He's just overly enthusiastic. The anti-GMO environmentalists don't want those people to starve; they just care more about banning GMO than saving those people.
Sadly, your comments will be ignored, and the distorted half-truths will spread, and still be repeated a decade from now. The fear of GMO will spread also, much like the fear of vaccines, and just as harmfully.
They aren't personal infantry weapons. If at some point we arm our soldiers with wrist-mounted laser guided mini-nukes, yes, citizens should be allowed to own them.
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact
the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is the most important... the only important argument in this thread. There is no honest reading of the constitution that allows banning firearms. The only way to restrict gun ownership without a constitutional amendment is to simply ignore the constitution.
And that is honestly worth many, many deaths to prevent. A Civil War magnitude of deaths to prevent. Losing our constitution, is condemning ourselves and our descendents to tyranny.
If you want to amend the constitution to ban guns... let's talk. There's reasonable arguments on both sides.
I would speculate that those who pretend spending is the only problem probably ignore much of the past 15 years of government action.
You mean the last fifteen years where spending has gone from 1.6 trillion to 3.7 trillion? Where total tax revenue is still at the highest it's ever been? Where we would have an instant surplus if we could simply bring the federal budget down to where it was in 2004?
The impossibility of unicorns is next to irrelevant. What matters is the unlikelihood of unicorns, just like the unlikelihood of murderous hackers is the issue at hand.
And lack of evidence can very easily establish unlikelihood.
Scientific American is a shadow of its former self. It was a great and respectable magazine 20 years ago; now it is barely more than a 'Discovery' or 'Popular Science'... more parts marketing and fluff than science. I loved it when I was a kid, and now I just feel sad whenever I see a 'Scientific American very special theme issue' on the shelves.
I have many views that you would probably label as right-wing and extreme, and yet I'm not the slightest bit sexist, racist, or homophobic. Will that truth affect your gross caricaturizations in the future? Probably not.
Holy crap. You prompted me to check their stock prices. I had thought that smart people were going to begin divesting themselves soon; hadn't realized it had already started happening.
I don't think Apple is in severe trouble; they've got the money and resources to survive for years and years. However, they are going to be re-evaluated down to a rational level, and that's going to be a huge shock for some people.
Or who can use a product, or benefits from reduced prices or more features of a competing product. Or who benefits indirectly from anybody who benefits directly.
It's a myth that 'the right wing' wants to ban birth control. It's never been in the republican party platform, and no serious candidate in many decades has ever advocated for that. It's just a baseless lie from their opponents that stuck and was repeated by partisans.
If I make lots of hats, and lots of people want hats, I might be able to charge $20 each. If I decide to make few hats, I might be able to charge $50 each. That is what Apple is doing, and it's a clear consequence of supply and demand.
Another clear consequence of supply and demand is the fact that other hat-makers will see the opportunity, make hats, increase the supply, and allow people to purchase cheap hats... except for the idiots that are demanding overpriced hats. That again is supply and demand, and that again is what is happening in the marketplace in which Apple resides.
Neither strategy is cheating, any more than choosing a different material to build a house is cheating.
The millions of inexpensive and increasingly competitive android alternatives to the ipad are clear proof that competition drives prices down.
The problem with the healthcare market is that (1) it is too highly regulated and (2) there is no real marketplace because customers are insulated from the true price by layers of insurance and benefits.
The advertising revenue from a video with 16 million hits is too minor to have even factored into the decision.
Now, it may not have been strictly a corporate belief in free speech; it may have been a self-interested decision that if they start caving into demands like this they'll end up severely crippled in a few years... but I'm ok with that as a motivator.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he has hundreds of victims?
Well... yeah? According to my quick computation, that does make it, um... carry the one... hundreds of times more serious.
The first Terminator movie, viewed by itself, is a wonderfully self-consistent time travel movie. The following movies mess it up slightly.
Fact: Science only provides a limited model of what we understand about the universe.
Tell me something you understand about the universe that has no scientific basis? Then, explain the evidence for why you understand this.
Global warming, possibly. Or the lack of pirates.
He's just overly enthusiastic. The anti-GMO environmentalists don't want those people to starve; they just care more about banning GMO than saving those people.
Sadly, your comments will be ignored, and the distorted half-truths will spread, and still be repeated a decade from now. The fear of GMO will spread also, much like the fear of vaccines, and just as harmfully.
They aren't personal infantry weapons. If at some point we arm our soldiers with wrist-mounted laser guided mini-nukes, yes, citizens should be allowed to own them.
If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.
This is the most important... the only important argument in this thread. There is no honest reading of the constitution that allows banning firearms. The only way to restrict gun ownership without a constitutional amendment is to simply ignore the constitution.
And that is honestly worth many, many deaths to prevent. A Civil War magnitude of deaths to prevent. Losing our constitution, is condemning ourselves and our descendents to tyranny.
If you want to amend the constitution to ban guns... let's talk. There's reasonable arguments on both sides.
So... you're a criminal. Got it.
Did you know that your comment reveals how weak you really are? Everybody reading this knows it.
Smart that you posted anonymously, although that also shows cowardice, and shows that you know that you're a coward. Examine yourself.
I would speculate that those who pretend spending is the only problem probably ignore much of the past 15 years of government action.
You mean the last fifteen years where spending has gone from 1.6 trillion to 3.7 trillion? Where total tax revenue is still at the highest it's ever been? Where we would have an instant surplus if we could simply bring the federal budget down to where it was in 2004?
The impossibility of unicorns is next to irrelevant. What matters is the unlikelihood of unicorns, just like the unlikelihood of murderous hackers is the issue at hand.
And lack of evidence can very easily establish unlikelihood.
Scientific American is a shadow of its former self. It was a great and respectable magazine 20 years ago; now it is barely more than a 'Discovery' or 'Popular Science'... more parts marketing and fluff than science. I loved it when I was a kid, and now I just feel sad whenever I see a 'Scientific American very special theme issue' on the shelves.
But don't deny the tea party has a strong racist component to it. I know they've insisted they're not racists quite a bit.
I deny that. Now offer proof.
I have many views that you would probably label as right-wing and extreme, and yet I'm not the slightest bit sexist, racist, or homophobic. Will that truth affect your gross caricaturizations in the future? Probably not.
He's correct. They have a huge bankroll. I was surprised; there is a better chance of Sony getting out the field than Nintendo.
My Wii is hooked up to the TV, right next to the PS2.
Consoles don't get worse over time. There are games for the PS2 that you haven't yet played that are better than most anything on the 360.
Holy crap. You prompted me to check their stock prices. I had thought that smart people were going to begin divesting themselves soon; hadn't realized it had already started happening.
I don't think Apple is in severe trouble; they've got the money and resources to survive for years and years. However, they are going to be re-evaluated down to a rational level, and that's going to be a huge shock for some people.
Or who can use a product, or benefits from reduced prices or more features of a competing product. Or who benefits indirectly from anybody who benefits directly.
It's a myth that 'the right wing' wants to ban birth control. It's never been in the republican party platform, and no serious candidate in many decades has ever advocated for that. It's just a baseless lie from their opponents that stuck and was repeated by partisans.
Because it's easy. That's a good thing.
You're missing the principle.
If I make lots of hats, and lots of people want hats, I might be able to charge $20 each. If I decide to make few hats, I might be able to charge $50 each. That is what Apple is doing, and it's a clear consequence of supply and demand.
Another clear consequence of supply and demand is the fact that other hat-makers will see the opportunity, make hats, increase the supply, and allow people to purchase cheap hats... except for the idiots that are demanding overpriced hats. That again is supply and demand, and that again is what is happening in the marketplace in which Apple resides.
Neither strategy is cheating, any more than choosing a different material to build a house is cheating.
The millions of inexpensive and increasingly competitive android alternatives to the ipad are clear proof that competition drives prices down.
The problem with the healthcare market is that (1) it is too highly regulated and (2) there is no real marketplace because customers are insulated from the true price by layers of insurance and benefits.
The advertising revenue from a video with 16 million hits is too minor to have even factored into the decision.
Now, it may not have been strictly a corporate belief in free speech; it may have been a self-interested decision that if they start caving into demands like this they'll end up severely crippled in a few years... but I'm ok with that as a motivator.
You honestly think you're behaving like a grown-up?