Loose_Brie

Wait for it! cc.com

I would suggest this is a poor conclusion. At any given price there are a number of buyers. The lower the price the greater the number of buyers at that price. Now even assuming the marginal cost of production is a constant (it is not), were the supplier simply to produce more, they would be unable to sell this excess inventory at the higher price. The market will not clear.

Yep, I have a pair of strap-ons. I havent taken them out as much as I'd like. But they seem real sturdy. More so than the Stubais I think. Two thumbs up.

When you tire on explaining what a snaffle is to your non-climbing friends.

I wonder who has documented proof of the "last acent"?

NUSEL preproposal avalible online

Climbing Moab

And its Ranger Mike Gauthier not "Ranger Rick Gauthier"

according to King5.com: An Army helicopter successfully rescued an injured climber from the sides of Mt. Rainier Monday afternoon after several earlier attempts failed. Newstips: Do you have a link to the video?

When a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the American Civil Liberties Union could finally reveal the existence of a lawsuit challenging the USA Patriot Act, the group issued a news release. But the next day, according to new documents released yesterday, the ACLU was forced to remove two paragraphs from the release posted on its Web site, after the Justice Department complained that the group had violated court secrecy rules. One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release. The dispute set off a furious round of court filings in a case that serves as both a challenge to, and an illustration of, the far-reaching power of the Patriot Act. Approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law gives the government greater latitude and secrecy in counterterrorism investigations and includes a provision allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet providers and other businesses without a court order. The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one. ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said the court order also means that she "cannot confirm or deny" whether the ACLU is representing the second plaintiff. The group is the only counsel listed in court documents. The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero. The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' " Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday. "It simply never occurred to us that this information would be covered by the sealing order, because it's completely non-sensitive, generic information," Beeson said. The dispute was partly resolved yesterday. Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

ACLU gagged by the Patriot act

PP, I usually totally disagree w/ you. But on this I think you are right. Oil combines, economics, politics and science like no other. Have we found most of the large reserves that are politically and economically viable at $40/barrel? Probably. Is that a relavant statement? Not really. What happens when prices of $80/barrel are sustained for 5 year? Will we drilling in ANWR? Probably. Will the wells of Texas be profitable again? Will there be in coup in Venezuala? Maybe. Who knows. Supply and demand on decade long time scales is proably the best predictor of science, enigineering and politics here. This a good article. But it doesn't say very much. Its not prescriptive. Its a typical I'm smarter than you article, because it makes all sides of the debate look wrong.

Everything on cc.com works w/ Opera.

Lummox, I think you hit the nail on the head. Those nail guns don't go off by accident. You have to push hard on them, unless the gun was illegally modified, which I am sure happens a lot. I accidentally shot my roomate in the head with one of those. They have a little "kick". The gun bounced up and back down, off center. The safety wire engaged, but the second nail missed the stud. The nail came out and plinked my roomate in the head. A glancing blow, but it bounced off his head and struck the wall leaving a mark in the drywall.Luckily, no harm done.

Speak of the devil, it looks like the Baathists are being allowed in http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.baathist/index.html

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children!

NO Thanks !! I'll take my constitution dead thankyou. This whole living constitution, re-interpretation for modern times stuff is rationalization for activists that can't get the country to agree with them in a democratic way, so instead they get activitist judges to re-interpret the constitution instead. If you want change - pass a law, if you want fundamental change - pass a constitutional ammendment. qed. Definition of an activist judge. A judge with a different opinion than yours.

For those of you who are not familiar with a guy named Thomas Jefferson, here's what he said. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ?make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,? thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. But what would he know about the constitution.

So do you think the troops will come home before the election? Or will he be too afraid of a mass exodus from the military and they will speak out against him?

Rumr, You an athiest? Cause if so your opinion does not matter. At least according to papa Bush When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush. Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me. Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists? Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

This is why you guys are going to lose in November. That may happen. But Bush is a unique fellow. He has done something no conservative has been able to do. Really piss of the hippes, intelectuals and youth. These people will vote. I doubt Bush has earned more than a handfull of votes that went for Gore. There certianly are a lot of people who will vote for the first time simply to vote against him. So it will come down to turn out. And being REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF at Bush will help.

Greg, The first amedment is not the end all be all. There is interpertation. The "sepparation or church and state" is part of our landscape of law. While the first amendmant states " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it has been interperated to mean sepparation of church and state. That is why we take statues of the 10 commandments out of court houses, and remove "under god" from the pledge of alegence

Its funny, when Muslim's do it, its called Jihad, when Bush does it we call "there is a higher father that I appeal to" os its OK. Bush and Bin Laden are the same. They are Religous fanatics that have used their fathers money to put them in positions to kill people!

Granted these statistcs are v ery old, but Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry, 1982 dollars. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2445, and Employment and Earnings, monthly, June and March issues. 1965 $290 1970 297 1973 315 (Peak) 1975 292 1976 297 1977 299 1978 301 1979 291 1980 274 1981 271 1982 267 1983 272 1984 274 1985 271 1986 271 1987 269 1988 266 1989 263 1990 259 1991 255 1992 255 (Nadir)