Name picked for another site; I've generally used it on most of those I sign up for. I keep it because I like the 'indirect' connotation it picked up somewhere along the way.
Then why don't they search white people more because they are more likely to commit hate crimes?
I'm sorry, but that looks like semi-tautological reasoning to me. From what I've seen, with the possible exception of 'hate' crimes dealing with sexual orientation, 'Hate Crimes' are those crimes committed by whites against non-whites. And exactly what defines a 'hate' crime anyway? You ever seen or heard of someone killed because the killer liked them too well?
No, liberals are against hidden street cameras, spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, and spying on us through social networks.
And yet, these are the people who you're willing to allow to read our thoughts for us...[see above; I have yet to see the slightest hint of 'hate crime' legislation in any form that didn't originate with a liberal somewhere]
Trust me, Orwell's warnings were against the kind of stuff liberals would like to be able to do. And now, since we've got liberals teaching the classes most places, they recast Orwell as presaging conservative actions instead.
I don't dispute any of that except for the "highly respected" part.
Depends on how you define respect. Ann Coulter's two main abilities in the arena of respect are: 1) The ability to articulate what a fair number of conservatives tend to think, and 2) The ability to seriously unhinge ticked off liberals. For some reason, that brings the image of a vampire being shown a mirror to my thoughts...
"Did you hear? Old man Smith's found a way to insure the lawyer's don't get any more of his money than his kids do." "How'd he do it?" "He left half his estate to one of the best lawyers around, provided the other half gets to his heirs intact."
I think she is talking about the guys from Enron, Global Crossing, MCI etc. etc. They could simply decide their own bonuses and skimmed any money that would normally go into the company's rainy day fund. Also look at the money given to low rated CEOs on the way out (Pfizer, Qwest etc.), insane!
I'll have to look up the Global Crossing and MCI references, but in the case of Enron, some of what I've seen leads me to believe the loudness-generating problem wasn't that the guys in charge chose to cash in (Enron's stock appears to have undergone a hyperinflation of its own, which had to stop eventually), but that they didn't tell their employees in time to let them in on the act. Some of what I've read indicates that most of the employees had invested heavily in the company stock, despite other investment options made available to them. If I am in error on this, please direct me to the evidence thereof. And please note that I don't consider news reports that basically boil down to 'Ken Lay BAD!' to be valid evidence.
But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?
Hearing? Or listening? I can 'hear' when my father has his chainsaw or his weedwhacker going, for example, even when I've conciously tried to tune it out. Of course, the 'listening' part relies on individuals willing to pay attention, so you may have intended that meaning.
Do more choices always equal better quality?
Probably not. After a while, you've just got more points filling in the spaces on the curve between 'bad quality' and 'good quality' on the graph.
Is anything being said on the internet that was not being said among families, friends and acquaintances?
Probably not, but the 'net does give the advantage of a wider audience. Individuals who might never have known each other existed without it can become a form of acquainance or friend via the 'net.
I "get" technology blogs, but personal rants leave me wondering if anything is being added to the din.
The chance to vent, maybe?
There's always a chance you'll find a gem. But do we need blogs to do that? Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available?
Two questions, and I think they need to be handled separately.
1. Do we need blogs to find the gems? Technically, no. But since they add to the convenience of the individual, it becomes more likely …
Clarification please: Exactly what powers or authorities were given to the President and Congress that would have gone beyond those enjoyed by the King and Parliment back across the waves?
The bigwigs with their big salaries actually make the company poor. They in turn take this money to buy another BMW, or hire an illegal to do the cleaning and cooking in their estate.
Zuh? That doesn't make sense. I admit I haven't yet looked over Dave Sinkula's links, but what you just said doesn't even make common sense. If the 'bigwigs' are getting their funds from the company, then it would stand to reason that they'd try their hardest to keep the company profitable - they'll obtain more if they take a smaller portion, but of a bigger pie (multi-year earnings) than what you seem to be suggesting. I believe the appropriate cliche'd phrase here would be "Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."
To believe that the (hypothetical) 'bigwigs' would act as you imply attributes to them a short-sightedness I can't reconcile with their actually having obtained their (hypothetical) positions in the first place.
I don't think companies were considered 'the rich'. Besides, these companies will spend that money on increasing their operations in China or such. Yes they will hire people, but not Americans.
The companies aren't necessarily 'the rich', but those qualified as such in the news do seem to turn out to be company bigwigs (CEO, CFO, etc) most of the time. And what makes you think that most companies would do as you have described? Some, perhaps, yes, but you're using the statement as a generalization, and I'm not sure it's a fair one.
The Dems preach money for the poor, and the Reps preach money for the rich. There needs to be something in the middle, like money for the good of the country (infrastructure, security, energy, education, transportation, my own wallet and the like).
Exactly what middle would this be? I saw an editorial in my local paper a while back (~2 months, if I recall correctly) which provided some interesting statistics. Admittedly, I haven't acutally managed to verify them, so feel free to take them with a salt lick if you'd like. The 'definitions' were supposedly drawn from various bits of legislature.
Rich: Family of four, making at least $65,000.00 per year. Poor: Family of four, making up to $60,000.00 per year.
How many people can fit into that gap?
Although I'd prefer that they don't get another chance to damage the economy, if the democrats do obtain/retain power, I'd hope they would continue the patterns that seem to have lead to that. I kind of look forward to the day when, by accident, two pieces of legislature manage to overlap their definitions, and some people qualify as rich and poor at the same time.
Oh, and that 'my own wallet' comment? That's the kind of thing that occurs when 'the rich' get their benefits, from what I've seen. Congrats - you've just sided with the vilified rich.
The only one I really really dislike is Hillary -- the spectical she and Bill made of themselves in SC was just awful. How many Clintons are running for President anyway? It looked like they were both running. Bill Clinton has had his 8 years and should now keep his big mouth shut.
But didn't they claim it was a joint presidency, or something like that, way back when? So it's logical they'd use the same argument now, isn't it? Even if they're not directly saying so?
I think that the speed limitation a spacecraft will have is the very possible collision with an object. Space is not a giant void, it is full of small matter (dust). Even at speeds far below the speed of light, a collision with a small object, let's say the size of a grain of rice, would be deadly. In relatively short time the spacecraft and its cargo would look like swiss cheese.
Even if you had a mystical energy deflector shield, the energy needed to neutralize such impacts would be prohibitive.
A number of hypothetical extrasolar drive mechanisms seem to rely on picking up that dust (mostly for hydrogen, if I recall correctly) and using it as fuel. At what speeds would it become impossible to do so?
Actually, there's nothing in Newtonian or Einsteinian physics that prevents one from travelling faster than light. The only thing that's prohibited is travelling at exactly the speed of light itself. So if one were to find a way to accellerate from subluminal velocities to superluminal velocities (and of course decellerate again to subluminal velocities) without ever travelling at the speed of light itself one would be able to reach just about any speed one wants to. In fact, accelleration at superluminal speeds may well cost no energy at all, while decelleration gets more expensive the nearer to the speed of light one comes while slowing down.
How would you manage to skip that particular speed while undergoing accel/decel? If you can't move past it without hitting it, then there's no way for an object to undergo the shift between sub- and superluminal speeds. I fail to see how anything on one side would even be able to interact with something on the other.
Perhaps that's where the supposed missing 90% of the universe is hiding...beyond the light limit.
That is true for us certainly, at this point in our developement. But it is not beyond the realm of possiblility that some other civilization could have developed methods that bypass our limited technological means.
Light limit. While it doesn't completely preclude the possibility of making the journey, the fact that a ship of any kind cannot travel faster than the vacuum speed of light (due to the laws of physics if I recall correctly) means that a trip would take a vast length of time. The nearest extrasolar star, after all (technically that should be stars, as there are three of them) sit somewhat over four light-years away, meaning a journey from them would take at least that long. And I'm fairly sure they don't have planets; the trip from a planetary system would be, by definition, longer.
It is also conceivable that individuals within some race could live millions or billions of years, so that travel from there to here would be no more impressive than, say, walking around the world would be for one of us.
I'd think someone actually walking around the world would be pretty impressive, actually...or did you simply mean 'travelling' around it?
Finally, we could appear to be so insignificant to them that they simply take a look and move on. We might be no more to them than, say, a bit of mold on an orange peel generally is to us.
What are you trying to do here? Ask us about the possibility of getting a random ??? stuck in our heads? Or pass your own phrase along so we all end up with it stuck in our heads the same way you got it stuck in yours?
Wow, so it's the Clintons that spread the rumor about Obama being a Muslim. Now that is dirty!
Based on past evidence, it's also par for the course. Your point?
Anyone know what the name is for the church Obama proclaim his membership in? I've heard some stuff about that from others, and it'd be nice to be able to confirm/refute what I've heard.
The bulk of the voters get their information from the sports pages, and the espn and fox channels. They are scared of terrorists, taxes and foreigners.
I don't know where you're getting your 'source list' from, so I won't touch that.
Scared of terrorists: When someone has, and has demonstrated, the means and desire to harm another person...not for an individual reason, but for being part of a group...then I'd say that it is fairly reasonable to be nervous about the chances that said 'someone' would be willing to do so again. To let this nervousness descend into fullblown 'OMG Weyre all gunna die!!!11' panic is foolish. It is equally foolish, however, to refuse to acknowledge the potential for harm; to do so only makes it easier for future incidents of that nature to occur, as those responsible, or others emulating them, become emboldened.
Scared of taxes: Most people, when attempting to earn money, do so for themselves. As far as I can tell, working to make money for another, rather than doing so for yourself, especially in the manner of paying off a debt, would seem to be indentured servitude. Given that the current American tax bite is large enough that the supposed Tax Freedom day lies about one-third of the way through the year, this would imply that, for that first one-third year, every working man and woman in America is, in fact, an indentured servant of the government.
I don't think clean air and water is just for the benefit of socialists!
Who says that's what they're really concerned with? The entire argument was that a small group (labeled 'socialists') are using a hot-button topic, which does have benefit, or at least meaning, for a larger group, to further their own ends. These 'own ends' do not necessarily have anything to do with the means (the hot-button topic) being used to reach them, other than the means-end relation.
Wasn't the information superhighway a brainchild of Al Gore? Rest stops must be environmentally unfriendly to him.
Of course they are. They encourage people to travel long distances, because they provide the possibility of a temporary resting point between the two ends, breaking the longer distance into two (or more) shorter ones. And because they encourage travel, they encourage more use of various forms of automobile, which in turn means more usage of gasoline. And since gasoline seems to be anathema for the various environmental/preservationist groups, this makes rest stops a bad thing for them.
Seriously guys. You should've noticed something was up when I started babbling about acid oceans. I'm just trying to get you all to lighten up. Is that so wrong?
That's part of the problem. No matter how absurd the definition given, there are some people out there who'd probably suggest it seriously if they'd heard of it.
My best friend is the exception that shatters your theory.
Um, no, unless his theory is that you literally cannot be logical and have good problem-solving skills without being left-handed, then you've done nothing but provide one more statistical point for him to plot.
Honestly you need to give the enviromentalists a break. They're like this nagging voice at the back of your head that keeps you from sticking envelopes in your slot-load drive...
From what I've seen, if the 'environmentalist' mentality present today were loosed on computing systems they'd be the ones to claim that no one really needed more than 640k memory...while they themselves used the largest memory setup available. They'd be the ones insisting that, all right, you can use a modem to dial into the internet, while loading themselves down with the fastest, highest-bandwidth connections available. The ones who would insist that you should be happy with your 256 meg hd, and you really are just being wasteful to get a bigger one.
There's a place locally (I think it's a franchise, though) called the Cold Stone Creamery, where they scoop your ice cream onto a literal cold stone (looks like it might be black marble to me, but the frost keeps me from being certain) and prepare it with sprinkles, chocolate or peanut butter chips, etc...some of the best ice cream I've ever had was a mix of chocolate and mint, from there. Literal mix; one scoop of each, mashed into and through each other before serving.
Or can he? What's so hard to believe about self-aware robots inheriting the earth and wiping out all human-kind?
The 'self-aware' part. I'm not exactly keeping up with it religiously, but I'm fairly sure that AI systems haven't come anywhere even remotely close yet.
i wish jwenting would stop making up BS about a country he doesn't live in. I think if you do live here, you shouldn't make stupid senseless comments about any candidate in this post.
How are you defining 'stupid' and 'senseless'? I'd say that commentary about the candidates is essential. Simply be prepared to back up whatever you say.
