Not so. My colleague and desk-mate has an Iphone while I had a T-mobile G1 (imported to Canada) and now have the HTC Magic. Almost everyday I do something on my phone that he is jealous of either because he can't do it, or my phone just does it much better. There may be some technical aspects to each that makes the Iphone "better", however, the consumer market doesn't give a crap about that, they care about whether it does this or that at all, and especially better than someone else's.
Hmmm...actually I'm pretty sure that the proponents of Prop 8 worked with in the purview of the constitutional legal system to pass such a law.
Maybe we should talk about the rather unconstitutional actions of the opponents and their terrorism against groups who supported Prop 8.
Also, what is missing in this entire issue, so far as I can see, is any rational deliberative discourse about rights in general. This word, right, is by far one of the least understood and yet widely used. What is a right, what is the source of it, and how do you reconcile instances where the exercise of YOUR rights infringe on another's ability to exercise THEIR rights (this is clearly that type of issue)?
I always thought it would be great to sneak up at night and steal the plate off of the camera-toting mini-van, then drive through with it on my car. Of course, the fact that I would never know the outcome really makes it not worth my time.
That may be correct if the only problem we are trying to solve is an environmental (specifically emissions) one. It seems to me that this should be the least of our worries. I see electric power from any source as a means of decreasing the economic load generaed by high demand for oil products as well as energy security on the national and personal level. If we run electric cars and we have a problem with getting, say, coal, we can switch our generation method to something we can get. If we are dependent on oil and we can't get any more, how do we run our cars/trucks/trains?
While I agree that there is a misuse of words and an intentional connotation tying abuse to illegality for the purpose of aggrandizing the issue, I feel that your own "definition" of abuse could use a little more accuracy.
abuse/a'buj:z/ make excessive and habitual use of (alcohol or drugs, esp. illegal ones)
If everyone would just look up every word in a dictionary before we use it we would probably avoid a lot of problems. Start memorizing.
I also have google apps for my domain, and not the free kind. a recent calendar issue surrounding recurring events span daylight savings time led me to call the support line. after about 5 minutes o ringing it just stopped. a couple more tries gave the same result. when i finally got someone through chat they said that the problem was not an issue because the calendar is supposed to work that way. I couldn't get an explanation as to why on earth it would jumble all of my events on purpose. when i prodded they literally ignored me. this is the app and support I am paying for. I am losing faith.
Two things: first, I understand that you were talking about medical drugs, and do not want to be misconstrued as a proponent of narcotic legalization.
Which brings me to my second point that I was alluding to-but did not explain-in my earlier post. Our culture is a drug culture. We are convinced and teach our children that when they have a problem, an illness, there is almost always a drug that can solve that problem. Is it any wonder then that when people have problems they take a drug that will make them feel better? This counts for both legal and illegal drugs and both physical and emotional/psychological issues. It is not availability that is the real issue, it is the paradigm. We live in a drug culture, and the real war on drugs is an effort to maintain control of them by those that benefit most from them: manufacturers of non-naturally occurring and non-replicatable (without a chemistry degree and a lot of equipment) drugs that are sold at ridiculous margins. More drugs is certainly not the answer to any of our problems, medical or otherwise.
While I certainly agree that familiarizing guns with children is the answer, I actually disagree with the possession or use of TOY guns. In my house growing up my friends always thought it was weird that my parents never let me have toy guns (even if given as a present), until they found out that I was allowed to have ad use real ones. My parents believed what I subscribe to and to what you are alluding: that knowledge of real guns and their effects and consequences is the key to safety and using toy guns diminishes the reality of those consequences. So, don't buy your kids toy guns, and do let them use, and eventually buy for them, real guns that they will respect.
Because what your doctor won't tell you is that exposure from a broken bulb (or some would argue that which is radiated throught the air by an unbroken bulb) is still less than the amount of mercury and other heavy metals being injected into that same baby through vaccination. And, of course the reason your doctor won't tell you this is actually the same reason we use these bulbs to combat climate change: follow the money........
There are a bunch of ways that the manufacturers have gotten around this. Depending on its place in the production process it may not be considered an active ingredient, and therefore not required to be listed as an ingredient. Also, it has often been replaced with aluminum compounds which are no safer for human injection than any other heavy metal.
If you want to talk about an undereducated population and bad science this is the perfect place to start. You, sir, are clearly ignorant of the scientific realities of childhood vaccination. The science to support such programs is bad and the way the issue is portrayed by doctors is even worse.
I have a Gmail account through Google Apps Premier (yes I pay 50 dollars per year), but to me surprise this week my account limit went from a robust 10GB to 25Gb. I am sure the rest of Gmail is not far behind in getting some serious storage space upgrade.
These works were written well before the printing press made a standardization of grammar a possibility and even before Johnson wrote the first English dictionary, at which point standard spelling became an issue.
Now we are starting to get somewhere. See the real problem with our attitude toward medicine is tha it is a "fix my symtoms" attitude. We need to be determining and then acting to eliminate the root causes of our illnesses. The fact that 50% of spouses will cheat is a root cause to HIV and many other societal woes. Perhaps if as much effort went into ensuring stable family ralationships and educating people about the consequences of their actions, we would actually get somewhere with this disease. From my best estimation we are no where near a solution to this problem; the reason is we are looking at the wrong part of it. Lets get down to what is really wrong and quit getting played by pharmaceutical companies to dump all our resources into never getting anywhere. HIV is perfect for pharmaceutical companies because no one ever gets cured, they just live their whole lives eating tons of expensive drugs. No one wants a one-time customer, and these guys have got their market dialed in. And yes I absolutely can call people irresponsible if they are not ensuring that the poeple they are having intercourse with are not going o give them a certainly fatal disease. If I knew a cold would kill me I would wash my hands and where a face mask all the time.
Well, what I did was not have sex with anyone until I got married, and made sure that my wife did the same. Then after marriage neither of us has sex with anyone else. Of course, if she or I had had sex I would have insisted on testing prior to our marriage. This would probably be inconvenient if you are looking to have casual sex with multiple partners, but to wonder how to ensure you are protected when doing so is begging the question. The fact is, if you want to be responsible you can be, if not don't complain when you or your friends start dying. Simple.
Actually, you don't have to not have sex with anyone; you just have to not have sex with anyone who has HIV or has had sex with someone who has. I do it why can't everybody else? According to reports from friends of mine who recently immigrated from Liberia there is only one country in Africa where the rate of contraction is declining, I believe it is Uganda. The reason has nothing o do with medication or research, it is education that if you have sex with someone with HIV you will die. Seems pretty simple to me.
Anyone ever hear of a little thing called the Irish potato famine. Basically, the Irish discovered a great cheap source of food and soon became wholly dependent on it. Then, one little glitch (read potato blight) came along and wiped out millions. Sounds familiar?
It sounds to e like we are all confused. The makers of the survey made a very poorly worded one if I understand the article right. I agree with you that the scientific community does accep evolutionary hypotheses as fact, and to pose a question about this in a survey is pointless. However, you have done the same thing as teh poor survey makers by conflating two different issues. You are right that you can have an understanding of science adn God, but to say that anyone who believes the earth is lessa than 10,000 years old is ignorance is also right only in as much as you assume that the earth must be less than that old to have been created. The whole creationism and evolution denate is so flawed tha neither side really has the ability to see the truth of what the other stands for. Once this is overcome then we will be ablet o both have an understanding of God and science.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that this article http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html is pertinent.
Not so. My colleague and desk-mate has an Iphone while I had a T-mobile G1 (imported to Canada) and now have the HTC Magic. Almost everyday I do something on my phone that he is jealous of either because he can't do it, or my phone just does it much better. There may be some technical aspects to each that makes the Iphone "better", however, the consumer market doesn't give a crap about that, they care about whether it does this or that at all, and especially better than someone else's.
Hmmm...actually I'm pretty sure that the proponents of Prop 8 worked with in the purview of the constitutional legal system to pass such a law. Maybe we should talk about the rather unconstitutional actions of the opponents and their terrorism against groups who supported Prop 8. Also, what is missing in this entire issue, so far as I can see, is any rational deliberative discourse about rights in general. This word, right, is by far one of the least understood and yet widely used. What is a right, what is the source of it, and how do you reconcile instances where the exercise of YOUR rights infringe on another's ability to exercise THEIR rights (this is clearly that type of issue)?
I always thought it would be great to sneak up at night and steal the plate off of the camera-toting mini-van, then drive through with it on my car. Of course, the fact that I would never know the outcome really makes it not worth my time.
That may be correct if the only problem we are trying to solve is an environmental (specifically emissions) one. It seems to me that this should be the least of our worries. I see electric power from any source as a means of decreasing the economic load generaed by high demand for oil products as well as energy security on the national and personal level. If we run electric cars and we have a problem with getting, say, coal, we can switch our generation method to something we can get. If we are dependent on oil and we can't get any more, how do we run our cars/trucks/trains?
While I agree that there is a misuse of words and an intentional connotation tying abuse to illegality for the purpose of aggrandizing the issue, I feel that your own "definition" of abuse could use a little more accuracy. abuse /a'buj:z/ make excessive and habitual use of (alcohol or drugs, esp. illegal ones)
If everyone would just look up every word in a dictionary before we use it we would probably avoid a lot of problems. Start memorizing.
I also have google apps for my domain, and not the free kind. a recent calendar issue surrounding recurring events span daylight savings time led me to call the support line. after about 5 minutes o ringing it just stopped. a couple more tries gave the same result. when i finally got someone through chat they said that the problem was not an issue because the calendar is supposed to work that way. I couldn't get an explanation as to why on earth it would jumble all of my events on purpose. when i prodded they literally ignored me. this is the app and support I am paying for. I am losing faith.
What exactly are you speculating? Perhaps read my subsequent post before answering.
Two things: first, I understand that you were talking about medical drugs, and do not want to be misconstrued as a proponent of narcotic legalization. Which brings me to my second point that I was alluding to-but did not explain-in my earlier post. Our culture is a drug culture. We are convinced and teach our children that when they have a problem, an illness, there is almost always a drug that can solve that problem. Is it any wonder then that when people have problems they take a drug that will make them feel better? This counts for both legal and illegal drugs and both physical and emotional/psychological issues. It is not availability that is the real issue, it is the paradigm. We live in a drug culture, and the real war on drugs is an effort to maintain control of them by those that benefit most from them: manufacturers of non-naturally occurring and non-replicatable (without a chemistry degree and a lot of equipment) drugs that are sold at ridiculous margins. More drugs is certainly not the answer to any of our problems, medical or otherwise.
"The fact that people will misuse drugs does not mean we shouldn't make them available."
Someone should probably tell that to the DEA before we waste any more resources on this whole war on drugs thing.
While I certainly agree that familiarizing guns with children is the answer, I actually disagree with the possession or use of TOY guns. In my house growing up my friends always thought it was weird that my parents never let me have toy guns (even if given as a present), until they found out that I was allowed to have ad use real ones. My parents believed what I subscribe to and to what you are alluding: that knowledge of real guns and their effects and consequences is the key to safety and using toy guns diminishes the reality of those consequences. So, don't buy your kids toy guns, and do let them use, and eventually buy for them, real guns that they will respect.
Because what your doctor won't tell you is that exposure from a broken bulb (or some would argue that which is radiated throught the air by an unbroken bulb) is still less than the amount of mercury and other heavy metals being injected into that same baby through vaccination. And, of course the reason your doctor won't tell you this is actually the same reason we use these bulbs to combat climate change: follow the money........
There are a bunch of ways that the manufacturers have gotten around this. Depending on its place in the production process it may not be considered an active ingredient, and therefore not required to be listed as an ingredient. Also, it has often been replaced with aluminum compounds which are no safer for human injection than any other heavy metal.
If you want to talk about an undereducated population and bad science this is the perfect place to start. You, sir, are clearly ignorant of the scientific realities of childhood vaccination. The science to support such programs is bad and the way the issue is portrayed by doctors is even worse.
Slander is defamatory language that is spoken; the written form is called libel.
I have a Gmail account through Google Apps Premier (yes I pay 50 dollars per year), but to me surprise this week my account limit went from a robust 10GB to 25Gb. I am sure the rest of Gmail is not far behind in getting some serious storage space upgrade.
These works were written well before the printing press made a standardization of grammar a possibility and even before Johnson wrote the first English dictionary, at which point standard spelling became an issue.
Now we are starting to get somewhere. See the real problem with our attitude toward medicine is tha it is a "fix my symtoms" attitude. We need to be determining and then acting to eliminate the root causes of our illnesses. The fact that 50% of spouses will cheat is a root cause to HIV and many other societal woes. Perhaps if as much effort went into ensuring stable family ralationships and educating people about the consequences of their actions, we would actually get somewhere with this disease. From my best estimation we are no where near a solution to this problem; the reason is we are looking at the wrong part of it. Lets get down to what is really wrong and quit getting played by pharmaceutical companies to dump all our resources into never getting anywhere. HIV is perfect for pharmaceutical companies because no one ever gets cured, they just live their whole lives eating tons of expensive drugs. No one wants a one-time customer, and these guys have got their market dialed in. And yes I absolutely can call people irresponsible if they are not ensuring that the poeple they are having intercourse with are not going o give them a certainly fatal disease. If I knew a cold would kill me I would wash my hands and where a face mask all the time.
Well, what I did was not have sex with anyone until I got married, and made sure that my wife did the same. Then after marriage neither of us has sex with anyone else. Of course, if she or I had had sex I would have insisted on testing prior to our marriage. This would probably be inconvenient if you are looking to have casual sex with multiple partners, but to wonder how to ensure you are protected when doing so is begging the question. The fact is, if you want to be responsible you can be, if not don't complain when you or your friends start dying. Simple.
Actually, you don't have to not have sex with anyone; you just have to not have sex with anyone who has HIV or has had sex with someone who has. I do it why can't everybody else? According to reports from friends of mine who recently immigrated from Liberia there is only one country in Africa where the rate of contraction is declining, I believe it is Uganda. The reason has nothing o do with medication or research, it is education that if you have sex with someone with HIV you will die. Seems pretty simple to me.
Anyone ever hear of a little thing called the Irish potato famine. Basically, the Irish discovered a great cheap source of food and soon became wholly dependent on it. Then, one little glitch (read potato blight) came along and wiped out millions. Sounds familiar?
Can everybody please go watch this and come back?
0 469846467
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=434013530
thank you.
It sounds to e like we are all confused. The makers of the survey made a very poorly worded one if I understand the article right. I agree with you that the scientific community does accep evolutionary hypotheses as fact, and to pose a question about this in a survey is pointless. However, you have done the same thing as teh poor survey makers by conflating two different issues. You are right that you can have an understanding of science adn God, but to say that anyone who believes the earth is lessa than 10,000 years old is ignorance is also right only in as much as you assume that the earth must be less than that old to have been created. The whole creationism and evolution denate is so flawed tha neither side really has the ability to see the truth of what the other stands for. Once this is overcome then we will be ablet o both have an understanding of God and science.