Aperson

Fair enough, I guess. One very minor point: How the heck can you blame the exporting of jobs to developing countries on the government? For the vast majority of cases that's a businesses decision. The currently obvious exception would be the ports, but in general thatÔÇÖs a management thing and so is very few jobs being "lost" to foreign countries. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe economics are a zero-sum game. The only why the government would be able to stop exporting of jobs to foreign countries is by imposes rather stringent regulations on said companies.

quote:Originally posted by Soback: Were they eating well done steak in that reastaurant? Because you do know that steak is a carcinogen, right? How did they determine if it was the cigarette smoke from rather then the steak they ate every Friday night at that same restaurant. Err, please reread my post. And wasn't the steak = carcinogen only true if it is cooked improperly.

quote:I'll refer you to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Find the ones that aren't being practiced in the United States in one form or another. Actually I was wondering what Bush was doing in particular that was socialist. (Granted I don't know a whole lot about the American governing system so I'm not completely sure how much power the President has besides the veto.) Soback: What about the other, other 20%, or did they cross the border the moment people started executing and forcing them into prison camps.

Err, what's with the calling Bush a socialist? I'm unaware of any government projects that could be considered that (except, perhaps the "No Child Left Behind" thingy). So if you could tell what they are that'd be nice. Or in the U.S., is that anything that comes within a billion kilometres of socialism get you called a socialist?

I have a feeling that all carcinogens do not effect the body equally, but I may be wrong. Oh and the way they figured out smoking was a significant contributing factor of lung cancer is that lots of people were smoking, then several decades later, the percentage of the population that had lung cancer rose in similar amounts to how many people were smoking so many decades ago. A similar but opposite effect is happening now. That's how they know that "wow, smoking greatly increases your chance of cancer". Another way is that they take one group, who smokes (the test subjects), and they take another group with no smokers (the control) and then compare their morality rates and when they die. They generally make sure that other factors arenÔÇÖt present so the two groups are as similar as possible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most people working in facilities with carcinogenic substances floating around usually proper protective gear?

People often erroneously say smoking causes cancer. What they actually mean is that it increases the chance of cancer. Everyone has a chance of dieing from cancer, however small, as cells DNA naturally mutates. Smoking increases that chance because it can increase the mutation rate which increases the chance of the mutation causing cancerous growth. So obviously genetics is apart of this but its certainly not the only factor (in the case of smokers, lifestyle choices greatly contribute). You probably know this but you sound like your saying smoking has little to no contribution.

Silly observation but quote:and a third party hasn't a chance in hell.Isn't not voting for a third party because it has no chance a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

It appears they miscalculated how much traffic they would recieve (I got a Bandwidth Limit Exceeded error). But, it wouldn't be the first time a game combined a RTS with a FPS (Savage comes to mind).

I never really understood people who didn't put garbage... in the garbage cans. quote:Originally posted by echo: Finally, why is that painting worth 1.5 mil. Have you seen it? I think the value of a painting is mainly based on two factors: How famous (in the art world) the painter is (was). How long the artist has been dead. But that's just me...

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: And here is another Dubai firm that DOES deal with port security (with ties to Sandy Berger and the son of the PRC's president no-less): Sandy Berger & son of China President linked to Port Security International quote:PSI has an alliance with the China-based Nuctech, a company that "possesses the largest manufacture base of Linear Accelerator X-ray inspection machines to inspect containers at ports in the world." (www.secureports.com/partner.htm).Couldn't they theoretically know how to get stuff through these scanners? Just wondering out loud. It's just a private business deal I'm sure. Don't be silly, any smuggler worth his or her salt should already know how to get stuff through x-ray scanners, heck, you could probably find that information on the internet. The only thing the company can do is make faulty scanners but I would hope that any port would double check the scanners before using them (then again common sense is a misnomer).

So, as a not-conservative, I should have a completly opposite view then I do (i.e. not caring) and should instead think that the U.S. shouldn't let them in? Damn, this thinking along-what-other-people-think-your-politicle-posistion-should-think is hard. quote: You know, we conservatives are allowed to disagree from time to time without having to resort to slinging insults. Or anyone else for that matter.

Meh, its actually 21 ports that the terminals are from. link

I would have disagree. Given that such events that most parents are worried over happen less due to MySpace than they do in any other location with similar numbers, there's little reson to ask for the website to be shut down. Furthermore education and parents warning their children of the dangers should help prevent the ability of predators of abducting or seducing the users.

What about the other five ports? How many terminals do they own of them?

I will give you the fact that cameras can be hard to tell their exact direction. But... quote:Or cameras can only be in non-residential areas. Or that the cameras can only look one way or canÔÇÖt be manually operated.There are several other rules and restrictions that could be added to help protect citizens' privacy rights.

quote:Can you do the same with the camera?Um, yeah. You should be able to see the camera looking directly at your house given that most outdoor cameras have a fairly obvious orientation. Then you could take a picture. Heck take several pictures from several angles so the angle and where itÔÇÖs pointing for better proof. Then take it to the authorities. If they ignore it, take it to the same place where you would if they ignore your allegations of the cop looking through your window. On the plus side you have more proof on top of your pictures because the film would be in storage, and if theirs a huge gap, then that's more than enough evidence to investigate. But what if they donÔÇÖt have an obvious orientation you might ask? Simple, make sure your government only allows cameras that have obvious directional marking. Or cameras can only be in non-residential areas. Or that the cameras can only look one way or canÔÇÖt be manually operated. But they could change the rules you might say. Then IÔÇÖd have to say thatÔÇÖs a non-argument as they could change the rules for the police as well.

Maybe because the way the US is developing its not going in that direction. Like most developed countries its becoming more service-orientated. These do however generally require more academic ability than industrial or agricultural jobs.

A person might not always notice the police officer right away, that and they could be hiding, looking from a long(er) ditance etc. or are you syaing we shouldn't have police either because of what they "might" do. Granted officials using cameras might be more likely to use it to look places where they shouldn't be given that its harder to spot the camera sometimes. Of course any evidence they collect unlawfully would be rendered inamissable. If your going to argue that what if they don't use it for evidence. Simple, there's very little differance between a person watching (who might be good at hiding or be able to stay at very long distance) and someone watching from a camera in terms of likeihood of being caught.

Since the security control isn't in the hands of the UAE, I really don't see what the problem is. That and any terrorist that would want to sneak stuff through the poorly guarded ports would have to be idiots to choose one that an Arabian company owns. quote:To top all this off - Bush is threatening to use his very first Veto to block Congress' attempt to look into this. That's a bit suspicious. How much do you think he was paid?

Anything a police officer is allowed to see or look at a camera should be able to see or look at as well (compared to an officer that doesnÔÇÖt have a warrant for any special viewing privileges). So if an officer is not allowed to stare into your house, neither should the camera be able. Or if said officer isn't allowed to look at your license, neither can the camera. If however you go right up to the camera and stick your license in front of its lens, tough. Security cameras are not-so-new technology that can be useful to figure who a criminal is. However choosing not to use such a tool because of rights violations that may happen is rather silly. Rights violations will happen simply because the police officers are human and therefore prone to corruption and mistakes. Any evidence gathered from the video tapes (if they actively follow your person) would have to proven that it was done with "justifiable causeÔÇØ. It should be noted that the police are generally considered guilty until proven innocent on evidence they collect. quote: Let me tell you, IT'S NOT LEGAL for a police officer to even look at your license if you haven't violated the law, and if you have, he has to ASK to see your licence, he can't just take it from you.Minor nitpick: If your broke a crime that he or she can arrest you for, the officer can then arrest you, then search you and then take your license and look at it (At least in Canada itÔÇÖs considered ÔÇ£justifiable causeÔÇØ to search a person after they have been arrested).

Cameras in public spaces are fine, since the police are allowed to be there the whole time there really is no differance between an officer standing there and a camera being installed. Cameras in private places are only fine if the resident wishes there to be one (which many people that are suscribed to a private security compnay opt for).

The link you posted came up with an error: Required cookie was not found, or expired. Please log in.

What makes you think that? I'm unaware of any countries (with a national health care system) doing so already.

http://www.bakersfield.com/24hour/world/st...-11869280c.html Got to love how rumours get started eh?

And this is how they jutify their pay checks. On a more serious note; I'm fine as long as the judical branch treats Cheney as a normal person with regards to the law.