Peterkin

about 80%, if that someone takes into consideration all the information readily available to the public.

If it's any consolation, he'll wreck it before any credit is given. At least we did get the benefit of all that Y2K effort, earthquake-proofing and vaccine research, if not the recognition.

I knew a number of people who worked in IT at the time, and they were genuinely concerned about the rollover. They also put it in a vast amount of overtime, fixing what they could in various industries. My best friend, a contractor, worked days in one and late nights at another government agency over 1999 and took three months off afterward to recover from burnout. Even so, there were problems arising, including - so I heard - a few near misses at air terminals. Of course we were relieved to avoid disaster, but it it didn't seem as risible as was later made out.

It gets a little OTT at about the three-quarter mark, but the concept is interesting. I found a couple of his other novels equally original, yet uneven in execution. But that's just my literary critic talking. They're wild rides.

Read the the old testament. That god was. Still is in much of modern preachment. Read Norse or Greek mythology. Those gods were. Read 'Towing Jehovah' by James Morrow. Other people have considered these ideas.

Whatever for ? The statistical improbability argument has been a non-starter since the day we became aware of the existence of other planets. Plus, of course, you can always shove it up one decimal point and argue the statistical improbability of god/s.

Nothing new or western about this phenomenon. The rule of vertical societies was recognized in the bible It's the same cycle repeated over and over in all eras, all cultures, all societies that are stratified in classes and controlled by an established elite. The privileged are always in a position to enrich and empower themselves through the effort and privation of the underclasses. Wealth and power keep being funelled upward - and the process accelerates in periods when the balance is precarious (during a crisis situation, especially when disparity is already high) and then the economy, or the whole society collapses. These cycles used to be local, affecting one ancient civilization or one modern nation at a time, so that recovery was hard - now the economy and social organization are global. When this cycle comes to its natural conclusion, the world order falls apart all at once.

Did 'they' actually say "just a form of self-expression" - which you interpret as the same as deciding to get a tattoo? Or did 'they' say "it's simply an expression of one's real self"? What the wording means to the speaker an what you would infer are not necessarily in the same realm of communication. What, like children who play cops and robbers grow up to be police officers or criminals?

no, but ain't we lucky to have 'em qm aspirin is also blood thinner and sometimes hard on the stomach. i take a low dose one every day. for this pain, ibuprofen seems more effective - not too bad now. some side effects are more than inconvenient, some are life-threatening. much depends, too on how one's tolerance has been affected by treatments for previous conditions.

That's scary. as someone with difficult-to-control blood pressure, i'm glad i have enough hair to be going on with. [sorry about cockroach style typing; i fell and bloke my left wrist. how does the aspirin know where the pain is [qm] It doesn't. i only hope it can also find the ones in my head and knee.

There are very many medications not aimed at specific antigens, viruses and bacteria. Researchers don't just design a molecule that you can ingest or inject; the active ingredient needs a stabilizing agent so it doesn't fall apart before it gets to the drug store, possibly some factor to neutralize a toxic component and it has to be attached to a vehicle, so it can be made into a pill or liquid. Even those that are antibiotic or anti-viral may also have ingredients that disagree with some people. No two metabolisms and medical histories are alike: there may be pre-existing conditions, allergies and sensitivities, changes in specific organs due to earlier illness and treatment... all kinds of different conditions. Drugs designed to alleviate pain have to act through the digestive, circulatory and nervous systems. In a sense, all chemicals that do this are toxic to various extents. (That's a broad generalization, I realize.) If they're effective, they may also be addictive or acidic and therefore hard on the stomach. Drugs designed to correct an imbalance in hormone or enzyme production can't not affect the entire system of which their targeted organ is a part. It's impossible to seperate systems in the human body. Basic reason: it's complicated.

Except that, in this model, the administration is ordinary citizens, with no vested interest in common. They're not up for re-election, don't owe anybody a favour, don't need funding or political support. They're in the job for two years: a very limited opportunity to do something for their family, their community and fellow citizens.

In existing 'democracies', none of the candidates are representative of the people who vote for them. Elections take money and publicity; all elected officials are therefore beholden to the financial and other interests of their benefactors. The only truly representative government would be drawn by lot from the eligible adult population, then screened for disabilities and conflicts of interests, as in jury selection. They would serve a limited term - say, two years, with another selection spelling off half the members each year, so that there would be equal numbers with and without experience. Their salary, across the board would be the standard starting pay for the lower house. Let the civil service continue to be professional, with experts in their various fields advising each department. Government is not a corporation; it's not a military operation; it's not the instrument of some divinity: it should be the mind, voice and hands of the all the citizens.

There may be better calendars, but the one we have works well enough to go on with.

Or you could just mark a different day on the calendar, maybe for the summer one, as well, just to be fair. One day, either way, wouldn't matter so much as far as observance goes. But if you wanted to move it 10 days, you'd either have to end the year on December 21st, and move every other date up 10 places, or remake the calendar. Hardly seems worth the effort. And the religious wouldn't like it one bit - especially the Christians, who picked their saviour's birthday to correspond with their approximation of the solstice, and incidentally the pagan festival of Yule.