was the magic number 65536?
That's enough complaints for anybody.
What is the point of spending all this money to build a giant fence, when the net harm caused by illegal immigration is no where near the cost of the fence?
It depends who is doing the calculation. If you are the boss of a cheap clothes factory I expect your calc will come down very favourably for illegal immigrants - favourable to your own pocket anyway which is where most people's calcs stop. OTOH if you are an out of work "native" it will come out unfavourably.
But it is not just money. Also needing to be taken into account are social factors such as the fragmentation of society, sex ratio balance, divided loyalties, the import of other countries' fueds and the attitudes of people who feel they have nothing to lose whatever they do.
With all of the Nazi scientists working on racial research, don't you think they would have come up with something that supported their worldview? They tried all sorts of things, and none of it holds up to any kind of scientific scrutiny.
The "Nazi scientists" were actually looking for differences between Aryans on the one hand and Jews and Slavs on the other. Africans, which is where this discussion started, were not even on the horizon as far as they (and most white people at the time) were concerned
Wouldn't it be possible to get some helium from Jupiter ?
Try the Sun. It makes loads of it and it's nearer too. Bring some back for me.
I don't think half the rail proposals I see in the US make any sense. A big reason why is: not elevated, and not fast enough! If its not elevated, why take it? It's merely a glorified bus with dedicated lanes.
You are not making sense (ie I don't understand what you are saying). Is this American language? Elevated, what's that?
In The UK, in most big cities, it is crazy to drive a commute by car and nearly as crazy to use a bus, even with dedicated lanes. The dedicated lane system breaks down at junctions, and there are stops every few yards where scores of people get on and off, all fumbling with money or payment cards. For a fit person it is quicker to get off and walk. Anything involving the public road is just slow, slow, slow. You talk about "slow" commuter trains, but they are going at the speed of light compared with road traffic.
Not quite knowing what you mean by elevated, perhaps you are thinking of trains as things sharing the road with cars. In the UK we call those trams, and trains are things with their own dedicated infrastructure, whether at ground level, on viaduct or in tunnel, with nothing else in the way, such that the only restriction on speed is the engineering.
yeah, it's called "public investment", each person pays a little bit so that everyone can use the thing, think "public roads"
Unfortunately, a real and serious difficulty with high-speed rail is that each person doesn't pay a little bit, they pay a small fortune, while in practice only a relatively small number of people will ever benefit directly from the faster travel times.
And you can say that about road and motorway building too. Living in rural Wales I don't get any direct benefit from new motorways or road widenings in, say the Midlands; nor do most people living in Newcastle or Scotland for that matter. I could even do a reductio ad absurdum of your argument by extending it to say that even if I do use a 3-lane motorway, I get no benefit from the two lanes I am not using. Building HS2 is like having more lanes of motorway.
Whether there is really any benefit in building either motorways or high speed railways is another matter. I have always doubted it. When I see a motorway I am always left wondering how it is that so many people can be in the wrong place and needing to get somewhere else. Usually, when these things are built, people just start travelling longer distances, like my company centralised (closing its regional offices) in the 1980's when a lot of new motorways were completed (the M25 in particular) - explicitly because "travel times were reduced". In fact it took longer to reach most destinations from the central office than it had done from the nearest regional office before they were closed. Staff numbers were not reduced anyway.
Can any other country boast a top political leader who has a STEM leader . . . ?
Mrs Thatcher had a chemistry degree and before full-time politics she worked in food technology. But the irony was that she came to preside over the destruction of Britain as a leading technical nation. It sems she hated technology.
Psychologically, I have seen this explained as, her having changed careers (science to politics), she was inclined to look back in contempt at her former one. A bit like her having made it into a man's world (as political leadership was back then) she famously looked back in contempt on other women. You can imagine her wanting revenge for having once been the lab junior, making the tea for the others etc, as we all did once.
No other site covers Microsoft so much.
If you think Slashdot is bad, you should see this one
Humans don't naturally expose a huge amount of breast, since they don't become large naturally. It's only with the advent of adequate medicine and an abundance (excess?) of nutrition that some women find themselves large mammaries
On the contrary, from your argument, it sounds like it was small breasts that were unnatural (underfed and ill). In fact, I have known obese women with small breasts, and slim women with large ones (if you don't know any women, look in some porn websites, you will find all combinations).
Let's just say you're not doing well with your arguments since you're not very well informed about the subject of women. (Which should have been obvious, this being
Actually he was talking about dogs, mostly. His point about women was that they stand upright and their front has breasts on it (of some size or other) if they are of post-puberty maturity - do you dispute that?
Perhaps you prefer Homer Simpson's description of women : "Like a refrigerator, - about 5'2" high and give you beer". It leaves the breasts out of it.
I've fathered 2 children so far through sexual reproduction. And at no point do I remember breasts playing a fundamental role in that process....... you could just as easily argue that my steady job, calm demeanor, personal hygene habits, and social skills are all fundamental in sexual reproduction.
I find women's breasts a huge (sorry) part in my sexual "process", and if it is only Western society that has caused that attitude (as some have said here) then - bring it on. Many women themselves are also turned on by their own breasts, as part of their own arousal. I had a busty GF who would get a breast out to admire it herself in a public place if there were no people about - I would tell her off about it. You are missing a lot if women's breasts mean nothing to you (or your partner); I am feeling sorry for you..
However, some women do not have much to show in the breast department, so it is just as well that there are guys like you who will be quite happy with that.
I know a woman who refuses to ever wear a wedding ring. She doesn't like the European position of women as property, and the band as a shackle.
Is she unattractive perhaps?
I know women who are not married but do wear one most of the time because it is at least a partial deterrent to unwelcome men pestering them. Not all men are deterred, but it does make a worthwhile difference, they tell me. They are attractive women.
I (male) am married but I don't wear a ring because women don't "pester" me, and I am not sure I would not wlecome it if they did. Women don't tend to pester men anyway unless they look like Brad Pitt in his prime.
Thus it is largely a practical matter. How you get the idea of it meaning "property" out of this is beyond me. Does a necklace mean property too? A bracelet? Most women like jewelery anyway (some wear rings on all fingers and toes), and it all needs to be attached by some kind of "shackle" or it tends to drop off.
After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.
