No, it most certainly is a property of capitalism. Or are you going to try and tell me that trying to gain an advantage by bribing politicians is somehow not a property of capitalism?
If the Federal government were limited per the Founders' intent (most everything handled at the State level), then the Federal politicians wouldn't have the power to grant you your every whim if you handed them a pile of money.
By allowing the Federal government nearly unlimited power to do good, you also allow it nearly unlimited power to do evil.
And guess which side has more money to bribe politicians?
Why does it matter if the bribe-able politicians work on the federal level or the state level? If those powers were given to the states, then the states' politicians would be the ones being bribed. The result is the same.
The libertarian argument that the federal government should be considerably weaker and that state governments should be considerably stronger in its stead makes no sense to me whatsoever. And I live in one of the very wealthy states that would probably benefit from such a change.
It does take around 10 calories' worth of nutrients to make one calorie of meat. But that's because the other nine calories are used in various other metabolic processes important for the animal to live. If you're just growing meat, you don't need most of those metabolic processes to happen.
Animals are very inefficient growers of meat. The idea behind this effort (besides the animal treatment issues) is that we are eventually going to be capable of creating machines that can grow meat much more efficiently than animals can. There's little reason why we can't shoot for very close to 100% meat-growing efficiency.
No, the correct phrase is "under Democratic control." "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, as Bush and rather immature Republicans like to say. The GP confused "Democratic" as it appears in the summary with "democratic" which is a different word.
What you're suggesting is the fabric analog of getting keyed. I imagine repairing a tear caused by a key, or a pocketknife, or a rock on the freeway, would be a lot less expensive if the repair consists only of replacing a piece of fabric.
I'm more concerned about security. Would this feature make it easier to break into my car? Would it make it easier to sabotage or steal from my engine? My gas tank?
I think it has more to do with the public's perception of legality. What I mean to say is that the public, in general, knows that what this website is doing is illegal, so all of its customers will be people who know they are breaking the law and don't care. People who engage in the petty downloading and "making available" or songs, such as the defendant in the Duluth case, are choosing sides in a battle in which neither side has a great moral advantage over the other. It is well-publicized that many filesharers believe they are acting with moral superiority, and they make a pretty good point. As a result of this, the RIAA files lawsuits demanding ridiculous sums for damages in an effort to scare the hell out of filesharers. The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to win on two fronts, the moral front and the scare-the-hell-out-of-everybody front. They run commercials before movies explaining how you downloading Independence Day ruins the lives of the people in charge of applying Will Smith's makeup, and then they scare the hell out of the people who share files anyway with lawsuits.
In other words, there's no one to scare when you go after the website in Canada except other people who are running websites like that, and how many of those are there? I can't think of any.
It's very disconcerting that the **AAs care so little about winning the morality battle. They technically had the law on their side, even before the laws were changed to their current, even more Draconian form. But they chose instead to squander all their moral capital for dumb lawsuits and extortion schemes that couldn't possibly be worth the attorney's fees. Now they are alienating an entire young generation (I'm 22 and I don't know a single person who doesn't hate the them), who are eventually going to have kids who are going to be told all about the assholes that make up the **AAs.
They could have parlayed their moral capital into genuine concern from the public, but decided to go over their heads to their congresspeople and their courthouses and they are going to pay the price.
Why should this man relinquish ANY rights that he has to Circuit freaking City? What's more annoying, Circuit City systematically demanding all of its paying customers show their receipts as conditions for receiving permission to leave, or one man complaining about it?
I'm 100% sure Circuit City and Best Buy and all the other stores that have this policy are capable of thinking of a solution to shoplifting that doesn't require its customers to give up basic rights.
And that basic right is, of course, the right to leave THEIR store, that they just gave money to, without having to show some 22-year-old a list of everything you bought!
People in this country need to be more adamant about keeping our rights. It's not like the government has historically given back rights it has taken from its citizens.
You wrote a pretty good post until you got to the Patriot Act stuff. You should have just left that out.
The "one from Wisconsin" whose name you don't recall was Russ Feingold, who is a senator, not a congressman. The Patriot Act passed the SENATE 98-1. One senator, Landrieu-LA, did not vote. Russ Feingold was the one nay. There were many congressmen who voted against the Patriot Act. Paul was not even the only Republican. 63 Democratic congressmen joined the 3 Republicans (the others were Ney-OH and Otter-ID) in voting against the Patriot Act.
When you have an electric current flowing through a wire, the information it passes in the electron cascade (as in a computer) moves at (close to, depending on the resistance of the wire) the speed of light, but the actual individual electrons move MUCH slower than that. Determining the actual velocity of an electron in the current is an easy calculation to perform if the resistance of the wire is known.
This is a pretty shortsighted post. People whose houses are burning down who don't have fire insurance are screwed because they should have bought fire insurance before the house burned down. When are people with genetic diseases or genetic predispositions to contract diseases supposed to get their health insurance? Before they are born? Before they have DNA?
As an example for clarification, this bill isn't for people who are already suffering from the symptoms of Huntington's disease. This bill is for the people who know that they will, one day, suffer from the symptoms of Huntington's disease.
Let's not assume that the fetus in question was conceived solely in the name of science, ok?
There are TONS of pregnancies aborted for myriad reasons after many different durations of pregnancy. This is how society does, and should, benefit.
The cure for Parkinson's part, not the brain tumor part.
2 out of 18 is actually very good for this kind of cancer. The survival rate after three years is about 3%. 11% would be a step in the right direction, but 2/18 is way too small a sample size to really draw conclusions.
It is one of the most aggressive cancers of all.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Federal government were limited per the Founders' intent (most everything handled at the State level), then the Federal politicians wouldn't have the power to grant you your every whim if you handed them a pile of money.
By allowing the Federal government nearly unlimited power to do good, you also allow it nearly unlimited power to do evil.
And guess which side has more money to bribe politicians?
Why does it matter if the bribe-able politicians work on the federal level or the state level? If those powers were given to the states, then the states' politicians would be the ones being bribed. The result is the same.
The libertarian argument that the federal government should be considerably weaker and that state governments should be considerably stronger in its stead makes no sense to me whatsoever. And I live in one of the very wealthy states that would probably benefit from such a change.
It does take around 10 calories' worth of nutrients to make one calorie of meat. But that's because the other nine calories are used in various other metabolic processes important for the animal to live. If you're just growing meat, you don't need most of those metabolic processes to happen.
Animals are very inefficient growers of meat. The idea behind this effort (besides the animal treatment issues) is that we are eventually going to be capable of creating machines that can grow meat much more efficiently than animals can. There's little reason why we can't shoot for very close to 100% meat-growing efficiency.
Whoops, I forgot to turn on my sense of humor. Sorry about that.
No, the correct phrase is "under Democratic control." "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, as Bush and rather immature Republicans like to say. The GP confused "Democratic" as it appears in the summary with "democratic" which is a different word.
I think you should look up what the word "anecdote" means.
Your sig takes on a whole new meaning in light of that quotation in the summary.
He's saying that no matter how slowly you are going before you stop, you still need infinite acceleration to actually reach 0 m/s.
I'm more concerned about security. Would this feature make it easier to break into my car? Would it make it easier to sabotage or steal from my engine? My gas tank?
A better question is WHEN is the news here? And the answer to that is 1973.
The title should read: Emerald Cockroach Wasps Create Zombie Cockroaches, Scientists Notice
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/gbstaypuft.jpg
I think it has more to do with the public's perception of legality. What I mean to say is that the public, in general, knows that what this website is doing is illegal, so all of its customers will be people who know they are breaking the law and don't care. People who engage in the petty downloading and "making available" or songs, such as the defendant in the Duluth case, are choosing sides in a battle in which neither side has a great moral advantage over the other. It is well-publicized that many filesharers believe they are acting with moral superiority, and they make a pretty good point. As a result of this, the RIAA files lawsuits demanding ridiculous sums for damages in an effort to scare the hell out of filesharers. The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to win on two fronts, the moral front and the scare-the-hell-out-of-everybody front. They run commercials before movies explaining how you downloading Independence Day ruins the lives of the people in charge of applying Will Smith's makeup, and then they scare the hell out of the people who share files anyway with lawsuits.
In other words, there's no one to scare when you go after the website in Canada except other people who are running websites like that, and how many of those are there? I can't think of any.
It's very disconcerting that the **AAs care so little about winning the morality battle. They technically had the law on their side, even before the laws were changed to their current, even more Draconian form. But they chose instead to squander all their moral capital for dumb lawsuits and extortion schemes that couldn't possibly be worth the attorney's fees. Now they are alienating an entire young generation (I'm 22 and I don't know a single person who doesn't hate the them), who are eventually going to have kids who are going to be told all about the assholes that make up the **AAs.
They could have parlayed their moral capital into genuine concern from the public, but decided to go over their heads to their congresspeople and their courthouses and they are going to pay the price.
Why should this man relinquish ANY rights that he has to Circuit freaking City? What's more annoying, Circuit City systematically demanding all of its paying customers show their receipts as conditions for receiving permission to leave, or one man complaining about it?
I'm 100% sure Circuit City and Best Buy and all the other stores that have this policy are capable of thinking of a solution to shoplifting that doesn't require its customers to give up basic rights.
And that basic right is, of course, the right to leave THEIR store, that they just gave money to, without having to show some 22-year-old a list of everything you bought!
People in this country need to be more adamant about keeping our rights. It's not like the government has historically given back rights it has taken from its citizens.
I think hitting the dumbest dog upside the head with a baseball bat would only impair all learning.
You wrote a pretty good post until you got to the Patriot Act stuff. You should have just left that out. The "one from Wisconsin" whose name you don't recall was Russ Feingold, who is a senator, not a congressman. The Patriot Act passed the SENATE 98-1. One senator, Landrieu-LA, did not vote. Russ Feingold was the one nay. There were many congressmen who voted against the Patriot Act. Paul was not even the only Republican. 63 Democratic congressmen joined the 3 Republicans (the others were Ney-OH and Otter-ID) in voting against the Patriot Act.
When you have an electric current flowing through a wire, the information it passes in the electron cascade (as in a computer) moves at (close to, depending on the resistance of the wire) the speed of light, but the actual individual electrons move MUCH slower than that. Determining the actual velocity of an electron in the current is an easy calculation to perform if the resistance of the wire is known.
This is a pretty shortsighted post. People whose houses are burning down who don't have fire insurance are screwed because they should have bought fire insurance before the house burned down. When are people with genetic diseases or genetic predispositions to contract diseases supposed to get their health insurance? Before they are born? Before they have DNA?
As an example for clarification, this bill isn't for people who are already suffering from the symptoms of Huntington's disease. This bill is for the people who know that they will, one day, suffer from the symptoms of Huntington's disease.
I, for one, welcome our new fun-hating joke-killing overlords.
Let's not assume that the fetus in question was conceived solely in the name of science, ok? There are TONS of pregnancies aborted for myriad reasons after many different durations of pregnancy. This is how society does, and should, benefit. The cure for Parkinson's part, not the brain tumor part.
Delorean? Cocaine?
m ent_by_Police
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_delorean#Entrap
Wrong.
Actually, it read: Buy groceries Kill self Obscure reference?
Statistically, just a bit. The 10 year rate of survival for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma is 1.7%.
2 out of 18 is actually very good for this kind of cancer. The survival rate after three years is about 3%. 11% would be a step in the right direction, but 2/18 is way too small a sample size to really draw conclusions. It is one of the most aggressive cancers of all.