Figure out what you want to do on your own, with out asking anyone what you should do, this is why youth today have so many problems with reasoning skills, you have to use them.
A occupational therapist, they have all kinds of interesting ideas on what is best solution for your grandfather, since it really should be done by a professional who understands your grandfathers unique needs and not a bunch of youngsters who think their opinions are more important than any professionals.
You can use a server as network device, just setup routing on it or a firewall.We used to do this with CheckPoint 4 and earlier based on a windows platform. Not ideal compared to some high end equipment but if you need something quickly and rather inexpensively it's doable.
OK looked at the link but can't see what your trying to say, CO2 is made by the body and is apart of that arterial CO2, not seeing that the human body has to breath in CO2 to function or that long term oxygen is bad for the body.
Not the atmosphere maybe, but how about wood, paper, and most anything else that in a normal nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere wouldn't be considered a flammable hazard like aluminum and other materials that react strongly with oxygen.
Do we have limitless reserves of oil? It would appear not.
No but by the time we run out, there will be some other solution for our energy, at cost efficient way.
How about limitless reserves of land? Nope.
Except by the time we start running out, there will be the rest of the solar system and eventually other solar systems.
How about limitless reserves of clean air? Nope.
Well as technologies advance and we find better energy technologies we will see it get better.
How about limitless reserves of rivers, such that we can dump as much pollution as we want? Nope. Dump too much and they'll light on fire. That actually happened.
Yes of course, and as you over look many of those rivers have had excellent remediation over the years.
How about limitless reserves of fresh water? No, not that either
Again see remediation, as well as desalination.
No I never said we shouldn't take care of the planet, I think that's an individual responsibility. My wife and I great conservationists and take care of the land we have. I'm not going to tell others how to live, I just know if I do it it motivates other to do it as well. I also know as our knowledge increases we find more novel solution's for our issues.
Everything your saying is based on a static technology, no advancements. I'm neither trying to say it will happen today or tomorrow, I'm estimating within the next 50 to 100 years. With that we can at least say some of technologies that are in the lab today will be available to the mass markets.
Correction my grandparents were early 20th century. May mother was born just before the great depression and made it.
Also the taxed twice meme needs to die. Money is taxed many times on its journey through the system. I am taxed on my earnings, then I pay sales tax when I spend my money OH NO taxed twice. I am taxed on my earnings by the fed then by the state then by the city OH NO taxed three times.
Not what I was saying, your taxed twice on the same income, yes you get taxed once for fed once for state, but this is the equivalence of being taxed yet again for the same amount you just received, and not that you pay taxes anywhere else when you purchase something, now that's extremely out of context.
Your previous comment said those who haven't earned it should not keep it. The heirs did not earn it so why should they keep it. Just pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument.
I'll expand on my comment, since your being literal and hanging off each and every word, and have yet to ask for clarification,
In people who have 'earned' wealth I reference people who have gone about occurring wealth legally and on the terms agreed upon by social contract between individuals. ie. Worked for it. For those who have not 'earned' ie. Worked for said wealth, that wealth by social contract or legality does not belong to them. Now in reference to giving wealth to an heir, the social contract is valid as it is based on decision of the wealth holder to allocate his wealth to anyone or anything he chooses. If the person decides that a heir "earned " it, whether we as society in whole agree or disagree with that decision is irrelevant, to the wealth holder he has earned it and that should be sufficient.
I say social contract which I base on agreement between two or more people or entities (ie. business).
I certainly hope this helps, shit I'm just glad I didn't say it was "raining cats and dogs" or you guys would have gone nuts over animals falling from the sky.
Your obviously thinking of the 2015 mandate, but to be honest they are not moving operations totally out of North America, they see it as a saturated market with little growth for what they offer as compared to the developing nations where up is really the only place to go.
Look all I can say is I've been in the stock market back a couple of decades, had some success and some failures, not economist by any means but I do know plenty about it, I won't get in deep because most of the tenants of the market you just close your eyes to.
I have to ask, I know it won't get us anywhere, but it will clarify your position,
If I have 1 stock Company XYZ that's valued at $10 dollars and it goes up $1 dollar, somewhere someone has lost $1 dollar?
These discussions have been enlightening, I've noticed a train of thought that quiet a few liberals have.
Now this is just an observation but most of the arguments have been based on extremes of limitation and wording.
I mean that liberals see the limitations of wealth as physical, and can't seem to see that wealth is much more than that, case in point in 2009 approximately 45% of the 'wealth' generated in the U.S was monetary, ie. Stock Market investments. Though some would say, that it had to depend on physical aspect such as computers, people and electricity and so on, the value of that wealth is not directly dependent upon it. Of course others will continue to argue against that.
Other times the limitations are more theoretical at this time than anything else, basing things on "limited" and "unlimited" which eventually bakes down to the universe is finite and so are the resources. While true, reaching that limit is so distant in time as for all "practical" purposes to be infinite to us today. True there are short term limitations, ie. end of oil and beginning of other energy sources. but those are temporary limitations.
Again this is just observations not judgement.
The only possible issue for liberals is that this allows you to "reason" yourself to a stands still, example: Everything eventually die's so why keep working.
I hate to ask, but how so? I work for one of those hate large corporations, IBM, and they are only hiring because they forced to because they've pretty much over worked the people have. The hiring will only last a few months then they'll go back to hunkering down. Or so I've been told.
Yes I did say a person should be able to keep their wealth if they earned it, also since they own that wealth they can do whatever they want with it, and if that means giving it away they should be able to.
Please don't try twisting what I said, your taking it out of context, I was referring to Government or outside entity forcibly telling an individual to give up their earned wealth.
There are other things that expanding into space can provide that would be benefit the biosphere and is nearer term than moving entire populations off Earth. Moving most industries into the space would benefit everyone, you will have more accessible resources than on Earth, a clean power source continuously accessible for the next few billion years. There is 95% of the solar systems accessible resources in the asteroid fields. I refer to accessible in regards to the fact that most of Earths resources that supply modern day civilization remain in a couple of miles of lithosphere, where the rest of the 40 miles of lithosphere are, at this time, unreachable. Same for any of the other planets.
True you might pass it off as "magical" thinking, but the technology isn't that far off, bringing the cost of launch costs down to $100 a pound could open this door.
I can only speak for myself, RINO's typically, "whose political views or actions are considered insufficiently conservative or otherwise not conforming to party positions."
Slashdot Mirror
but in the end you get some experience with failure
That is probably the wisest thing I've heard in years, its importance cannot be overrated.
Figure out what you want to do on your own, with out asking anyone what you should do, this is why youth today have so many problems with reasoning skills, you have to use them.
A occupational therapist, they have all kinds of interesting ideas on what is best solution for your grandfather, since it really should be done by a professional who understands your grandfathers unique needs and not a bunch of youngsters who think their opinions are more important than any professionals.
Tests are not about reasoning, but knowing the information.
I believe you have it, a lot of the youths I talk to rely on facts and do not try to "figure" it out on their own.
I think it's the biggest danger for youth today, this prevents them from going into the sciences or engineering.
You can use a server as network device, just setup routing on it or a firewall.We used to do this with CheckPoint 4 and earlier based on a windows platform. Not ideal compared to some high end equipment but if you need something quickly and rather inexpensively it's doable.
Their Proliant line is still pretty good and supports *nix.
OK looked at the link but can't see what your trying to say, CO2 is made by the body and is apart of that arterial CO2, not seeing that the human body has to breath in CO2 to function or that long term oxygen is bad for the body.
Not the atmosphere maybe, but how about wood, paper, and most anything else that in a normal nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere wouldn't be considered a flammable hazard like aluminum and other materials that react strongly with oxygen.
Most of the positions listed, except for a couple have pretty good wage, unless you think everyone should have six - seven figure salaries?!
So, maybe you should breathe 100% oxygen for the rest of your life.
It's doable as long as he doesn't create a spark of any kind, ever.
I'm pretty well educated, and all that jargon gave even me a fucking headache.
Fracking A, wondered if he was getting paid by the in-congruent word?!
For instance, my company has opened new offices in Hong Kong and are looking for IT staff.
Do we have limitless reserves of oil? It would appear not.
No but by the time we run out, there will be some other solution for our energy, at cost efficient way.
How about limitless reserves of land? Nope.
Except by the time we start running out, there will be the rest of the solar system and eventually other solar systems.
How about limitless reserves of clean air? Nope.
Well as technologies advance and we find better energy technologies we will see it get better.
How about limitless reserves of rivers, such that we can dump as much pollution as we want? Nope. Dump too much and they'll light on fire. That actually happened.
Yes of course, and as you over look many of those rivers have had excellent remediation over the years.
How about limitless reserves of fresh water? No, not that either
Again see remediation, as well as desalination.
No I never said we shouldn't take care of the planet, I think that's an individual responsibility. My wife and I great conservationists and take care of the land we have. I'm not going to tell others how to live, I just know if I do it it motivates other to do it as well. I also know as our knowledge increases we find more novel solution's for our issues.
Everything your saying is based on a static technology, no advancements. I'm neither trying to say it will happen today or tomorrow, I'm estimating within the next 50 to 100 years. With that we can at least say some of technologies that are in the lab today will be available to the mass markets.
Also the taxed twice meme needs to die. Money is taxed many times on its journey through the system. I am taxed on my earnings, then I pay sales tax when I spend my money OH NO taxed twice. I am taxed on my earnings by the fed then by the state then by the city OH NO taxed three times.
Not what I was saying, your taxed twice on the same income, yes you get taxed once for fed once for state, but this is the equivalence of being taxed yet again for the same amount you just received, and not that you pay taxes anywhere else when you purchase something, now that's extremely out of context.
Your previous comment said those who haven't earned it should not keep it. The heirs did not earn it so why should they keep it. Just pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument.
I'll expand on my comment, since your being literal and hanging off each and every word, and have yet to ask for clarification, In people who have 'earned' wealth I reference people who have gone about occurring wealth legally and on the terms agreed upon by social contract between individuals. ie. Worked for it. For those who have not 'earned' ie. Worked for said wealth, that wealth by social contract or legality does not belong to them. Now in reference to giving wealth to an heir, the social contract is valid as it is based on decision of the wealth holder to allocate his wealth to anyone or anything he chooses. If the person decides that a heir "earned " it, whether we as society in whole agree or disagree with that decision is irrelevant, to the wealth holder he has earned it and that should be sufficient.
I say social contract which I base on agreement between two or more people or entities (ie. business).
I certainly hope this helps, shit I'm just glad I didn't say it was "raining cats and dogs" or you guys would have gone nuts over animals falling from the sky.
Your obviously thinking of the 2015 mandate, but to be honest they are not moving operations totally out of North America, they see it as a saturated market with little growth for what they offer as compared to the developing nations where up is really the only place to go.
I have to ask, I know it won't get us anywhere, but it will clarify your position,
If I have 1 stock Company XYZ that's valued at $10 dollars and it goes up $1 dollar, somewhere someone has lost $1 dollar?
Other times the limitations are more theoretical at this time than anything else, basing things on "limited" and "unlimited" which eventually bakes down to the universe is finite and so are the resources. While true, reaching that limit is so distant in time as for all "practical" purposes to be infinite to us today. True there are short term limitations, ie. end of oil and beginning of other energy sources. but those are temporary limitations.
Again this is just observations not judgement.
The only possible issue for liberals is that this allows you to "reason" yourself to a stands still, example: Everything eventually die's so why keep working.
I hate to ask, but how so? I work for one of those hate large corporations, IBM, and they are only hiring because they forced to because they've pretty much over worked the people have. The hiring will only last a few months then they'll go back to hunkering down. Or so I've been told.
By your logic, a person cannot do whatever they want to do with their own wealth. So I guess you don't believe in freedom then??!
Yes I did say a person should be able to keep their wealth if they earned it, also since they own that wealth they can do whatever they want with it, and if that means giving it away they should be able to. Please don't try twisting what I said, your taking it out of context, I was referring to Government or outside entity forcibly telling an individual to give up their earned wealth.
There are other things that expanding into space can provide that would be benefit the biosphere and is nearer term than moving entire populations off Earth. Moving most industries into the space would benefit everyone, you will have more accessible resources than on Earth, a clean power source continuously accessible for the next few billion years. There is 95% of the solar systems accessible resources in the asteroid fields. I refer to accessible in regards to the fact that most of Earths resources that supply modern day civilization remain in a couple of miles of lithosphere, where the rest of the 40 miles of lithosphere are, at this time, unreachable. Same for any of the other planets. True you might pass it off as "magical" thinking, but the technology isn't that far off, bringing the cost of launch costs down to $100 a pound could open this door.
Wow, I heard that whip from here.
No, conservatives believe if I have it I am not giving it up
So? it's theirs to do with as they please.
How else do you explain the opposition to estate taxes?
Well maybe they don't think that the wealth already earned should be taxed twice?!
The heirs did not earn the wealth but somehow conservatives can justify the heirs keeping it all.
Anyone who is for personal property is for this, not just conservatives.
I can only speak for myself, RINO's typically, "whose political views or actions are considered insufficiently conservative or otherwise not conforming to party positions."