Call this number now 24 hours a day 7 days a week (413) 208-3069
Get these Degrees NOW!!!
"BA", "BSc", "MA", "MSc", "MBA", "PHD",
Get everything within 2 weeks.
100% verifiable, this is a real deal
Act now you owe it to your future.
(413) 208-3069 call now 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Well, my 1st gen iPod has finally died. Now I am in a quandry. Much as I would love to replace it with a video iPod, I'm not sure I can justify the expense. On the other hand, I can spend about $130 to replace the dead hard drive in my old 5 GB with a 20 GB one. Hm...
I am concerned about all of the furor surround same-sex marriages. My concern stems from what I think is a miscommunication: is marriage a secular or religious institution. I believe that as a religious institution, any given religion absolutely has the right to reject same-sex marriage. However, when it is an institution recognized and sanctioned by the government, I believe that it must apply equally to all. The fact that a particular church rejects same-sex marriage is not a reason for the government to do the same. There is a separation of church and state.
One must ask what the purpose of government recognition of marriage, and what that recognition entails. If the purpose is to promote stability of households and therefore communities, I see no reason for a restriction based on gender. If it is to provide government sanction to a religious institution, I believe it violates the separation of church and state.
What I am trying to say is this: if marriage is religious in nature, it should not be sanctioned or regulated by government and should have no direct effect on government activity such as taxation. If, on the other hand, it is a secular institution maintained and regulated by the government for the good of society, the gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. of the participants should not matter.
Therefore, I think an amendment banning same sex marriage is senseless, since it either does not apply due to separation of church and state, or does not apply because it doesn't matter whether the parties involved are male or female.
Saw Sin City over the weekend and all I can say is "Wow!" It is incredibly dark and violent (think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction), but is a technical masterpiece. The acting is phenomenal, no surprise given the cast, but the film-making artistry is unmatched to date.
When you realize that many of the actors never met (at least, on set), even some who fought each other on screen, and that people who didn't know could not tell that the "sets" didn't exist, you can't help but be impressed.
As usual, Wil has some tremendous insights into the development world. I am very impressed with his views on the future of development and heuristics. I also think that his analogy between development languages and syringes is spot on.
I think he slightly missed the mark when commenting on not wanting to adopt the habits of large companies however. He compares a large successful company to an old, rich, and dying man. He says that adopting a large businesses habits is like saying "I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease." I think it would make a better analogy to say that copying a big companies practices is like saying "I'm going to drink, smoke and eat rich food." That is what the successful old man does, but it is not what made him successful and rich. This hits a bit close to home :)
subscribe via RSS