"I grab the mic and commit lyrical genocide!"
Read this, It will make you a better person
The original code name for Half-Life was Quiver, after the Arrowhead military base from Stephen King's novella The Mist, which served as early inspiration for the game. Gabe Newell explained that the name Half-Life was chosen because it was evocative of the theme, not clichéd, and had a corresponding visual symbol: the Greek letter λ (lower-case lambda), which represents the decay constant in the half-life equation.I don't think it was worth the $18 I spent at the theater, but I'm sure others will like it. I give it 1 1/2 hammer and sickles.
1) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a part of the Bush administration, oversees the operation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford nuclear facility, also part of the Bush administration, and finds some violations of landfill requirements.
2) The EPA fines the DOE $285,000 plus the cost of emergency-response boats for Benton County and a greenhouse and nursery to aid habitat restoration.
3) The DOE pays the fine and buys boats, a greenhouse and a nursery with funds from its budget out of taxpayer funds authorized by Congress.
4) The EPA deposits the $285,000 fine payment into general funds of the U.S. Treasury.
5) The DOE submits future budget with increases sufficient to cover costs of the $285,000 fine assessed plus the boats, greenhouse and nursery.
6) Congress authorizes disbursement of new DOE budget funds from the U.S. Treasury.
7) DOE gets $285,000 back from the U.S. Treasury plus it get funds to cover the cost of the boats, greenhouse and nursery.
8) In summary, EPA tells DOE to surrender funds and buy stuff for the local community. DOE complies. EPA deposits funds in Treasury. DOE gets approved to take funds from Treasury. DOE gets money returned plus the cost of stuff for the local community.
9) To wrap up, the EPA is out no money and the DOE is out no money, however, the taxpayer picked up the tab for new boats, a greenhouse and a nursery.
Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself. This concept is a part of the "value consensus model" explanation of the origins of the criminal law. The phrase is used to refer to conduct thought to be inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. For example, murder of human beings is universally agreed to be wrong by other human beings, regardless of whether a law exists or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the US, people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. This is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by policy, as set forth by the policy-makers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the prohibited act is forbidden by the policy of the state. Crimes such as larceny, rape and murder are considered malum in se. This concept was used to develop the various common law crimes.
Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes a crime only by virtue of statute[such as riding in the same car with non-relative male in Saudi Arabia], as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson (Supreme Court of the State of Washington, 67826-0, decided August 2000) :
"Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories -- malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905) "Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.' "
In debating the appropriateness of certain offenses or sanctions, one occasionally encounters the suggestion that conduct should be given more latitude on the theory that it is "merely" malum prohibitum. In an earlier version of this document, it was suggested that examples of malum prohibitum included parking violations and copyright violations (which, respectively, are at least arguably a form of trespass and a form of theft). Some laws, like tax laws, make ordinary conduct an offense if done without a license, stamp, or other official permission, and thus qualify as malum prohibitum. On the other hand, licensing is sometimes done for safety purposes (to prevent untrained drivers' operation of powerful motorized vehicles where the public is at risk[or driving in a car in Iran if you're a Woman], or to ensure that persons without minimum qualifications are not permitted to practice medicine or act as architects or sell services as a member of another licensed profession), and to prevent certain frauds or egregious violations of trust from being too easy; violation of such licensing rules, by virtue of the peril the conduct creates, arguably prevents such prohibitions from being merely malum prohibitum. For example, the risk to the public if one were not required to have a license and post a bond before issuing life insurance policies is so severe that purporting to sell life insurance while conducting an unlicensed, unbonded business is arguably tantamount to fraud. Because the definition given in Anderson depends on the 'sense of a civilized community', it is certain that the specific categorization of offenses as malum prohibitum and malum in se will be subject to debate whenever there is debate within the community as to what should violate the sensibilities of its members.
Whether "victimless crime" can be other than malum prohibitum may depend on how strongly one views the public need of social order, or how seriously one takes the risk of parties exercising over others such influence that their consent cannot be regarded as genuine (e.g., statutory rape, sale of banned addictive mental-state-altering substances, etc.). The degree to which one believes individuals should be protected from themselves often directs one's conclusions regarding whether conduct barred by current law is "merely" malum prohibitum. Under Anderson it is arguably the case that categorization of offenses varies with the society in which the judgment is undertaken.
Meanwhile,horrifying new details emerged last night of the attempt by suicide bombers to kill Ms Bhutto on her return home from exile last month.
Investigators from Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said yesterday they believed the bomb, which killed 170 people and left hundreds more wounded, was strapped to a one-year-old child carried by its jihadist father.
They said the suicide bomber tried repeatedly to carry the baby to Ms Bhutto’s vehicle as she drove in a late-night cavalcade through the streets of Karachi.
“At the point where the bombs exploded, Benazir Bhutto herself saw the man with the child and asked him to come closer so that she could hug or kiss the infant,” investigators were reported as saying. “But someone came in between and a guard felt that the man with the child was not behaving normally. So the child was not allowed to come aboard Benazir’s vehicle.”
Ms Bhutto is said to have told investigators she recalls the face of the man who was carrying the infant. She has asked to see recordings made by television news channels to try to identify the man.
Dr Magdy Hend, consultant gynaecologist at the Regency Clinic, Harley Street, London, who started hymen reconstruction more than 18 years ago in the Middle East and the Gulf, said: "In some cultures they like to see that the women will bleed on the wedding night. If the wife or bride is not a virgin, it is a big shame on the family."
Dr Hend said he was surprised by the "very good response" to the service and said there is "big competition on the market".
Most of his clients, he told More4 News, are in their teens or early 20s.
"They might be British of ethnic background, they might be immigrants, or some people come from abroad, Asia, Middle East, the Gulf, and they don't want to have it done back home," he added.
Dr Hend said demand is increasing, particularly from UK residents.
The operation can involve suturing of a tear in the hymen, such as might be caused by sexual assault, to help healing.
But it can also be conducted as a purely cosmetic procedure. A membrane is constructed, sometimes including a capsule of an artificial blood-like substance.
This operation is intended to be performed within a few days before an intended marriage.
Tory health spokesman Mike Penning expressed concern.
He said: "If there is any cultural or other pressure being put on the women from any source to have this done, that would be a very retrograde step.
"If a woman has been violated or raped and lost her virginity, clearly everything possible should be done to assist her.
"But what nobody would understand is if taxpayers' money is being used to fund operations of this kind for cultural or cosmetic reasons."
I thought this part was especially interesting:
"In some cultures they like to see that the women will bleed on the wedding night. If the wife or bride is not a virgin, it is a big shame on the family."Well, we all know what happens to Muslim women when their families are ashamed of them.
A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess.
Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give
up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers below the fold
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
"If there was ever a film that not only preached to the choir but threatened to put it to sleep, this is it."Didn't Bobby Redford pledge to leave the country if Bush won in 2004? It's really a shame he has fallen so low, The Sting is one of my all time favorite movies.
"Robert Redford's smug, self-
satisfied liberal weltschmerz anthem."
"Plays out as a mountain of self-
righteously guilt- ridden rhetoric perched on a molehill of narrative."
ed piece masquerading as a motion picture."
"Liberal Hollywood sends its big guns into the "war on terror" and winds up in a dreadful mess."
"Made for sheep by donkeys."
"Blah, blah, blah. ... This relentless polemic by director Robert Redford is likely to put both critics and supporters of the Iraq war to sleep."
Last weekend more than 100,000 people turned out in 11 cities across the country to protest the occupation of Iraq, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, New York, among others.Yeah, when 0.003% of the county turns out for a demonstration in eleven cities, that is certainly news-worthy. And it was, BTW: This event was well covered by the MSM and foreign press.
Yet based on the miniscule amount of coverage the mass protests afforded in the mainstream media, it was as if the demonstrations never happened.
Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – A young Muslim woman was kidnapped, raped and forced to convert to Christianity by a Christian man in Faisalabad, Khalil Tahir, chairman of “Adal Trust,” a free legal aid organisation that helps minorities, told AsiaNews.Heh. I changed a few words, click the link to see which ones.
According to early reports, 18-year-old Fatima went to visit her aunt on October 21 but never came home. Her parents went out looking for her but to no avail. They also contacted a Christian man, John, who had harassed her in the past, but he denied any knowledge of her whereabouts.
DUBAI: Alexandre Robert, a French 15-year-old, was having a dream summer in this tourist paradise on the Gulf. It was Bastille Day, and he and a classmate had escaped the July heat at the beach for an air-conditioned arcade.
Just after sunset, Alex was rushing to meet his father for dinner when he bumped into an acquaintance, a 17-year-old native-born student at the American school, who said he and his cousin could drop Alex off.
There were, in fact, three Emirati men in the car, including a pair of former convicts, aged 35 and 18. They drove Alex past his house and into a dark patch of desert, between a row of new villas and a power plant, took away his cellphone, threatened him with a knife and a club and told him they would kill his family members if he ever reported them.
Then, Alex says, they stripped off his pants and one by one sodomized him in the back seat of the car. They dumped Alex on the side of the road across from one of Dubai's luxury hotel towers.
Alex and his family were about to learn that despite Dubai's status as the Arab world's paragon of modernity and wealth, its legal system remains a perilous gantlet when it comes to homosexuality and legal protection of foreigners.
The authorities not only discouraged Alex from pressing charges, he says; they have left open the possibility of charging Alex with criminal homosexual activity, and neglected to inform him or his parents that one of his attackers had tested HIV positive while in prison four years earlier.