To those who don't believe the Daily Mail, let's see you argue with a report on the story by that model of unbiased reporting (and I do say that without irony), the BBC:
I was all ready to admire their work, then read 'the monks wiped away the sand painting within an hour of its completion' so will rank it only as highly as someone finishing a jigsaw puzzle. In that, it's no more than a way of passing the time, and its impermanence gives it value to the makers but not to anyone else. But then, perhaps that's the point - it is a religious thing, after all.
UK version: unemployed, she would be treated for free (in fact even with a job she still wouldn't have to pay). However, possession of any hand gun for any reason gets you a mandatory 5 years in prison, no excuses. To the person who commented "you aren't entitled to health care" I'd just say: the 63 million people in my country, and millions more in many other European countries ARE entitled to health care. We think it's kind of important to look after each other.
"Combing the schoolyards and shopping malls" taking photos of young girls will normally get you arrested or at the very least chased away by hordes of angry parents. Print off some fake credentials and you too can put your hands on attractive teenagers and lure them to the big city. So much to go wrong here.
"I just lost every penny I ever owned in a failed tea importing company, my wife ran away with the head tea taster, and now you - YOU - ask me if I want a cup of TEA?"
JJ the raw text might be in the public domain, but you're unlikely to see it because it was never published and as such is the private property of its current owners. If they don't want to show you that version, they don't have to, just as any privately owned painting doesn't have to be on public display. As for the to-be-published versions, they will have been subjected to editing, so will be regarded as new works, and as such subject to copyright. Of course the owners could put the whole 5000 pages online in their raw form, but then they won't make any money and anyone could republish their own versions. I'd say the likelihood of that happening is slim. It's probably more complex than that, and the rules will vary in different countries, but that's my understanding of it.
Despite the lack of movies passing this test, am I right in saying that the percentage of women who watch the non-passing movies is still relatively high? If women want to watch the movies available to them, the movie studies evidently know their market. The idea that women go to see those movies because their choices are limited seems wrong - they could simply not watch them, and the movie studios would soon change their ways.
DVD/Blu-Ray: wait a year if you can, or at least 3 months if that's too long. The initial releases of movies on DVD are always way more expensive and usually have minimal extras. After a year you'll get the multi-disc special edition and it will be half the price, maybe even 3-for-2 in your local supermarket. The wait is even longer for TV series - if you can hold off until the show is cancelled, you'll pick up the 'every episode ever released' box set for a fraction of the combined price of individual seasons.
After 20 minutes exposure to the air I'd expect that it would be a lot more difficult to remove with just paper. He'd probably need a stiff brush or a custom 'Neatorama Dangleberry Removal Kit'.
Most people could do this with great ease for a day, and the story would have been much more interesting if she'd tried it for a week or more. Giving up lattes for a day? Woohoo. Perhaps she could live on her one-day $80 spend for a month and I'd be more impressed. Come on - ONE day? Is that it? You could safely not eat or drink anything at all for 24 hours, although in her case I suppose she's trying to keep to a pretty normal routine. All I got from this is that some people can really waste their money without even trying.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10432128.stm
Let's call the whole thing off :o)