOL, when I read the headline I thought they had put a PCI slot on the card itself. Which would be bitchin' for games that require a Voodoo card to run right.
But, I do see that you're interpretation is the correct one.
OK, so what's your proposal for keeping these issues from transcending state lines? I'm being serious, if this is a states' rights issue, then how do you keep the issue of uninsured people in one state from costing people in other states? Around here we have a Level 1 trauma center that covers 5 different states, and it's funded entirely by my county. For people who are in need of that degree of medical care that's where they end up unless there's somebody there that's authorized to say no on behalf of the victim.
That alone justifies this being a federal fix, unless you think it's more cost effective to build facilities like that in every single state.
Which is why the insurance commissioner in my home state has the power to evaluate premiums and the new healthcare law requires that insurers that spend too much on non-healthcare costs have to pay rebates to the customers for the difference.
That's not true there are exemptions for those that genuinely can't afford and those that have religious objections to the health care. But, do you have any evidence to support the notion that there are large numbers of people that don't have religious objections to healthcare that truly opt out permanently? As in don't go to the doctor even when they are seriously injured?
I see this argument over and over again that there are people being forced to pay for insurance that they're never going to use, but it ignores the fact that eventually everybody gets sick, and very, very few people genuinely have the kind of money that's required to pay for a stroke or cancer treatment, and it doesn't cause those folks to turn down treatment paid for by others.
And you're point being precisely what?
Ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable health care definitely does fit with that particular bit of the constitution. And under the current system the easiest way to do that is to force insurance companies to cover all that apply. But in order for that to not result in only sick patients applying, there has to be some sort of a mandate which requires them to pay before they get sick. So that they get preventative care and can subsidize those that ultimately get sick.
There are two other options, one being single payer and the other being to reduce the medicare enrollment age to 0 so that everybody can be enrolled. Which would drive the conservatives even more nuts because that would only be the available through the government.
It's constitutional. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the health care overhaul legislation isn't constitutional. The Federal government has the right to regulate commerce. And, the reason why the costs have been spiraling out of control is that nobody truly opts out of health insurance. Eventually they do get sick at which point the doctors and hospitals turn the costs over to taxpayers or insurance companies.
At this point only a very small section of the law is even in question and it's unlikely that Kennedy is going to side with the folks claiming that it's unconstitutional.
Absolute worst case scenario is that it's thrown out in court and replaced with either Medicare for everybody or single payer, both of which are way beyond any challenge. The GOP just doesn't seem to understand that it's challenging the compromise that it was given and most of the other options are less palatable to them.
Beyond that, if this really is that obviously unconstitutional they shouldn't have been pushing for it in the past.
They aren't changing their name, CenturyLink is a different outfit that purchased them a while back. Same goes around here. I'm reserving judgement on the deal simply because the alternative is Comcast.
I doubt very much that the service will improve, but hope springs eternal.
Sure they can, they haven't quite sunk to the depth of cell phone carrier.
And what about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that died when the US government wasn't able to prevent the ethnic cleansing that occurred when Saddam was deposed? Or would you rather ignore that problem?
Firstly the war powers act doesn't apply to this situation, that's not just the current Presidents view that's been the view going back to at least Clinton. Secondly, tens of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that follow President Bush's incompetent and ill advised conquest of Iraq where he didn't send enough personnel in to prevent it from happening.
And it might be sickening, but it doesn't make the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and numerous black sites any less crimes against humanity.
Really, since when is torturing people by order of a head of state not considered to be a crime against humanity? And seriously, considering the fact that he's owned up to ordering the torture, it takes some pretty substantial delusion to believe that he isn't a war criminal that needs to be brought to the Hague for trial.
President Bush got nearly 6 years of eyes turned away for him to engage in crimes against humanity. I find it really hard to believe that the press would have granted a Democratic President that much leeway to commit such crimes.
And you're right it is downright dishonest the double standard the media in this country has. They definitely prefer GOP candidates and the reporting shows.
Indeed, what's the penalty for copyright infringement these days? Is it up to hanging yet?
I think that Notch is lucky that it's just trademark infringement and not copyright infringement that Bethesda is taking them to court over.
I guess the reason that Paris, France hasn't sued Paris, Texas is that nobody can figure out who's harming whom.
That's a bit different. Scrolls is just a generic word that's been around for centuries. Minecraft is a word that I wasn't aware of at all until Notch created it. If it was in use at all prior to the game being conceived of, it wasn't in common use at the time.
I don't have anything against Bill in particular, he got his start around here and I saw him film one of the segments at the local park, I just wish he wouldn't feel the need to rely so heavily on gimmicks when there's so much really interesting stuff that's available for shows.
I haven't seen Beakman's World, so I won't be commenting on that.
Apparently there are DVDs available, I'll have to get a copy for myse, err nephew.
You're forgetting about both the Fair and the Reasonable portions of that. Also you're forgetting that Infineon wasn't paying royalties on those chips prior to Intel acquiring them and those would be the units that Samsung is suing Apple over.
Actually you're not correct. Apple paid through Intel after Intel acquired Infineon, however the units that Samsung is suing Apple over in this case were ones that were produced prior to Intel acquiring Infineon. Which means that Apple never paid Intel to pay the royalties on those particular units.
That helps, but ultimately math phobia seems to generally be the result of incompetent instruction and sometimes poor instruction plus some sort of learning disorder. It definitely could be a matter of a small sample size, but that seems to be the cause. That and the societal acceptance of math as being hard and scary.