This we all know: the universe spontaneously exploded into existence, without any divine assistance, some 14 billion years ago and coalesced into stars orbited by rocky planets. Water condensed out of the interstellar gases and filled the earth with oceans, whereupon carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen reacted in the primordial atmosphere to form amino acids that then self-assembled into self-replicating molecules that then caused the self-assembly of functioning cell membranes comprised of proteins and fatty acids that then began dividing and reproducing into the multitude of life forms present today. This was all made possible by a fortuitous arrangement of rocky substrates in deep ocean trenches that facilitated the combining of the proper molecules into the proper order on the rocky surfaces. After a certain length of time had passed, the early cells began randomly forming into male and female forms to allow better combination of nucleic material than that allowed by random mutation (although that has been good enough for bacteria and viruses for that the last 4 billion years). The creation guy doesn't have a chance.
Making nuns provide other people's contraception is like requiring orthodox jewish to provide bacon or forcing atheists to pay for the gideons and their bibles. It's just wrong.
Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely. We live in a time when the technical capabilities and resources for surveillance have become so much more powerful than those of privacy than, in effect, window blinds and draperies no longer exist and we are all unintentionally parading around in front of uncovered windows without any clothing. To put it another way, governments will monitor all communications for no other reason than that they can. Even if the NSA is stopped, you can be sure than every other country in the world either has its own program underway or is in the process of rapidly doing so. You should assume that someone somewhere is logging your calls, surveying your internet traffic, gathering your voicemail data, recording your online banking profile and purchases, and so forth...because they can. This situation will not change until the technology available to defend yourself from digital intrusion catches up with the technology already available to the offense...and that might be a while yet.
The point (apparently) of this rule is to drive people to make the 'right' choice (i.e. non-incandescent bulb) by eliminating the 'wrong' choice. Of course, as TFA says, if the no-incandescent choice were really so obvious, no rule would be needed. I was enthusiastic about cfl bulbs but the enthusiasm died really quickly with real-world experience. CFL bulbs are dim initially, slow to power up to operating temperature, expensive, release dangerous waste mercury powder if broken indoors, create toxic waste when discarded, have a much-shorter life than advertised, and grow dimmer as they age. They probably also consume more power than advertised (based on all of the other false claims) but I have not measured that. Undoubtedly, though, they produce more light per watt than an incandescent bulb but even that comparison is not completely correct. If incandescent bulbs are in a heated space, then the 'waste' heat that they produce is still used by offsetting the amount of heat that must be added from the room heating system. For home use, incandescent bulbs still have a place, as many consumers know, and THAT is why they need to be banned, because otherwise, people would still use them. So, now that we have the George Bush ban on incandescent bulbs, we can look forward to more household toxic waste (much of it probably improperly disposed of...when did you last see your local hardware store collecting spent cfl bulbs?), more toxic dust released in living spaces, more spending by consumers on light bulbs, lower lighting levels in residences (leading to less reading, more eyestrain, etc.), and lights left on more to avoid waiting while the dim cfl bulb warms up after being powered on. Sounds like a typical federal government program...wasteful, ill-advised, unwanted, unneeded, and expensive.
...is that they are...old. Most managers want to hire people who are younger than them. The last thing they want to do is to hire someone older who has a lot of experience and will sit around sniping everything that the manager does based on that older persons presumably vast experience. Another problem with older workers is that many have serious health issues that are costly to the company, cause attendance problems, and distract the team from the mission. The best approaches for older workers (i.e. over 50) are to work as consultants where experience is sought (if they have marketable expertise), start and operate a small business, look for work as a short-term contract worker where they can be easily let go if they are not working out, work construction if they are physically able, volunteer with non-profit organizations, or run for political office.
No one. No one should decide when another person's life should end, and that includes our own decisions about our own life. Adams is one of those people who thinks that life should always be happy, joyful, bountiful, and overflowing with comforts. Well, Mr. Adams, there is suffering in this world. There always has been and there always will be but we are never allowed to end someone's life to relive their suffering or our suffering, be it psychological, physical, financial, or emotional. Never. In the case of your dad, you wanted to end his life to relieve your suffering. Yes, it's hard to watch your loved one suffer. Yes, you are suffering too as a consequence. But no, your job is not to end a life but rather it is to do what you are able to do to relieve their suffering and to endure your own suffering with no complaint.
Okay, flying drones are possible. Flying drones with power generation methods such as solar cells on board are possible. Flying drones that can fly for weeks or months through the high atmosphere are perhaps possible with some technology development. Flying drones that can fly for months through the high atmosphere and generate a significant quantity of excess power might be possible some day with significant technology development in solar cell or wind turbine efficiency.
But...but...but...transmitting that power 'wirelessly' to a ground station with any sort of reasonable efficiency is definitely NOT possible with any technology currently known, such as microwaves or lasers. To do that would take some sort of breakthrough insight into a completely new technology such as, for example, quantum energy exchange between coupled atomic reservoirs, localized gravity field modulation, or, more ambitiously, time progression distortion in a localized electrical transmission field. But...the article says they will have a working prototype in one year after receiving the modest quantity of startup funding. This entire project sounds like a scam to bilk investors akin to running cars on water as a fuel or, perhaps, a CIA cover story for some sort of screwy long-term drone surveillance scheme, to name just two possibilities. In any event, the story as presented is complete and utter bullshit.
St. Peter's square is the site of the old "Circus of Nero" chariot racing track. The roman's (emperor Nero) martyred St. Peter along the "spine" of the old chariot racing track in 67 as entertainment for the chariot race attendees and then buried the body in a little cemetery located next to the track (which was handily located to clear out the victim(s) from the night before to prepare for the new day's activity.) St. Peter was held in high esteem by the early Christians of that time and they secretly excavated near his burial site in order to construct a memorial shrine, to have a place for Christian worship, and to allow other Christians of the time to be buried near St. Peter as they were martyred. As the centuries passed, and Christians were no longer persecuted, churches were built over the site of St. Peter's burial, leading to the newest one, the present St. Peter's basilica which was constructed approximately 400 years ago. St. Peter's grave is located directly under what is now the altar.
The comments here are about the difficulty, the expense, the problems with user acceptance, etc. All of those imply that this sort of change is somehow and optional thing that they can choose to do...or not. In actuality, however, this change is both mandatory and inevitable...and only a matter of time. Maybe next year, maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years but every single enterprise will eventually be forced to make this switch as Microsoft evolves and changes ('implodes' is the word that comes to mind) as it tries to maintain growth and earnings while trying to continue selling the same thing to the same places that already have purchased more than they will ever need.
Imagining that all life must have originated from Earth is an amazingly earth-centric point of view that is similar to the idea in the middle ages that all planets must revolve around the Earth. Obviously, if life can travel from Earth to Europa, it can also travel from Europa to Earth...or from planets outside of our solar system entirely. Moreover, the fossil record shows the presence of life on a very early Earth, leaving far too little time for life to form in primordial Earth oceans under any sort of process currently envisioned. Not only is pan-spermia possible, it is currently the most likely explanation for the source of life on Earth. The real question is 'where did life originate in the universe?'
"As it stands, the IR absorption by CO2 seems pretty well understood."
If, by this, you are referring to the blocking of IR heat radiation into space by CO2 molecules, then no, it (the atmospheric heat transfer process) is not well understood, or even understood. CO2 absorbs only a very narrow and specific wavelength. THAT is understood. Moreover, a CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon, immediately either re-radiates the heat or loses it via a collision with one of its neighboring molecules which, in the earth's atmosphere, are going to be O2 or N2 molecules. Those molecules, in turn, re-radiate the heat into space. The heat does not 'stay' in the atmosphere but is constantly re-radiated into space. The atmosphere is not a heat storage reservoir. That is NOT understood.
"Also I assume that you don't think volcanoes in Antarctica aren't causing melting in the Artic as well, that's a pretty big clue that they're not the main cause.
"Judith Lean, a climate and solar scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, said if we’re headed towards a Maunder Minimum-type event, its arrival is hardly imminent."
She knows that how? Oh, yeah, we find out in the next paragraph: "...if solar activity is indeed in decline it will, I suppose, take a few centuries to reach a Maunder Minimum type event.”
This scientist confidently expresses her supposition in the Washingto Post to support the 'consensus' that there will be no mini ice age. If these people wanted to have even a smidgeon of credibility regarding climate prediction (itself a questionable proposition), they would be running their computer climate models with a decreasing solar output and reporting the results for different scenarios rather than stating their suppositions about the future of the sun's output (for which they obviously, like the rest of us, have no idea what will happen.) The truth is that IF solar output is indeed declining, the earth's climate is going to dramatically cool...and there is nothing that we can do about it other than prepare. That has happened in the past and it will happen in the future and it may be happening now. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 will have a negligible effect on such a cooling trend...and that's what the global cooling deniers don't want to say.
Humans (and other vertebratans) have been feeding on mollusca denizens for centuries...and they are getting pissed off about it. Snails, clams, octopus, squid, abalone, and geoducks...we've had our fill and then some. Not to mention the unspeakable things humans routinely do to slugs. Molluscans have had enough of our abuse and they are coming after us.
The article makes it sound as if the crows are themselves acquiring genetic modifications giving them resistance to antibiotic compounds. However, it is the bacteria inhabiting the crows intestine that have acquired the antibiotic resistance genes, not the crows themselves. The article also suggests that antibiotics dispensed in hospitals are somehow a major factor when, in fact, the quantity of antibiotics dispensed in factory farms surpasses the quantity dispensed for human medical needs by orders of magnitude. If antibiotic resistance leads to increased human mortality, blame the steak on your plate, not the poor fellow down the street having surgery at the hospital.
Childs was basically attempting to extort expensive employment privileges (job security, work assignments, working hours, co-worker assignments, physical access) from the City of San Francisco by concealing critical information if they didn't cooperate. The sentence for extortion is usually longer than two years so Childs should have gotten a longer sentence. The legal brief is a very sad read when you consider all of the bright people (both legal and technical) who have spent thousands of hours dealing with the machinations of one crooked jerk. The rest of the world must be amazed at the utter waste of talented people who could be employed in more useful activities.
Microsoft still licenses their software like it's 1982 and they are the toll collector on progress. You buy a copy of their newest [whatever] program and pay them the fee that they set. They never look at what they provide and ask themselves 'are we providing value equivalent to what we are collecting in tolls?' Auto companies, in contrast, have to do that with absolutely every thing that they provide since cars are very complex performance-driven devices that are competitively mass-produced and consequently sell for little money relative to their high cost of manufacture. Moreover, cars must be both reliable and supported/maintained for 20 years after they are sold. All of these are foreign concepts to Microsoft which can't see any reason why they should not just release V x.x of their 'car OS' and sell it to manufacturers who would eagerly link everything to it. The manufacturer's, though, need to have control over the source code for critical updates, control over the licensing and distribution, and control over the overall structure and software design. Manufacturer's have been putting software in cars for over 20 years and they could never settle for Microsoft's way of doing things...so turning to OSS is inevitable for them.
"Recorded History" on arctic ice extent is pretty damn short. The
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) used to list something they
called the '1979-2001' average and then showed that, based on that, the
current ice extent was pathetically low. Lately, they have switched to
showing the '1981-2010' average because the early years of satellite
measurements have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Better
quality data has only been available since 2002 and, based
on that, 2013 is the 6th highest ice extent minimum on
record.
"There are many many other examples of bad "design" in humans and other animals that just wouldn't be there if we really were intelligently designed."
By "intelligent design" you seem to be saying 'perfect design.' Perfect design would imply a perfect world without disease, deformity, and dysfunction which would be a world that Jesus did not seek during his time here. For example, Jesus healed many ill people but only as an illustrative example of the power of God and obviously not with the intent to create perfection and eliminate all human suffering. Why not? Moreover, those sick people that were healed ultimately aged, became ill, and died as they are obviously no longer with us today. Jesus pointed to hungry people lacking food and asked for others to share with them but he did not do a 'shazam' and create an abundance of food for all people for all time. Apparently, if this world is God's creation, then all are supposed to suffer and die in it and all have a choice to make...either with God or not. Of course, if you choose 'without' you will still suffer and die. But...where would the choice for us be if there was nothing but perfection, harmony, and abundance?
"The most common form of reproduction in the world is asexual."
No, it is not. Almost all mammals (which is what humans are) reproduce sexually. Among the 'higher animals' that we were discussing, most reproduce sexually, for unknown reasons. It could be argued that sexual reproduction is the means by which a Creator created both us and the biblical animals upon which scripture refers to for for food, transportation, comfort, fear, etc. OTOH, all prokaryotes reproduce asexually but we were not talking about 'all life forms.'
Okay, let's consider sex (always a good thing to consider). Genesis in the Bible says that God created two sexes, male and female. Now, if there is no Creator with a building plan, then we might expect to see more variety in the area of reproduction among us higher animal types rather than the standard male/female stuff we are so used to. For example, there is no need for separate male and female sexes. One individual could carry both male and female reproduction equipment and use either depending on the need, yet that is very rare and uncommon. Or, we could reproduce asexually but, again, that is very rare. Well, of course all of the mitochondria in your body have reproduced asexually, but I digress. The point here is that both the Bible and our observations point to at least the possibility of a plan by a master builder.
If there is a Creator of life, then we would expect to see the blueprints used for more than one construction site...perhaps even more than one planet. Alternatively, however, if we are all actors in a play that no one wrote, then randomness would be expected to create more genetic diversity.
"For more than a century scientists have known that Earth’s ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit.
There are so many blatant errors in just this one sentence that it's publication is astounding. First, the Earth is currently in the middle of its 5th "ice age," the "Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation," (which began 2.5 million years ago) and what the article calls 'ice ages' are termed by real scientists to be "glacial periods" within the current ice age. The Earth is presently in what is called an "interglacial period" and the next "glacial period" is likely to begin within the next 1,000 to 2,000 years. Next, there is certainly no consensus that either the Earth's "Ice Ages" or "Glacial Periods" are caused by wobbling of the planet's orbit. General consensus by scientists is that both ice ages and glacial periods within those are caused by a variety of factors including atmospheric changes, solar changes, changes in the position of tectonic plates which affect ocean circulation, variations in the Earth's orbit (which are currently considered more likely to affect glacial and interglacial cycles rather than to initiate or end ice ages), and volcanism. In short, TFA is utter bullshit.
You point to bread and fruit as causes of your high blood sugar levels but, for most people, the causes are:
1) Overeating
2) eating heavily-sugared high calorie items: (candy, soda pop, donuts, cake, syrups, etc.)
For most of us, the sugar from eating bread and fruit is a tiny fraction of the sugar that we get from 1) and 2) so eliminating bread and fruit will not help. Your body converts portions of EVERYTHING that you eat into glucose and it is high glucose levels that the article is referring to. The glucose levels in Type 2 diabetics become too high because the body is constantly overwhelmed by the caloric load being dropped on it and becomes less reactive to the insulin hormone. To put this in simple terms, it is not bread, fruit, potatoes, or 'carbs' that are bad for you...it is TOO MUCH of those or anything else. If you don't spend portions of your day with true hunger pangs caused by low blood sugar, you are over eating.
Slashdot Mirror
This we all know: the universe spontaneously exploded into existence, without any divine assistance, some 14 billion years ago and coalesced into stars orbited by rocky planets. Water condensed out of the interstellar gases and filled the earth with oceans, whereupon carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen reacted in the primordial atmosphere to form amino acids that then self-assembled into self-replicating molecules that then caused the self-assembly of functioning cell membranes comprised of proteins and fatty acids that then began dividing and reproducing into the multitude of life forms present today. This was all made possible by a fortuitous arrangement of rocky substrates in deep ocean trenches that facilitated the combining of the proper molecules into the proper order on the rocky surfaces. After a certain length of time had passed, the early cells began randomly forming into male and female forms to allow better combination of nucleic material than that allowed by random mutation (although that has been good enough for bacteria and viruses for that the last 4 billion years). The creation guy doesn't have a chance.
Making nuns provide other people's contraception is like requiring orthodox jewish to provide bacon or forcing atheists to pay for the gideons and their bibles. It's just wrong.
Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely. We live in a time when the technical capabilities and resources for surveillance have become so much more powerful than those of privacy than, in effect, window blinds and draperies no longer exist and we are all unintentionally parading around in front of uncovered windows without any clothing. To put it another way, governments will monitor all communications for no other reason than that they can. Even if the NSA is stopped, you can be sure than every other country in the world either has its own program underway or is in the process of rapidly doing so. You should assume that someone somewhere is logging your calls, surveying your internet traffic, gathering your voicemail data, recording your online banking profile and purchases, and so forth...because they can. This situation will not change until the technology available to defend yourself from digital intrusion catches up with the technology already available to the offense...and that might be a while yet.
Make of that what you will.
The point (apparently) of this rule is to drive people to make the 'right' choice (i.e. non-incandescent bulb) by eliminating the 'wrong' choice. Of course, as TFA says, if the no-incandescent choice were really so obvious, no rule would be needed. I was enthusiastic about cfl bulbs but the enthusiasm died really quickly with real-world experience. CFL bulbs are dim initially, slow to power up to operating temperature, expensive, release dangerous waste mercury powder if broken indoors, create toxic waste when discarded, have a much-shorter life than advertised, and grow dimmer as they age. They probably also consume more power than advertised (based on all of the other false claims) but I have not measured that. Undoubtedly, though, they produce more light per watt than an incandescent bulb but even that comparison is not completely correct. If incandescent bulbs are in a heated space, then the 'waste' heat that they produce is still used by offsetting the amount of heat that must be added from the room heating system. For home use, incandescent bulbs still have a place, as many consumers know, and THAT is why they need to be banned, because otherwise, people would still use them. So, now that we have the George Bush ban on incandescent bulbs, we can look forward to more household toxic waste (much of it probably improperly disposed of...when did you last see your local hardware store collecting spent cfl bulbs?), more toxic dust released in living spaces, more spending by consumers on light bulbs, lower lighting levels in residences (leading to less reading, more eyestrain, etc.), and lights left on more to avoid waiting while the dim cfl bulb warms up after being powered on. Sounds like a typical federal government program...wasteful, ill-advised, unwanted, unneeded, and expensive.
...is that they are...old. Most managers want to hire people who are younger than them. The last thing they want to do is to hire someone older who has a lot of experience and will sit around sniping everything that the manager does based on that older persons presumably vast experience. Another problem with older workers is that many have serious health issues that are costly to the company, cause attendance problems, and distract the team from the mission. The best approaches for older workers (i.e. over 50) are to work as consultants where experience is sought (if they have marketable expertise), start and operate a small business, look for work as a short-term contract worker where they can be easily let go if they are not working out, work construction if they are physically able, volunteer with non-profit organizations, or run for political office.
No one. No one should decide when another person's life should end, and that includes our own decisions about our own life. Adams is one of those people who thinks that life should always be happy, joyful, bountiful, and overflowing with comforts. Well, Mr. Adams, there is suffering in this world. There always has been and there always will be but we are never allowed to end someone's life to relive their suffering or our suffering, be it psychological, physical, financial, or emotional. Never. In the case of your dad, you wanted to end his life to relieve your suffering. Yes, it's hard to watch your loved one suffer. Yes, you are suffering too as a consequence. But no, your job is not to end a life but rather it is to do what you are able to do to relieve their suffering and to endure your own suffering with no complaint.
Okay, flying drones are possible. Flying drones with power generation methods such as solar cells on board are possible. Flying drones that can fly for weeks or months through the high atmosphere are perhaps possible with some technology development. Flying drones that can fly for months through the high atmosphere and generate a significant quantity of excess power might be possible some day with significant technology development in solar cell or wind turbine efficiency. But...but...but...transmitting that power 'wirelessly' to a ground station with any sort of reasonable efficiency is definitely NOT possible with any technology currently known, such as microwaves or lasers. To do that would take some sort of breakthrough insight into a completely new technology such as, for example, quantum energy exchange between coupled atomic reservoirs, localized gravity field modulation, or, more ambitiously, time progression distortion in a localized electrical transmission field. But...the article says they will have a working prototype in one year after receiving the modest quantity of startup funding. This entire project sounds like a scam to bilk investors akin to running cars on water as a fuel or, perhaps, a CIA cover story for some sort of screwy long-term drone surveillance scheme, to name just two possibilities. In any event, the story as presented is complete and utter bullshit.
St. Peter's square is the site of the old "Circus of Nero" chariot racing track. The roman's (emperor Nero) martyred St. Peter along the "spine" of the old chariot racing track in 67 as entertainment for the chariot race attendees and then buried the body in a little cemetery located next to the track (which was handily located to clear out the victim(s) from the night before to prepare for the new day's activity.) St. Peter was held in high esteem by the early Christians of that time and they secretly excavated near his burial site in order to construct a memorial shrine, to have a place for Christian worship, and to allow other Christians of the time to be buried near St. Peter as they were martyred. As the centuries passed, and Christians were no longer persecuted, churches were built over the site of St. Peter's burial, leading to the newest one, the present St. Peter's basilica which was constructed approximately 400 years ago. St. Peter's grave is located directly under what is now the altar.
The comments here are about the difficulty, the expense, the problems with user acceptance, etc. All of those imply that this sort of change is somehow and optional thing that they can choose to do...or not. In actuality, however, this change is both mandatory and inevitable...and only a matter of time. Maybe next year, maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years but every single enterprise will eventually be forced to make this switch as Microsoft evolves and changes ('implodes' is the word that comes to mind) as it tries to maintain growth and earnings while trying to continue selling the same thing to the same places that already have purchased more than they will ever need.
Imagining that all life must have originated from Earth is an amazingly earth-centric point of view that is similar to the idea in the middle ages that all planets must revolve around the Earth. Obviously, if life can travel from Earth to Europa, it can also travel from Europa to Earth...or from planets outside of our solar system entirely. Moreover, the fossil record shows the presence of life on a very early Earth, leaving far too little time for life to form in primordial Earth oceans under any sort of process currently envisioned. Not only is pan-spermia possible, it is currently the most likely explanation for the source of life on Earth. The real question is 'where did life originate in the universe?'
"As it stands, the IR absorption by CO2 seems pretty well understood."
If, by this, you are referring to the blocking of IR heat radiation into space by CO2 molecules, then no, it (the atmospheric heat transfer process) is not well understood, or even understood. CO2 absorbs only a very narrow and specific wavelength. THAT is understood. Moreover, a CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon, immediately either re-radiates the heat or loses it via a collision with one of its neighboring molecules which, in the earth's atmosphere, are going to be O2 or N2 molecules. Those molecules, in turn, re-radiate the heat into space. The heat does not 'stay' in the atmosphere but is constantly re-radiated into space. The atmosphere is not a heat storage reservoir. That is NOT understood.
"Also I assume that you don't think volcanoes in Antarctica aren't causing melting in the Artic as well, that's a pretty big clue that they're not the main cause.
Typical global warming 'reasoning.'
"Judith Lean, a climate and solar scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, said if we’re headed towards a Maunder Minimum-type event, its arrival is hardly imminent."
She knows that how? Oh, yeah, we find out in the next paragraph: "...if solar activity is indeed in decline it will, I suppose, take a few centuries to reach a Maunder Minimum type event.”
This scientist confidently expresses her supposition in the Washingto Post to support the 'consensus' that there will be no mini ice age. If these people wanted to have even a smidgeon of credibility regarding climate prediction (itself a questionable proposition), they would be running their computer climate models with a decreasing solar output and reporting the results for different scenarios rather than stating their suppositions about the future of the sun's output (for which they obviously, like the rest of us, have no idea what will happen.) The truth is that IF solar output is indeed declining, the earth's climate is going to dramatically cool...and there is nothing that we can do about it other than prepare. That has happened in the past and it will happen in the future and it may be happening now. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 will have a negligible effect on such a cooling trend...and that's what the global cooling deniers don't want to say.
Humans (and other vertebratans) have been feeding on mollusca denizens for centuries...and they are getting pissed off about it. Snails, clams, octopus, squid, abalone, and geoducks...we've had our fill and then some. Not to mention the unspeakable things humans routinely do to slugs. Molluscans have had enough of our abuse and they are coming after us.
The article makes it sound as if the crows are themselves acquiring genetic modifications giving them resistance to antibiotic compounds. However, it is the bacteria inhabiting the crows intestine that have acquired the antibiotic resistance genes, not the crows themselves. The article also suggests that antibiotics dispensed in hospitals are somehow a major factor when, in fact, the quantity of antibiotics dispensed in factory farms surpasses the quantity dispensed for human medical needs by orders of magnitude. If antibiotic resistance leads to increased human mortality, blame the steak on your plate, not the poor fellow down the street having surgery at the hospital.
Childs was basically attempting to extort expensive employment privileges (job security, work assignments, working hours, co-worker assignments, physical access) from the City of San Francisco by concealing critical information if they didn't cooperate. The sentence for extortion is usually longer than two years so Childs should have gotten a longer sentence. The legal brief is a very sad read when you consider all of the bright people (both legal and technical) who have spent thousands of hours dealing with the machinations of one crooked jerk. The rest of the world must be amazed at the utter waste of talented people who could be employed in more useful activities.
Microsoft still licenses their software like it's 1982 and they are the toll collector on progress. You buy a copy of their newest [whatever] program and pay them the fee that they set. They never look at what they provide and ask themselves 'are we providing value equivalent to what we are collecting in tolls?' Auto companies, in contrast, have to do that with absolutely every thing that they provide since cars are very complex performance-driven devices that are competitively mass-produced and consequently sell for little money relative to their high cost of manufacture. Moreover, cars must be both reliable and supported/maintained for 20 years after they are sold. All of these are foreign concepts to Microsoft which can't see any reason why they should not just release V x.x of their 'car OS' and sell it to manufacturers who would eagerly link everything to it. The manufacturer's, though, need to have control over the source code for critical updates, control over the licensing and distribution, and control over the overall structure and software design. Manufacturer's have been putting software in cars for over 20 years and they could never settle for Microsoft's way of doing things...so turning to OSS is inevitable for them.
"Recorded History" on arctic ice extent is pretty damn short. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) used to list something they called the '1979-2001' average and then showed that, based on that, the current ice extent was pathetically low. Lately, they have switched to showing the '1981-2010' average because the early years of satellite measurements have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Better quality data has only been available since 2002 and, based on that, 2013 is the 6th highest ice extent minimum on record.
"There are many many other examples of bad "design" in humans and other animals that just wouldn't be there if we really were intelligently designed."
By "intelligent design" you seem to be saying 'perfect design.' Perfect design would imply a perfect world without disease, deformity, and dysfunction which would be a world that Jesus did not seek during his time here. For example, Jesus healed many ill people but only as an illustrative example of the power of God and obviously not with the intent to create perfection and eliminate all human suffering. Why not? Moreover, those sick people that were healed ultimately aged, became ill, and died as they are obviously no longer with us today. Jesus pointed to hungry people lacking food and asked for others to share with them but he did not do a 'shazam' and create an abundance of food for all people for all time. Apparently, if this world is God's creation, then all are supposed to suffer and die in it and all have a choice to make...either with God or not. Of course, if you choose 'without' you will still suffer and die. But...where would the choice for us be if there was nothing but perfection, harmony, and abundance?
"The most common form of reproduction in the world is asexual."
No, it is not. Almost all mammals (which is what humans are) reproduce sexually. Among the 'higher animals' that we were discussing, most reproduce sexually, for unknown reasons. It could be argued that sexual reproduction is the means by which a Creator created both us and the biblical animals upon which scripture refers to for for food, transportation, comfort, fear, etc. OTOH, all prokaryotes reproduce asexually but we were not talking about 'all life forms.'
Okay, let's consider sex (always a good thing to consider). Genesis in the Bible says that God created two sexes, male and female. Now, if there is no Creator with a building plan, then we might expect to see more variety in the area of reproduction among us higher animal types rather than the standard male/female stuff we are so used to. For example, there is no need for separate male and female sexes. One individual could carry both male and female reproduction equipment and use either depending on the need, yet that is very rare and uncommon. Or, we could reproduce asexually but, again, that is very rare. Well, of course all of the mitochondria in your body have reproduced asexually, but I digress. The point here is that both the Bible and our observations point to at least the possibility of a plan by a master builder.
If there is a Creator of life, then we would expect to see the blueprints used for more than one construction site...perhaps even more than one planet. Alternatively, however, if we are all actors in a play that no one wrote, then randomness would be expected to create more genetic diversity.
"For more than a century scientists have known that Earth’s ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit.
There are so many blatant errors in just this one sentence that it's publication is astounding. First, the Earth is currently in the middle of its 5th "ice age," the "Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation," (which began 2.5 million years ago) and what the article calls 'ice ages' are termed by real scientists to be "glacial periods" within the current ice age. The Earth is presently in what is called an "interglacial period" and the next "glacial period" is likely to begin within the next 1,000 to 2,000 years. Next, there is certainly no consensus that either the Earth's "Ice Ages" or "Glacial Periods" are caused by wobbling of the planet's orbit. General consensus by scientists is that both ice ages and glacial periods within those are caused by a variety of factors including atmospheric changes, solar changes, changes in the position of tectonic plates which affect ocean circulation, variations in the Earth's orbit (which are currently considered more likely to affect glacial and interglacial cycles rather than to initiate or end ice ages), and volcanism. In short, TFA is utter bullshit.
You point to bread and fruit as causes of your high blood sugar levels but, for most people, the causes are: 1) Overeating 2) eating heavily-sugared high calorie items: (candy, soda pop, donuts, cake, syrups, etc.) For most of us, the sugar from eating bread and fruit is a tiny fraction of the sugar that we get from 1) and 2) so eliminating bread and fruit will not help. Your body converts portions of EVERYTHING that you eat into glucose and it is high glucose levels that the article is referring to. The glucose levels in Type 2 diabetics become too high because the body is constantly overwhelmed by the caloric load being dropped on it and becomes less reactive to the insulin hormone. To put this in simple terms, it is not bread, fruit, potatoes, or 'carbs' that are bad for you...it is TOO MUCH of those or anything else. If you don't spend portions of your day with true hunger pangs caused by low blood sugar, you are over eating.