das1330

It has been empirically proven that in most cases depression drugs function as nothing more then a placebo, so you are likely right; at least partially. ADD has been chemically identified; but ADHD as a diagnosis remains controversial.

Is the paper really that bad? I see lots of British people complaining about various newspapers, but do they truly bend the news or is this just political pandering?

You are mostly, but not entirely correct. While the game was not open to the public until 2001, many people did play it in it's early stages in 2000 (including many of the people who founded Tipit)

I love Kraft mac and cheese. Its been months since I have gotten the stuff, but while it's easy to make it is incredibly hard to prefect. A true kraft masterpiece takes years to design and execute consistently. Microwaving is blasphemy; it kills noodle consistency.

I myself go to Europe frequently, stay at the best and have no objections. But that's because I'm using my parents money who are voluntarily paying not my fellow countryman's. And I wouldn't tell my friend to stay in America instead of going to a foreign country because they'd be using their own money so I'd have no right to tell them so. Plus the President receives a wage and generally is a man of wealth, so I think he should pay all expenses for his wife. Do you get national financial assistance with your vacation costs? And its the type of attitude that 'its only a few hundred thousand dollars and not much so it doesn't make a difference' that causes a country to have debt. Every drop counts and in a country that emphasizes its equality of all people and lack of a monarch I find it funny someone who isn't an elected official can consume so many funds for their own enjoyment. The first family did in fact pay for the vacation - public funds are used only in relation to official duties on behalf of the United States Government. Costs relating to things such as the security detail are incurred regardless of where she goes.

put into 20 year Greek sovereign bonds.

Assuming you mean uploading music...No, it's illegal here in canada. But when you download, say, a movie...Does it hurt anyone? Common response is "yes, you cheated the company out of the $_.__ they would have made if you bought/rented it. But, either way, I'm not going to pay for this movie or song i just downloaded. I can't afford to buy every piece of media i've ever downloaded. If I had to do that, I wouldn't listen to music. Either way, the companies make nothing off of me. (Slightly off topic, but still semi-related). Yes, maybe it's just me who's that way, but I doubt most people can afford to buy every song they've ever downloaded. By legal, I mean more along the lines of 'not punishable'. I've never heard about someone being sued in Canada for it because of the blank media tax. And yeah, I agree. I don't like music enough to buy $16.99 CDs and I refuse to support Itunes and their [cabbage] DRM. I still buy movies though, I only download them for my iPod (Converting DVDs is a pain in the ass), As for games Ive downloaded EUIII, Civilization and Victora and still bought them after I decided I liked them. If I was forced to buy music, Id probably use Amazon because it comes in MP3 and I get free gift cards from swagbucks. It is worth noting that Itunes no longer has any DRM.

The problem with any type of world government is that as of today most nations in the world are led by unelected, unaccountable and generally thuggish leaders. Such people would necessarily have influence in any potential type of world government which would invariably be negative and keep such a group from doing a good job. Take a look at the UN for one example - it's consistently mired in corruption and generally useless. Any "world government" type body would be similar. Additionally, differences between national economies mean that it is in the interest of some countries to not respect intellectual property rights. Simply put, it is far easier for China/India/(insert 3rd world nation here) to copy western technology then to buy it, or build their own. Such a fundamental conflict of interests makes international enforcement bodies unworkable.

Hello from off topic. While we are glad to have you here, threads with no topic other then "I'm here" contain little discussion value are usually locked. This one included. Still, welcome!

While it's not likely to be particularly effective, the move is perfectly legal.

More like someone's Econ homework. I am inclined to agree. Since there seems to be little discussion value in this topic, I am locking it. Feel free to PM me with questions regarding the post. I recommend you PM Warren Buffett for an answer to your question - he is quite knowledgeable about such things.

Is this intended to be a discussion about the state of the economy?

0/10 never seen you before.

In both my personal purchases and in large business buys I have never had any significant problems with Dells. That said, every manufacturer occasionally produces a defective product. You may simply have been unlucky. Regarding your battery, all lithium ion cells are made by the same two or three companies, so their performance should have no bearing on the relative quality of the attached laptop.

Asus, Acer and MSI are well known for producing subpar computers - quality is lower and customer service minimal. Recently I have had excellent luck with HP computers like the one listed Here and Dell computers; aside from premium brands like Sony & Apple both HP and Dell do quite well in building quality computers.

0

The American Revolutionary War began due to the British infringement of the civil rights of (at the time) colonists. As per the Deceleration of Independence and Bill of Rights, such abuses were numerous. As such, it was a war fought primarily for freedom and deserves to be commemorated.

It's not some conspiracy theory, Snipersas. Your original assertion remains a crazy conspiracy theory, I'm afraid. It is longstanding convention that prisoners of war fall under two classifications - enemy combatants and illegal enemy combatants. This difference was codified in the Geneva Conventions and established long before the war on terror ever occurred. As foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield in direct combat with the United States military, these people are not protected by the constitution but rather the Geneva conventions. This difference has been noted by numerous courts in several different cases, so I have highlighted the pertinent parts of your previous post for clarity. As these men fall under all three of the necessary classifications, they are not criminals under the constitution. The question then becomes whether they are legal or illegal enemy combatants. Since they wear no uniforms, engage in terrorist tactics and specifically target noncombatants, these men are legally classified as illegal enemy combatants, and thus technically subject to summary execution. As a result the United States actually treats them significantly better then legally necessarily - repatriation and/or charges are only required at the end of the conflict. Thus unless you can find a real example of an actual constitutional violation there is no argument to the contrary. Avoid personal attacks. They are not productive and not appreciated. http://scienceblogs....ll_destroys.php The key fact here that you seem to ignore is that your journalist reads one possible interpretation - one biased interpretation as unconstitutional. As the author already established no specific provision of the bill specifies anything unconstitutional and actually applying the bill in such a manner would be quickly overturned by the courts. Rather then chasing ghosts I suggest seeking specific real examples of problems before crying wolf.

Certainly an interesting view on life. The average American male has around a 10% chance of never marrying, so while you are in the minority it's not unheard of.

In fact the US would be able to shut down the internet. Because the internet was originally developed in the United States, the most basic backbones of it are located there. If those servers were shut down the entire internet would go offline as the information stored on them is not available elsewhere. That said, this bill is not terriblly important in that even if it passes the chance of a total internet shutdown is practically nonexistent, and if a shutdown did occur the situation precipitating the decision would likely be so severe that the action would be justified. Everyone - including the US government - is well aware of how important it is to the world. It goes without saying such a decision would not be taken lightly. For the past 225 years the United Sates constitution has guaranteed the right of anyone arrested to be formally charged with a crime - it has always been that way, and for the foreseeable future will always be that way. Once you are arrested the police have 24 hours to charge you, and despite any conspiracy theories you may have heard to the contrary there has never been any serious attempt to change this basic right.

Perhaps you should consider finding a new doctor.

I have only driven two manual transmission cars, both are sports cars and both are tons of fun to drive but I assume a Ferrari and Corvette would be fun to drive regardless. Outside of high performance cars however I see no point in manual transmissions for cars - you are not going to go racing in a Honda FIT - outside of cost concerns.

The fountainhead was an excellent book, but I preferred her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, which I just finished last week. Currently I'm about halfway through War and Peace, and next up is either the Koran or Torah, I'm not sure.

No, it's not legal for someone to confiscate things - a school may keep it until the end of the day; but if they do not give it back to you after that it is theft anywhere in the United States. If the security guard was a sworn police officer, they may keep it for an extended period, but only if it is evidence in a crime investigation. Go demand it back, get your parents in on it if they don't and report it stolen if they still won't return it. At my school your phone can be confiscated, turned into the campus police, and you'll need to bring a parent and they have to pay a fine in order to get it back. Why? Because it's in our student code of conduct which both students and parents are to read and sign while registering for the school year. As long as it's in the code of conduct, it's perfectly legal. Still wrong. Simply put, you cannot sign away your constitutional rights (in this case to property) in a contract. In other words, permanently confiscating any property from a student is theft unless the student is given substantive due process; which is usually a full hearing in which the school is entitled to present their argument and the student to present their defense; such hearings are -extremely- rare outside the context of drugs and guns. Similarly, the policy you mentioned regarding fines is also illegal as paying the fine is tantamount to surrendering one piece of property - the fine - to recover another you already own - the phone. Such protections were clarified and clearly defined in the 14th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS cases regarding the condition of freed slaves.

No, it's not legal for someone to confiscate things - a school may keep it until the end of the day; but if they do not give it back to you after that it is theft anywhere in the United States. If the security guard was a sworn police officer, they may keep it for an extended period, but only if it is evidence in a crime investigation. Go demand it back, get your parents in on it if they don't and report it stolen if they still won't return it. A school that is now under investigation by the FBI and the subject of a civil rights lawsuit. Canada and Europe are both worse.