nathaniel

They follow the Sharia, which gives Islamic cultures the moral high ground when they win wars. See the whole history of the middle ages for example. It's entirely symmetric. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

+1 You are staring down the barrel of a business opportunity My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I don't see that there's a conflict at all. Skydiving both contributes to and benefits from global warming. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Indeed, the great USA, the world's only superpower, afraid of a tiny courtroom. A truly fearsome opponent. Let us commence the war on international justice before it is too late! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I like that idea. Congress should just hop on the ICC bandwagon and let the international community give him the Milosevic treatment. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Well there was that whole Enlightenment thing, the invention of the university system and the end of the Dark Ages. I'd chalk it up to Western Culture instead of any nationalist perversion. Universities are why we are chatting via computer instead of face to face, riding around in cars instead of on mules, living in a thriving global economy instead of dying in epidemics and all that. Striking out at the university system is to attack the roots of our culture. At least some people think so. Soldiers, on the other hand, are paid to fight and risk death among other things. While their contributions should neither be underestimated, it's not out of the ordinary when they get hurt or killed. It's like the difference between dropping a brick on your hand vs on your head. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You won't wonder when you know. Take your time, the air will still be there when you have a few hundred jumps. You are ready when 1- you're willing to do something crazy and stupid and don't mind getting scared, hurt or killed in the process or 2- you have the means to evaluate your own competence. usually involves another skydiver not as crazy as you, ideally an instructor or a coach and probably someone who knows how to fly a wingsuit already. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Don't give em your credit card. Seriously tho, limit / eliminate minors' responsibility for debts incurred. The gambling places will figure it out on their own if they can't get paid for it. Then minors would only be able to play pre-paid, and that's hard without credit somewhere. Most minors don't have access to that kind of cash. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I don't think it's the prisoner's dilemma. First off because neither of the unions and the management had discrete choices. Second because the outcomes are structured differently in the different time periods. But pretending that it was a boolean choice between pension and no pension, the mgmt played along when the unions were burning them--mgmt were probably better off at the time and figured they could renegotiate down the line before the burn set in, but never took adequate steps to do so. I do think that the political climate was different when the deals were made and fate was sealed--I gather unions had much greater political influence then, and I gather that a greater proportion of voters these days identify themselves as owners of capital. In this way it may be or have been part of mgmt's strategy to go bankrupt, break the union obligations once and for all via court order or bailout, and emerge from bankruptcy freshly competitive. They may have been banking on an inevitable bailout when they signed the deals, and the same political currents that today have weakened the unions have also reduced their prospects for a bailout. If they were truly cunning they'd go out of business for a while but finagle some kind of deal to preserve the capital assets and the IP, and open up again in a year with a new logo and without the unions. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Well yes but they're not exclusive. Mgmt's biggest mistake appears to have been pension arrangements with the unions. Along with lots of other big and small mistakes of course, but the cost of the pension commitments was seriously misjudged--the quantities involved are staggering. Had the UAW understood what they were asking for I doubt they would have negotiated for it in the first place. I'm not totally certain--it'd be an interesting econometric question to look at. Perhaps the unions did better for themselves by juicing out the manufacturers and going out of business by 2010 than they would have by rolling over and continuing business, esp if they're able to get much out of the manufacturers as they go bankrupt. I doubt it tho--presumably the money is substantially getting spent in support of retirees' lifestyles and not getting substantially invested. Throw in the risk of regulatory intervention and I think it's a losing game for the unions still tho. Tough question. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

At least she didn't say anything about his nappy hairpiece. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

heh someone played this game at my job. after I decrypted the original message I "encrypted" a reply out of truly random data. had people scratching their heads for weeks

I'd say a fair bit of racism, and a surfeit of pride. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

In techno / club music it's called DJ Shoes-in-the-dryer. AKA DJ Trainwreck. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I'm sure he didn't mean to get caught. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

lol my browser has an option to reject javascript functions that trigger on the right mouse button. I can download the image to view it. Once it's in my computer's memory what makes you think there is any way to prevent it from being saved except with my cooperation? They have a record in their logs that I downloaded it, and if they are serious they can subpoena my ISP. This gets into DRM, it's not entirely settled in technical terms but in pragmatic terms the legal side dominates. If they catch you and are of a mind to sue, there's a good chance your goose is cooked. Considering how easy it is to find (or make) royalty free content, it's not worth even the slightest risk, imo. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You must have read the King Jif version. In the original Italian the word actually means something more like "tomato sauce". Forming a mountain and a midgit. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Consider it an investment with a ~20 year maturity (2-3 generations actually). It's been well studied, and the results are settled except perhaps to extremists, mostly racists and other varieties of ignorant types. The first movers (working-age) gives more than they take, but their old and infirm, whom they insist upon bringing over with them take more than they give. Around the second generation the whole lot tend to move to other states and join the economy not unlike the average garden variety American. In the long term, the balance is hugely positive in terms of giving back more than they take, ie considering the net effects over multiple generations. There is scant economic basis to dislike immigration. This study chips away at the other possible reasons to dislike it. Let's trot out the usual strawmen: 1- "they takes our jorbs!" - the number of jobs in the economy is not constant, immigrants create jobs as well as take jobs. The net effect is positive. 2- "they depresses our wages!" - there is evidence to the contrary. In some sectors tho, esp unskilled labor, this is probably true. On the other hand, labor becomes cheaper, and cheap unskilled labor can serve to unlock your time to be spent more productively--for instance inexpensive childcare could allow someone to work full time instead of part time (or not at all and living on welfare). 3- "immigrants is criminals" - apart from the statutory definition (by which immigration is currently artificially restricted to our own detriment), there isn't any reason to believe that immigrants as a whole are more dangerous than locally born Americans. There are definitely gangs and criminals among them, just as there are among the home grown variety of Americans. 4- "immigrants today is different than they was" - we've got a long history of intolerance toward immigrants in the US, that's the same as it's always been. 5- "legal immigrants are OK, illegal immigrants are different" - only under the eyes of the law. they're much the same, otherwise, and there's ample historical precedent. 6- "they look and smell different than we do! and they have funny names and accents. they wave around different flags and listen to different music!" - touché! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Speaking of which http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/apsa-whi033007.php My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

The real controversy is that they didn't use white chocolate. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Yeah you guys, don't forget Poland! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-bird-flu,0,1078642.story?coll=sns-ap-health-headlines Just recently started sharing with the World Health Organization again after the WHO agreed not to forward the samples on to vaccine makers. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Because they got older. This is a phenomenon that's well studied in academia. On average people get more risk-averse as they age. Also women tend to be more risk-averse than men, shorter people than taller people, poor people than wealthy people, and so on. All averages, so we should not be surprised when we see the same averages being borne out again. There are (at least) two ways to promote the sport 1- cater to people already willing to accept the risk 2- work on convincing the world that the risks are worth accepting, that it's OK to do dangerous things when the benefits outweigh the costs. Type 1 is easier because these people you just need to draw out of the woodwork. This is your standard radio ad or newspaper advertisement. Let people know where the DZ is and these people will tend to show up on their own. But it predisposes you to receive the underlying population based on what they already think. Type 2 is harder, it's the kind of thing that needs broad marketing campaigns, seductive placement in media like movies and TV shows etc and such that a single DZ isn't going to be able to do alone, and ought not to do alone. The USPA or a similar ecumenical (for lack of a better word) institution would be well placed to do this, and would be do well to tap members for connections to major media and social outlets. This type of approach is more expensive, but it allows you to cultivate demographics. Some demographics might be more receptive to the idea than others--for instance recent retirees might have both more disposable income and free time than recent parents, and in spite of their predisposition (due to age) to avoid risk retirees might be easier to solicit than parents. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I'll give you $5 if your rule cures line twists. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?