Being poor would mean that you would hate those who are rich.

Being rich would mean that you would hate those who are poor.

What would that mean? What is the story there?

But that would mean several years of re negotiation.

That would mean that the International Date Line, rather than being at 180, would be at 145W.

It would also mean a eurozone failure that would not leave the Common Market unharmed.

That would mean bombing Damascus, which could harden Syrian support for Assad.

That would mean that the US would continue to need substantial inflows of foreign capital to fund business investment and housing construction.

It could happen. But what it would mean and who would survive?

For those entities that are closed down, this would mean moving illiquid assets into a holding entity that would gradually sell them off.

That's what it would really mean to be conservative.

If that story is true, it would mean that Allawi pulled the rug out from under Maliki's feet.

Azerbaijan's calculations that a blockade of Armenia would mean that our economic and social conditions would plummet while their oil based economy would grow have proved totally faulty.

That would mean 3,000 micro states, each refusing to accept any sovereignty superior to its own.

Re election would mean that they enjoyed the renewed esteem and endorsement of the world majority.

That would mean that States parties would not have to wait five years before being able to exercise their decision making powers and would make the Treaty more effective.

What would it mean to go straight to Palestinian statehood?

Similarly, it would be nice if markets would clarify what they mean by confidence so that we would all know what we are really dealing with.

Yet this cannot mean that fiscal policy for, say, Greece or Italy would be run from Berlin.

This does not mean that he would fire them, but rather that he would use them for purposes of diplomatic blackmail, raising threats to crisis levels.

Obviously, if He's God, then that would mean that when He asks the question, it's for your benefit, not His.

But it would certainly not mean the end of the world.

This would mean less wasted time and more clarity for litigants.

This would mean abandoning the temptations of coercive regime change that hamstrung American diplomacy in Bush s first term.

That could mean a situation in which not five, but 11 countries would cause such a cascade effect.

That would mean lower imports, creating a potential problem for countries that depend for their employment on exporting to the US.

What would that actually mean for how long people of various ages today or equivalently, of various ages at the time that these therapies arrive would actually live?

This proposed new class would mean that the United Kingdom would maintain a nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet and the ability to launch nuclear weapons.

Refusing international help in such instances would mean electoral suicide for any government that faces a major bank collapse.

To do so would mean a technology shift that in terms of scale and speed of deployment is unprecedented.

But moving in this direction, even if imperfectly, would mean real progress.

It would also mean stable European economies to which we can export.

Moreover, the deficits would mean higher interest rates and continued international imbalances.

This was a big thing that I think when Major H told me, I wasn't really totally gathering what that would mean.

At a minimum, that would mean reducing the deficit to a level that stops the rise in the debt to GDP ratio.

Such large fiscal deficits would mean that the government must borrow funds that would otherwise be available for private businesses to finance investment in productivity enhancing plant and equipment.

Any action by any State that would mean placing weapons in outer space would undoubtedly undermine international security, representing a major step back in disarmament efforts.

For the US, such commitments would mean cutting emissions to around one tenth of today s per capita level, while for China it would mean creating a new low carbon model of economic development.

But it doesn't mean that the whole world would be a lot better if it were totally run by women.

But that would mean a substantial change in the direction of EU social policies, including revision of the draft constitution.

formula_19and formula_20It would seem that the sample mean is a better estimator since its variance is lower for every N 1.

Does that mean that we won?

The reference to prima facie evidence would mean different things to different States.

It would mean that, even before birth, mothers are warning their children that it's a wild world out there, telling them, Be careful.

However, if a situation were to arise in which two of the original Judges in a case would need to be replaced, that would mean, under our Rules, that the trial would have to restart.