"The crime rate has plummeted in recent decades, you know."
White collar and government criminals aren't being prosecuted, except for drug or sex crimes. It only LOOKS like the crime rate has plummeted.
Even if you look only at violent crime, crime rates have plummeted pretty much every year since the 1950s.
So which is Booz Allen? Government or citizen?
According to SCOTUS, citizen. More of a citizen than you are, actually: they have all the rights (free speech, etc) and none of the responsibilities (cannot be made to serve jury duty/drafted, etc).
The Ribbon's not so bad; it's just a tabbed toolbar that's extra-thick so it can display more information than a normal one. I just want to be able to search the menus too, like you can in LO/Ubuntu.
Frankly, I had forgotten how vocally anti-gay Orson Scott Card is these days. Good thing he reminded me; otherwise I probably wouldn't have remembered to boycott his movie.
Gotta love the Streisand effect
Someone has to get this into Nintendo's hands.
And all the lessons will be presented out of order.
Unions can't stop car companies from building cars that noone wants to buy. The decline in the auto industry has been a long, long time in coming. Only a very little of it came from union workers putting out a high quality product; most of it came from an entrenched, byzantine management structure that never caught on that there were other games in town other than the Big Three.
To be clear, the "demand" is on the business side, and it's for IT workers that only make $8-10 an hour so the CEO can shave a few million off the personnel budget and buy himself another yacht. The evidence for that is crystal clear: wages are down, unemployment is up, and companies are still importing cheap labor because they "can't find qualified people".
The right not to buy health insurance. The right not to buy some form of it I don't want.
The federal government has no business being able to tell me to buy something. That is not a power that it has been granted. It does not get to exceed the powers it's been granted.
If the states do something, or are allowed to do something, that has absolutely ZILCH to do with what is legal for the federal government.
Thus the problem of appalling civics education in America. You have idiots running around spreading idiocy that's a direct threat to the rule of law.
You are perfectly free to not buy health insurance, even under the new Affordable Care Act. The government, however, has the right to collect taxes to promote the general welfare, and having hospital emergency rooms that exist and are open to the public (and can't turn people away) is obviously promoting the general welfare, so the government has decided to assess a tax for people who act as deadbeats and don't buy insurance, yet still want to be part of a society where emergency rooms exist and are open to the public. If you don't want to be part of such a society, you are free to move to Somalia, where you can get the best health care you can buy.
Scientists should take courses on Rational Thinking. That's basically what you're after here, and it has the advantage of specifically targetting the problems you are trying to address, rather than taking the shotgun approach and trying to get every STEM student to become a Renaissance Man.
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.
The theory behind the greenhouse effect is nearly two hundred years old at this point, having first been articulated in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier. Proof that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is over 150 years old. That makes the principles behind anthropogenic climate change:
-older than Quantum Mechanics
-older than General and Special Relativity
-older than the theory of the electron
-older than the discovery of the DNA molecule
-older than the theory of evolution
-older, in many ways, than the germ theory of disease.
At this point, considering the enormous weight of theory and proof behind global warming, anyone claiming to be a climatologist who "doesn't believe in global warming" is essentially like an auto mechanic who "doesn't believe in internal combustion", or a doctor who "doesn't believe the brain is necessary for life." If you can't bring yourself to believe in scientific theories that have been proven by millions of people diligently applying the scientific method, then you shouldn't be a scientist. You should be something that does not require the application of the principles of rationality: you can be a priest, or a politician.
Or a radio host.
Then why in the fuck are we entrusting a bunch of corrupt politicians to draft and vote on healthcare reform whom know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor why it's jacked up to begin with?! They didn't even read it which makes it all that more insulting!!!
Wrong thread; this is about the clusterfuck that is climate change regulation, not the clusterfuck that is healthcare reform.
But, to answer your "question" anyway: politicians used to be trusted because their expertise was in writing laws; the actual science behind those laws would be entrusted to expert research by the NSF and the CBO, etc. We're not getting that now because for the past thirty years or so we no longer have professional lawmakers in our legislature; we have professional fundraisers. Nobody in Congress even spends the majority of their time in the legislature anymore; they spend the majority of their time across the street, soliciting donations for their next campaign. They have to; these days, with all the anonymous money flooding the airwaves a campaigner has to spend insane amounts of money to even have a chance of controlling their own campaign messaging, let alone confronting an opponent's.
Why is it out of line to expect actual expertise from someone giving an expert opinion? I wouldn't trust a climatologist to fix my car; I wouldn't trust my mechanic to treat me if I were ill; and I don't expect a professional demagogue--like this radio host of yours--to be an expert at anything but demagoguery.
The landscape will look very different by year's end.
This can be said at any point since the invention of the cell phone. These are the facts as of today, and those are the ones that matter in a purchasing decision.
Most years, the networks in the U.S. don't change that much. This year is HUGE, though, and basing a purchasing decision on things right now would be a gigantic mistake.
But again, the same could be said of any year, especially in recent memory. 2011-12 was when AT&T deployed most of its LTE network; any tests done then would be unfair to AT&T. 2008-09 was Verizon's time for LTE; same there. 2013-14 is T-mobile's turn, and 2015-2017 is when the real synergy effects from the T-mobile/MetroPCS merger, when the MetroPCS spectrum will be finally integrated into the T-mobile network.
I thought T-Mobile was putting all their eggs into the HSDPA+42[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HSPA%2B_networks#U] basket.
That was in 2010, before the failed AT&T merger. Now T-mobile is flush with cash and spectrum, thanks to a billion dollar breakup fee from AT&T, and has started to rapidly deploy LTE across the country by refarming their 1700 MHz HSPA network to the 1900 band and using the freed up 1700 band for LTE (aka Band 4 LTE). Spectrum refarming, btw, is also what has given T-mobile enough 1900 MHz HSPA throughout the country to start selling the iPhone legitimately, as they can now gaurantee iPhone-compatible HSPA coverage in nearly all markets (iPhone can't communicate on the 1700 band.)
If all else fails, lower your standards.
