Where did I say people who vote for him are brainwashed? Implying that I did says more about you than it would about me if I had said such a silly thing. And I don't know the man, so my personal view of him is irrelevant. Maybe he's a great guy. But he's a horrible politician and president. Should have been kicked out years ago. As for his supposed 'exonerations'
Thank you for proving my point.
I had something similar happen. The thief (or fence) opened iTunes and it automatically connects to Last.fm. I didn't think the police would be much help in getting an IP address from there, if they had it. (Although Last.fm is based in London). Anyone here work at Last.fm?
lobbyists never give up!
In this case the lobbyist is the president and his gang of thugs. The voters still love him though, so he stays in power despite countless scandals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Legal_problems ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Controversies. Democracy doesn't work so well when people vote on looks and television presence rather than actual issues. Or when one person control vast amounts of the news media.
If it actually mattered much to you, then wouldn't you do a little research to find someplace more suitable for you? If people don't care enough to even look for another place, then it must not be much of an issue.
Wrong. People have jobs, families, friends, lives. It takes time and effort to research something. Even if you really want a non-smoking bar, and it would affect your health otherwise, sometimes you just don't have the time or energy, or the inclination to make an effort to find one. People aren't always rational. Nor do they have unlimited time or resources.
How that justifies legislating away people's right to go to a bar that allows smoking is still something I can't fathom.
It's called democracy. You vote for representatives to represent your interests in the laws you want passed.
Requiring the labeling of food doesn't remove anyone's rights anymore than requiring that food not contain harmful amounts of poisonous substances.
It removes the right of manufacturers to choose to not pay for labels for their food. You can make anything into a 'right'. Doesn't mean it's not stupid.
Fox news claims to be 'fair and balanced'. I wouldn't have a problem with their bias otherwise. They should be upfront about it. I don't think any other news network crows about 'fair and balanced' whilst at the same time being so incredibly biased. That's what sets Fox apart from the other networks imo, even though the other networks are of course not unbiased either.
"Apple’s latest rules for developers who create apps for its devices limit the situations in which they can send approved information about their apps’ audiences to advertising services. The information cannot be sent to advertising networks that are affiliated with companies developing or distributing mobile devices or operating systems – a definition that effectively excludes Apple rivals like Google and Microsoft."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7ae5066-7408-11df-87f5-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss (Put it into google if it gives you the paywall.)
"US antitrust regulators plan to investigate whether Apple is unfairly restricting rivals such as Google and Microsoft in the market for advertisements carried on the iPhone, iPad and iPod, people familiar with the move said on Wednesday."
And import duty in the US? The iPad is not made there you know..
They're not exporting from the US to the UK. Well, at least not Apple. None of their stuff is manufactured in the US. The Chryslers sold here probably aren't made in the US either, right-hand drive, etc. iPads are made in China, I'm guessing.
isn't there an import duty in the US? they're made in china ya know..
yes, it's roughly the same in real or PPP and wage hour terms. The nominal exchange rate only matters if you're exporting/importing, or you're earning in one currency and buying in another.
My problem with these scientists (as revealed in the leaked emails) was two things:
1) It showed that the scientists have a very real agenda. While I understand that everyone feels strongly about things sometimes and scientists are only human, when a good scientist notices that he favors a hypothesis, he will test it more rigorously, to make sure it is not his feelings that are distorting his view. This seems to be the opposite approach to what these scientists are taking: they are happy when people who disagree with them die. They show a willingness to try to suppress contrary evidence, even if it means changing the peer review process. Not good stuff, and it makes it hard to trust them.
Yes, when they talked about the death of denialists and changing peer review, they were being totally serious.
2) The presentation to the general public is different than the presentation to scientists. When they publish in peer reviewed publications, they are careful to qualify their statements and not make unsupported conjectures (at least according to the review mentioned here, which I have no reason to doubt). When they speak to the public, the statements are often more dire, and not necessarily supported by the science. You see the results of this kind of stuff a lot, like with the Himalayan glaciers melting completely within the next 30 years (which turned out to be false) or if you talk to the average person about global warming, they will think that New York is going to be submerged, which is not supported by any peer reviewed research.
Scientists don't write newspapers, journalists do.
knight |nt|
noun
1 (in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor.
(in the Middle Ages) a man raised by a sovereign to honorable military rank after service as a page and squire.
poetic/literary a man devoted to the service of a woman or a cause : in all your quarrels I will be your knight.
dated (in ancient Rome) a member of the class of equites.
(in ancient Greece) a citizen of the second class in Athens.
verb [ trans. ] (usu. be knighted)
invest (someone) with the title of knight.
DERIVATIVES
knightliness |natlin1s| noun
knightly |natli| adjective & ( poetic/literary) adverb
ORIGIN Old English cniht [boy, youth, servant] ; related to Dutch knecht and German Knecht. Sense 2 dates from the mid 16th cent.; the uses relating to Greek and Roman history derive from comparison with medieval knights.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
