metalslug

..as opposed to.. I'm no lawyer, but it does seem as though PETA will not be attempting to classify animals as human, but rather to confirm that an existing law extends to animals based on it's current wording. Moreover, if the suit is as absurd as it seems, could the plaintiffs be liable to penalty under Rule 11 (frivolous litigation) ?

Link I have a question for those in the know; This satellite was placed in orbit in 1990 and served until 1999, and now 12 years on it is re-entering earth. It does not have a propulsion system so... why now ? I am assuming there was no active mechanism to control it's orbit altitude during it's 9 years of service. Likewise there was no mechanism during it's 1999 shutdown to propel it to a rapid earth re-entry orbit. I am risking a guess that the satellite may have intentionally been placed in a very gradual earth re-entry orbit on the day it was launched, closing the distance to earth by a few miles each year, in a path calculated for re-entry sometime after it's service life. Is this how it works ? ..or is ROSAT's re-entry a fluke?

Well that clarifies the Elton John song. The music video had me thinking he was singing about a lady.

That's the second time in recent days you've mentioned this. I don't mean to hijack the thread; but was this law directly inspired by actual baseball rules? ....as opposed to a lazily adopted phrase from the mere coincidence that the law, as envisioned by it's proponents, just happened to include a 3 convictions system ? Would the law be any more sensible or more logical if it were called "Proposition 184" or "Penal Code Section " ?

From extensive experience in this field; I would say that the comments made by the "blittrell" user below the article are a substantially better read than the article itself.

UN report: Israel's Gaza blockade legal Do not flame the source, there are many other links to the official report. The report does however find that the IDF used "excessive and unreasonable" force to stop vessels. To me that's a subjective opinion. These were commandos, not the coast guard. It's a bit like saying that Gordon Ramsay used "excessive and unreasonable" skill in preparing a salad.

The people making these claims have a lawsuit pending against government on the issue. Since I will assume that educated lawyers somewhere have agreed to take this case, I am reminded of lawrocket's "calling people 'stupid'" thread. Are these 'smart' lawyers who are making easy money from their clients on a case that they know would be unwinnable? ...or are they (y'know, the other kind) ?

Well.. this incident did happen in Africa, the proverbial red-headed stepchild continent, and on that alone it is unlikely to draw comment from the predominantly non-African membership here. "What's outside of Pleasantville?"

Debt has little to do with low income and more to do with how you manage your finances. In my first job years ago I was paid 'peanuts' and yet I had no debt. I was living in a studio apartment with a fridge, a bed and a cheap computer, had no kids (by choosing not to have them), and rode a bicycle for 3 years while i saved up to buy my first car with cash, pre-owned and barely in working order. Poverty can be a terrible thing; but it is not an automatic precursor to debt.

Nope, it's profiling, and it also happens right here in S.A. by black cops on black vehicle drivers (who are a road user minority). I already addressed this with you in an older thread.

Several threads have appeared in this forum in recent months regarding alleged police brutality or improper conduct. By my understanding of U.S. law; you are required to cooperate with LEO's at all times and there is seldom an excuse for resisting arrest. However, in the context of U.S. incidents, my question is this; If, in your opinion, a LEO displays improper conduct towards you; you may be inclined to suspect that the LEO is an imposter, a fake, due to the improper conduct being displayed. If you were to then cease cooperation, resist arrest and 'escape' to the nearest police precinct to report the matter.... could you then make a defense that you did not resist arrest because you had reasonable grounds to believe that the LEO was not a legitimate officer ? "Real cops would have followed procedure, real cops would not have done XXXXX..." Does it sound like a stretch? Not so much over here. A number of incidents occurred here in which crimes were committed by criminals impersonating police officers; complete with authentic uniforms, vests, blue lights, and in some cases even marked cars. This equipment had either been stolen from police suppliers or was "on loan" from corrupt officers. The result was that the national police commissioner made a public announcement that it was now acceptable to evade police on the condition that you direct yourself immediately to the nearest police station (as it's called here) and report the incident. Under such circumstances you would be very unlikely to face charges of resisting arrest. "Officer, a moment ago I evaded arrest because I did not believe that rude thug was a real cop... so I'm here to report the matter." Would anything like that "fly" in the U.S system ?

I, for one, cannot help but wonder if many of the more liberal comments on this forum are made glibly by those who are safe in the knowledge that they will never become a minority in their own country. There is another thread on this forum regarding a woman who hangs plastic testicles on her car. From the comments there so far the general feeling is that this type of person represents an unusual mentality that most members here would not voluntarily socialize with at their next barbeque. Similarly, many here may choose to avoid people who display ignorance, or have poor personal hygiene, or who take bribes, or any number of other quirks or lifestyle choices that they might not be comfortable with. Keep in mind such people are not objectively "wrong" or "bad", they are not of any particular ethnicity, they are not specifically democrats or republicans, Christian or Islamic. They may just be different from yourself in some unacceptable way and if such people became the dominant type of resident in your neighbourhood you would probably move to a different neighbourhood. Bigotry and choice of association are not limited to race or religion. Imagine, just for a wild moment, that the vast majority of US government representatives were people with some quirk, trait, education level or lifestyle choice that you disapprove of. They were elected through a democratic process and so you would be OK with that situation, right ? ..or not ? Not too long ago South Africa became the home of South Africans. It became fair, it became democratic, and the world applauded. Of course since then damn near every branch of government has been in decline; unprecedented corruption and weekly news stories here that make even the most outrageous U.S. politics seem completely professional. So what can people do who don't like their 'new' country ? Well, they can leave of course. It's a very fair solution, but certainly not a cheap and easy one for most citizens. Is this what you would offer to the "Jewish Nation" in a truly democratic Israel? The freedom to leave and find a new home... again? Would you leave the U.S. if government policy became radically different from your own values, with no chance of a turnaround? Should you leave? Would your friends and colleagues leave? Could they leave if they wanted to? ...or would you all just suck it up?

Say what ? Cats ? Are you having an "Island of Doctor Moreau" moment ?

I'm pretty sure it didn't quite happen like that. It's just not that easy to remove a head.

Land "grab" seems like an overly hostile term, does it not? This is a lease agreement, paid for legally and approved by the powers that be. Food production, employment and foreign investment in Africa. All good things, no ? According to the articles you referenced; If China, India and Saudi Arabia were to ignore these African lands and continue exclusively in their own countries then their cost of production, and therefore the cost of their products (food) would increase. I'm not quite understanding the "conflict" context of your post title. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

IMO South Africa is an interesting comparisson here, but not in the way that you are using it. In SA, the reality is that it was completely possible (not necessarily preferable) to sustain that system for several decades more at least. Much like Israel over Palestine, the SA minority had the military and policing resources to quite easily suppress the 'opposition' indefinitely. The decision to change came from within the minority themselves, the 1992 Referendum, and is widely believed (among locals) that sport isolation was the main factor in this change of heart. My point is that different nations have different priorities. I quite believe that a nation like Israel could sustain pretty much anything they wanted to for as long as they choose to, whether that be for better or for worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/bushs-glib-waterboarding_n_599893.html Can we assume you're taking the "Waterboarding is not torture" stance ?

I'm curious to know how Lao Tsu was able to be an effective teacher by not talking. I agree that KidWicked's comments are completely irrelevant to this thread but I also remain amused by anyone who quotes some obscure figure from history as though this single person's statement is somehow a universally accepted truth or standard for a given topic.

My BIOS password on my first home PC back in 80's was "guess". Not very secure, but good for a laugh. When a hardware techie needed access to change some components and asked for the password, naturally I told him to "guess". Some bemused stares were exchanged before the penny dropped.

Is there no other leverage that these players might have other than union action ? Could they form a breakaway league of their own? Could they collectively refuse to renew their contracts ? I've always thought that in most sports, as with most employment, you will always find someone who is still willing to sign up despite the issues as mentioned. If a contract stipulates that no long-term health benefits are included, and players are still signing on the line, then surely they can only look to themselves afterwards ? Unions can certainly serve a purpose when the claims are fair and warranted, but there is a tendency sometimes for unions to (metaphorically speaking) move the goal area once the game has already started.

Heh, interesting that you mention sport. You're probably already aware of the parallels that some have drawn between sport and battle, that both feed the competitive nature of man. Wear your team's shirt, wave their banner, paint your face in their colors and cheer them to victory.

I've only met 6 people from DZ.com, and none of them are either female or American The only person to ever catch my eye, from online evidence, was Chelle (Conundrum), and that was back in 2004.

Why bother with what? The war? The outcome of a war seldom changes people's opinions, it usually only determines who's opinion becomes the rule of law and the government of the day. America has fought wars for democracy too and I'm pretty sure that this is not the first time that a poll has revealed a potential vote outcome that would fly in the face of fairness or justice. Some questions I have though, that I'm hoping others can answer: When Mississippi legalized interracial marriage 45 years ago, was it a consequence of a vote outcome or a federal/constitutional ruling? If it was a vote outcome, what could have swayed public opinion since then to bring about this new trend? If interracial marriage was once again banned in a specific state, would/could a federal ruling overturn it? Can we be certain that all votes to ban interracial marriage are cast exclusively by a caucasian demographic?

"will be" , not "are" In other words, your maximum age that you will achieve during the current year, whether that has happened yet or not. I'm not sure how this measures as a "phenomenon" though, it's pretty ordinary arithmetic, and it only works for people born during the 20th century.

How certain are you that this is fact ? You would need to set clearer parameters for "bad situations" in this context. A person, motivated by anger, who is defending themselves, their family or their property from harm or theft, is arguably not in a bad situation, as opposed to passively surrendering to the threat. The level of 'detachment' from anger varies from person to person. As an example, it has often been said that courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to overcome fear. That same belief is countered by those who say that if you have never reacted on fear then you have probably underestimated the danger of the situation. The same is true of anger. There are absolutely survival situations that exist where anger cannot, and should not, be detached.