penniless

Well, ASSUMING someone's motives is always liable to error. I for one would have been interested to see what the issue was with this code. My ASSUMPTION is that Jan put it there for good reason, to illustrate her point. Of course, I'm not green, so what do I know?

I still think it wouldn't. Single crop economies (be that crop petroleum or wicker based) aren't usually very stable. My point is that if you want education to have productive (for society) outcomes, you need some kind of mechanism to encourage folks into areas of study that are of high value to society. That's why doctors get paid more than basketweavers. Although our current system is far from perfect, a system with no encouragement mechanism (everyone just gets to study whatever they want, for free) is definitely not a change for the better. In fact, it'd be likely to collapse under the weight of a huge student body, which would have to be supported by the relatively small number of people who chose to do productive work, rather than learning additional things. I think that was the point. Right now getting into a PhD program in chemical engineering is more difficult than one in medieval history, which makes no sense for society as a whole.

Is the community better off by having everyone get PhDs in basketweaving? . In an economy dependent on basketweavers it would be. After the oil runs out and we've destryed the forests maybe basket weaving will be really important again. Which particular basketweaving PhD program were you thinking of, anyhow?

I notice that Google brings up a lot of hits with "SCAM" or "WE DON'T ACCEPT SKYRIDE CERTICATES" etc., prominently displayed. Some from (real) DZs, and some on personal sites like Jan's and Kallend's.

John's had real personal attacks blown off, where this was actually funny and pretty light. Maybe it's a cumulative thing... Or maybe the greenies are just plain tired of the constant tone here lately and the bar is being raised. I can see a lot of people getting a 'break' in that case. In just the last week I've read in SC direct accusations of libel, plagiarism and lying, with no repercussions. SAVE KALLAND

Right, understood - but why would you 'cover' someone that wasn't a threat? Believe it or not, legal gun owners are not vigilantes or Rambos, regardless of what the press (or the Brady bunch) say. You wrote "Used to show *WHY* you should cover a possible assailant rather than waiting for them to make the first move." I interpretd "possible" to mean possible as opposed to actual, and "you" to mean the reader. Simple misunderstanding, like I thru X meaning piggies.

And what else would you consider someone who has broken into your house? The Tooth Fairy? I interpreted your statement as a general one concerning people you think may be a threat. In case of home invasion I dont have a problem since its pretty clear that they ARE a threat.

So people should be banned on account of what YOU read into their posts? Curious. If I assumed anything, it would be foot in mouth. But that is just me. I dont think my assumptions should be grounds for criticizing someone else.

I didn't read it that way at all. Yiou are making a big assumption.

Well, I watched Gettysburg in the theater. I think that was 5 hours. No big deal if there's an intermission so you can stretch and walk around a bit.

So it's OK that a police officer killed someone who posed a direct threat to -HIS- life, but it's not OK if I do it? Is that the gist of it? - Jim Don't misquote me. There's a big difference between covering someone who IS a direct threat, and someone you suspect may be a possible one.

Yep, the Tueller drill - a normal male can traverse 21 feet (that's about the distance across an average living room) in roughly 2 seconds. Used to show *WHY* you should cover a possible assailant rather than waiting for them to make the first move. Fine for the police. I'd not like to see any Tom Dick or Harry with a CCW covering everyone they thought was a possible assailant.

Chicago, August 2000?

Unfortunately kids from families in higher income brackets may have difficulty getting aid for college....unless they work for a few years first. But there's nothing wrong with waiting a few years for college either. Just be sure to earn a relatively profitable degree so that you can pay those loans back in a few years.... Brains are an asset that shouldnlt be wasted.

Kallend can't - he's banned. Holy crap! Really? Geez, you stop paying attention for a week, and this is what happens... It's a temporary ban, right? here: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1409935#1409935

Kallend can't - he's banned.

I disagree. I went college, got loans (which I am currently repaying), and was the son of fairly wealthy parents. Want to help your kid? Take him off of -your- taxes and quit claiming him as a dependent, it worked for me. - Jim When was that? Federal financial aid rules change regularly, and they never get simpler. Under Bush they've got much more restrictive.

In the '50s Woolworth was the dominant retailer. When did you last see a Woolworth store?

www.give.org/ provides information on thousands of charities.

I would venture a guess that the pilot told ATC the bearing and estimated distance of the source from his current position and ATC just figured it out from there. I don't think anything ATC has can pick up a laser directly. They have a hard enough time seeing planes squawking 1200.

That's a personal attack. I've banned you from Speaker's Corner. Just out of curiousity (so I can avoid similar shunning), how do you figure? Ron asked what the roman numerals I through X might represent other than the 10 commandments. Kallend's response could either be construed as "toes" or "the numbers 1-10", neither of which come across as an attack on Ron or anyone else. Blues, Dave Is there a response to this? I'm sure we'd all like to know what the new rules are.

Nothing's wrong with the final 6 of them (or 7, depending on which version you use). I think some people have a problem with Commandments 1 - 3 (or 4, depending on which version). If a Hindu in the USA wishes to make a golden calf, worship many gods, and not keep the Sabbath, why shouldn't she? If that Hindu enters a government establishment should she have to see a document posted telling her that she is sinning by pursuing her own religion? That seems to me to be a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. I for sure don't keep the Sabbath. I bet a lot of skydivers don't keep the Sabbath. The Catholic, Protestant and Jewish versions are slightly different, and the Dueteronomy version is not identical with the Exodus version.

from this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142815,00.html If this is accurate, does anyone know seriously why France's contribution is so small in comparison? They aren't a small country, or economically worse off than other European nations. Anyway, i'm curious if anyone can shed any light on this. Thanks Germany's contribution is very large. Do we still hate the Germans?

Added to which are record amounts of credit card debt.

By "improvement" you mean the homo-centric view of what is better, don't you? From a survival of the genes point of view bacteria and cockroaches are likely much better than humans.