Actually, there exists no continent named solely 'America.' Also, when the topic of the article is the US presidential election, using the word 'America' is totally appropriate because only an idiot would be confused.
I live in America. I'm an American. Now, it just so happens that the United States of America is, in addition, located within North America. So, I'm like doubly-American. Er, yeah...
Oh yeah. So, you're saying that when an organization is creating a budget that they don't look at the previous fiscal year's revenue and expenditures and see if they jive. And, since every organization should want to maximize the utility of their money, if one department is always under budget that they let them keep the extra money and give them the same total (plus inflation, etc) next budget? When money is scarce and they have a lot of things they want to do with it? Is this what you're saying?
This type of stuff happens a lot when you have poor review of line item budgets.
Oh, so a social/cultural movement is static? No room for change or deviation?
Regardless if a proscription on dancing was "developed" during the modern-era or 2000 years ago - it's rather strange to say that a person who identifies themselves as Christian is not Christian because they don't fit your particular definition. Most especially since you yourself are not a Christian.
You should pay particular attention to your classes that talked about early Christianity, because that is what Christianity is and where it came from. The Christian denominations that don't allow dancing are all modern-era inventions.
Note your use of the phrase 'early Christianity.' This would indicate to me that 1) you recognize the difference between early and modern Christianity 2) by telling others to pay attention to early Christianity you admit that a later variety exists and 3) you're like me, bored, and figure that a little/. trolling is called for.
Or perhaps when they're replacing spent fuel rods?
I'm sure that if this device is ever used that that could be taken into consideration. Don't fuel rods last for a predetermined, known time? Also, beyond any technical ability of this device, it may give the IAEA a reason to be sending their own people to the site of the reactor.
As to Mosaddeq - that really doesn't have anything to do with the utility of this device. It does however, help to explain why the Shah needed SAVAK to stay in power and how that certainly pissed off Iranians enough to start the Islamic Revolution of 79. And SAVAK, of course, is one reason why they hate us.
Concerning the light-water reactors, I really fail to see how us being slow in building shit for Kim Jong-Il makes us such a bad guy that we should overlook his uranium enrichment program. He blatantly broke the 94 Agreed Framework. So what, eight years was too long for him to get free energy (and 8 years is being nice, he undoubtedly had the program running before '02)? Remember, only Kim Jong-Il wants Kim Jong-Il to have more nuclear weapons. Conduct a poll of S. Korea, China, Japan, and other countries of the region and I'd bet they'd all tell you that that would destabilize the area even more. And create an even greater security dilemma.
It doesn't sound as though the goal is to stop the operation of nuclear reactors. The goal, in my understanding, is to detect when said reactors are turned off - which apparently indicates that fissile material may be being removed from the reactor to sell to others for, or use themselves, weapons grade material.
Please note that I'm not suggesting this device is some sort of panacea for nuclear proliferation. Merely that it could be a tool in the arsenal to prevent that proliferation. However, the mere fact that it is not a "cure-all" does not detract from its usefulness. Certainly their are problems with it - primarily, as you say, because the targeted nation has physical access to it.
what is to prevent them from tampering with this detector?
I imagine that the device would have some kind of anti-tamper system that would alert the IAEA that someone was mucking with the machine - just as it would alert them to the presence of
As far as safeguarding that the material does not fall into the wrong hands, the fact that it could happen makes the detector a moot point.
An analogy of this statement would be "As far as safeguarding that people do not kill other people, the fact that it could happen makes trying to prevent murder a useless exercise.
I've got to agree. Alone in the Dark is truly painful to watch. Has to be one of the worst movies I've had the unfortunate luck to watch. I'd rather watch 'romantic comedies,' 'Summer Blockbusters,' and 'Movies for the whole family' in a kinda Clockwork-Orange-having-things-that-keep-your-eyes-open marathon.
Come now, come now. The freight container was there b/c the bad guys put it there in order to trip up the sexy protagonist. And I'm not even sure the film showed us the zombies lining up inside. And I mean, come on, what's better than undead crows? I found it to be somewhat enjoyable - note that I was watching it on QSS (god forbid paying for that crap) while I played WoW.
If you "cure" people of their addictions, rather than imprison them and then release them without curing their addiction, then fewer people will be buying illegal drugs, and the market for them will diminish, and it will no longer be profitable to import them from other countries. I believe that to be a workable solution. One point that comes to mind is that it is not only addicts who consume drugs. Certainly, not everyone who has an occasional beer is a drunk. Not everyone who smokes an occasional joint is a pothead. And I doubt that all the Wall Street guys in the 80s doing coke were cokeheads. So even if we can cure people of addictions I don't believe that the demand for these commodities would appreciably decrease.
A terrible consequence of a total prohibition on drugs is that it removes much of the government's control over the sale of them. For example, since alcohol is legal most people want a license to sell it so they can benefit from the protection of the law. This allows government the opportunity to prohibit its sell to minors, who are the group anti-drug measures should target in the first place since we have finite resources; it'd be more bang for our buck. But for illegal drugs the government has no such control, which is why for many children (especially those who have "dry" parents) drugs are easier to obtain than alcohol.
So, I'm not sure if just curing addicts is a workable solution. The demand for drugs has always been with us and I expect it always will. I think it is a matter of having personal responsibility as well as teaching our children that value. The government is just not the best vehicle for eliminating drug use.
I'll field this one:)
So preventing people from legally doing seriously harmful things affecting others is bad? What evidence do you have that prohibiting drug use makes the problem worse? I know several people who have told me that would do drugs if they were legal. That is not be a good thing. Let's say I'm a hardcore crack addict (which, by the way, I am not). That would be pretty bad and doesn't say much for my ability to advance my or my family's interests. I agree with you, something needs to be done to stop me from being on crack so I'm not a drain on society and that my family gets taken care of. But, is giving me a felony conviction and 5 years in jail in anyway helping the situation? Doesn't look like it - even if I get off crack I still won't be able to get a job with that prior conviction hanging over my head. Basically, the state just spent ~20k a year for my room and board. And probably, I'm gonna come out pissed off, more knowledgeable about criminal activity, and maybe even having been raped by other men in the shower! Not very good rehabilitation.
How about we treat addiction as the social health issue it is and stop cloaking it in a drape of "tough on crime" legislation. We don't lockup alcoholics - unless they break the law. When we made all alcohol users criminals, all that we did is put a highly desirable commodity onto the black market so real criminals, who may often resort to violence, and their organizations can have free reign to do whatever the hell they want. Sure, cops can bring some of them down, but a balloon effect certainly occurs. Stomp down criminal organizations in one area and they spring up where you're not at. Think Plan Colombia, which despite some loose and fast play with statistics on the part of the State Department (e.g. a report given to Congress by our ambassador to that country) has not been successful in stopping the growth of cocaine exports into the US.
Peer review is easily done on the internet, already schools use email and blackboard for this. I'm thinking of my situation. As a grad student of poli/sci I, of course, do not have labs. The most expensive thing I use is SPSS (but I'd be all down with one of the opensource statistical packages if the school was). Insofar as the biggest problems facing schools I think it is the apathy of some of the profs (I haven't experienced the "this is how you're gonna learn it" just because that doesn't work so well in IR). In one class I truly did not think that attending the sessions advanced my knowledge or understanding by one bit, which perhaps doesn't say much for my school:)
I'm gonna say it... we need a paradigm shift so we can get some synergy up in here. Even without the buzzwords something needs to change, though I'm unsure exactly what.
The point still stands though that the current method universities use for distributing information is perhaps outmoded. You mention the expense of labs - but what about the bulk of university classes which don't require a lab?
lol, the local police. Pres. Karzai is more like the mayor of Kabul. In a country like that which totally lacks any rule of law, I wouldn't doubt that the police (if there are any outside the capital) may be just as bad as the warlords or the Taliban.
I think in this case infrastructure probably refers to a few towers. The article mentions that we're (the US) tracking them primarily thru satellites. So, my techy friends, is it possible to track folks thru their cells without things like GPS. Isn't the inability to track people (and the problems this would cause for emergency operators in the 911 service) why GPS is being included in phones now.
Slashdot Mirror
What did Zelazny's estate do?
Only if you can reassure me that doing so won't wake the terrasque.
I just used the same ballot here in Missouri. I didn't find any difficulty in using it either.
Actually, there exists no continent named solely 'America.' Also, when the topic of the article is the US presidential election, using the word 'America' is totally appropriate because only an idiot would be confused.
I live in America. I'm an American. Now, it just so happens that the United States of America is, in addition, located within North America. So, I'm like doubly-American. Er, yeah...
Oh yeah. So, you're saying that when an organization is creating a budget that they don't look at the previous fiscal year's revenue and expenditures and see if they jive. And, since every organization should want to maximize the utility of their money, if one department is always under budget that they let them keep the extra money and give them the same total (plus inflation, etc) next budget? When money is scarce and they have a lot of things they want to do with it? Is this what you're saying?
This type of stuff happens a lot when you have poor review of line item budgets.
Regardless if a proscription on dancing was "developed" during the modern-era or 2000 years ago - it's rather strange to say that a person who identifies themselves as Christian is not Christian because they don't fit your particular definition. Most especially since you yourself are not a Christian.
You should pay particular attention to your classes that talked about early Christianity, because that is what Christianity is and where it came from. The Christian denominations that don't allow dancing are all modern-era inventions.
Note your use of the phrase 'early Christianity.' This would indicate to me that 1) you recognize the difference between early and modern Christianity 2) by telling others to pay attention to early Christianity you admit that a later variety exists and 3) you're like me, bored, and figure that a little /. trolling is called for.
Oh yeah?
Wow - this makes me ashamed to be a human.
I'm sure that if this device is ever used that that could be taken into consideration. Don't fuel rods last for a predetermined, known time? Also, beyond any technical ability of this device, it may give the IAEA a reason to be sending their own people to the site of the reactor.
As to Mosaddeq - that really doesn't have anything to do with the utility of this device. It does however, help to explain why the Shah needed SAVAK to stay in power and how that certainly pissed off Iranians enough to start the Islamic Revolution of 79. And SAVAK, of course, is one reason why they hate us.
Concerning the light-water reactors, I really fail to see how us being slow in building shit for Kim Jong-Il makes us such a bad guy that we should overlook his uranium enrichment program. He blatantly broke the 94 Agreed Framework. So what, eight years was too long for him to get free energy (and 8 years is being nice, he undoubtedly had the program running before '02)? Remember, only Kim Jong-Il wants Kim Jong-Il to have more nuclear weapons. Conduct a poll of S. Korea, China, Japan, and other countries of the region and I'd bet they'd all tell you that that would destabilize the area even more. And create an even greater security dilemma.
It doesn't sound as though the goal is to stop the operation of nuclear reactors. The goal, in my understanding, is to detect when said reactors are turned off - which apparently indicates that fissile material may be being removed from the reactor to sell to others for, or use themselves, weapons grade material.
Please note that I'm not suggesting this device is some sort of panacea for nuclear proliferation. Merely that it could be a tool in the arsenal to prevent that proliferation. However, the mere fact that it is not a "cure-all" does not detract from its usefulness. Certainly their are problems with it - primarily, as you say, because the targeted nation has physical access to it.
I imagine that the device would have some kind of anti-tamper system that would alert the IAEA that someone was mucking with the machine - just as it would alert them to the presence of
As far as safeguarding that the material does not fall into the wrong hands, the fact that it could happen makes the detector a moot point.
An analogy of this statement would be "As far as safeguarding that people do not kill other people, the fact that it could happen makes trying to prevent murder a useless exercise.
And wasn't it smokin' hot how she took out that ogre. I bet her thac0 is like super low (does that show my age?).
Nah, that's why you go for a masters or phd. Myself, I'm trying to acquire more and more degrees until I get one that looks nice in a frame.
I've got to agree. Alone in the Dark is truly painful to watch. Has to be one of the worst movies I've had the unfortunate luck to watch. I'd rather watch 'romantic comedies,' 'Summer Blockbusters,' and 'Movies for the whole family' in a kinda Clockwork-Orange-having-things-that-keep-your-eyes-open marathon.
stage6 RIP
Um, do you realize that the NYTimes article you cite is from 1917?
A terrible consequence of a total prohibition on drugs is that it removes much of the government's control over the sale of them. For example, since alcohol is legal most people want a license to sell it so they can benefit from the protection of the law. This allows government the opportunity to prohibit its sell to minors, who are the group anti-drug measures should target in the first place since we have finite resources; it'd be more bang for our buck. But for illegal drugs the government has no such control, which is why for many children (especially those who have "dry" parents) drugs are easier to obtain than alcohol.
So, I'm not sure if just curing addicts is a workable solution. The demand for drugs has always been with us and I expect it always will. I think it is a matter of having personal responsibility as well as teaching our children that value. The government is just not the best vehicle for eliminating drug use.
How about we treat addiction as the social health issue it is and stop cloaking it in a drape of "tough on crime" legislation. We don't lockup alcoholics - unless they break the law. When we made all alcohol users criminals, all that we did is put a highly desirable commodity onto the black market so real criminals, who may often resort to violence, and their organizations can have free reign to do whatever the hell they want. Sure, cops can bring some of them down, but a balloon effect certainly occurs. Stomp down criminal organizations in one area and they spring up where you're not at. Think Plan Colombia, which despite some loose and fast play with statistics on the part of the State Department (e.g. a report given to Congress by our ambassador to that country) has not been successful in stopping the growth of cocaine exports into the US.
lol, as the AC who replied I can tell you that it will be Plus, it'll be in partially recycled paper cups!
I'm gonna say it... we need a paradigm shift so we can get some synergy up in here. Even without the buzzwords something needs to change, though I'm unsure exactly what.
The point still stands though that the current method universities use for distributing information is perhaps outmoded. You mention the expense of labs - but what about the bulk of university classes which don't require a lab?
Yeah, I stopped watching it when they felt the need to include Vaudeville shit in every episode. Lame - lamer even than Sealab's Bizzaro episode.
lol, the local police. Pres. Karzai is more like the mayor of Kabul. In a country like that which totally lacks any rule of law, I wouldn't doubt that the police (if there are any outside the capital) may be just as bad as the warlords or the Taliban.
I think in this case infrastructure probably refers to a few towers. The article mentions that we're (the US) tracking them primarily thru satellites. So, my techy friends, is it possible to track folks thru their cells without things like GPS. Isn't the inability to track people (and the problems this would cause for emergency operators in the 911 service) why GPS is being included in phones now.
Sounds like you've read "The Jungle" a few times?