Depends who you mean - the article says most biologists didn't pay much attention to this and I think that is wrong. However to say most laymen did not know about this is probably correct. Also like GP I hate the phrase "paradigm shift" as I find its often brought up by purveyors of woo.
He has been a bit conservative with implementing his ideas - and hopefully that will improve with time. If you compare Bush's first four years to his second you will see that he becomes a lot more assertive, and perhaps Obama will be like this. Its a big responsibility and a natural reaction is to go slow as to not fuck it up - despite that going too slow is the easiest way of doing so.
I think this is a grossly unrealistic idea. The problem with big government is that its easy to say its too big - but try and remove parts of it and you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up. You would do a lot better in revitalising the US govt, if you made a big focus on anti-corruption and improving competence and efficiency, that's were big savings can be made.
Not the poster but in Australia movie tickets cost $15 for a standard ticket - more ritzier set-ups go as high as $30. What is the cost in the US and elsewhere? Are we getting ripped off?
Its not so much about the money as it is about your electoral system - it actively discourages minor parties from being elected. If you introduced preference voting so that you could vote for multiple parties (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_voting) I think you would see more options. As things currently stand there is an insurmountable level of inertia to starting a new party.
People at google are not using IE - People who use google products like gmail use IE. They are the ones that got really owned. Google itself did not get completely owned (if you trust Google's narrative).
Perhaps you would like to make that statement over a communications channel that does not invalidate your point.
If you want to know why the modern would exists its because of the scientific world view - and the important thing is that it does NOT tell you that everything is figured out - but it gives you an incremental process for doing so.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive but I am ever so tired of people equating science and religion. Educate yourself about history or you will end up repeating it.
I would accept this if terrorists where actually poor people who have no other options in life and the only thing they can do is use their life to strike against their oppressors (as is possibly the case in other parts of the world). In reality the folk that attack western countries seem to be the well off folk who are radicalised beyond all rationality. They just make life worse for the rest of their people.
And for the question of if they have legitimate grievances against the west - they do but they exaggerate and combine legitimate ones with crazy conspiracy theories which frankly a child could debunk. They are not honest about the atrocities they commit - ie atrocities in darfur and sudan are all western propaganda etc and the popular belief that jews organised 9/11 even within al-quada. There is just no common acceptance of realty that would make negotiations feasible.
Normally that would work - except we have proof that the peer reviewed journals were intentionally kept from publishing anything that disagreed with the idea that we're all going to die unless liberals are elected to save us all. That's what you're not acknowledging is that things were rigged to prevent any disagreement (well, any publicly acknowledged disagreement) among scientists.
Statements like these don't even have to be disproved - only repeated for the public to come to our side:D This is bordering on a global warming poe.
If you have some experience dealing with them you will know that there exists no possible set of evidence that will change their mind. Given the overwhelming evidence in existance today why would that change their minds? It would be another Satan's trick, or an alternative interpretation of the same evidence etc etc. I'm willing to bet many would even claim that it proves them right.
The problem is we haven't found billions of planets just like ours - only a handful so far - and 'like ours' in a very vague sense. We are yet to find a planet that is within say 10% of all the parameters of ours. I don't know if there is a reason to suggest that our planet is unusual but until we can find another one the philosophers get to wax lyrical.
I sometimes find I select something - and the drop-down box is still selected as I try to scroll down with my mouse wheel - which scrolls the drop down box instead of the screen. I don't always notice that that is what happened until I have confirmed it.
They act as points of contact rather than as agents, as far as I know - but its a good question if they get immunity. Given that every major police force in the US would have such officers already - and this law was brought in because INTERPOL opened an office in NY with half a dozen folk - I would think not.
Interpol just handles exchange of data - they would have to ask the relevant US Police agency to arrest them, and then to extradite them to the Hague - which in most cases requires that the crime being extradited for is recognised as a crime by the US. Which obviously leaves two separate opportunities for the US to say no thanx.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends who you mean - the article says most biologists didn't pay much attention to this and I think that is wrong. However to say most laymen did not know about this is probably correct. Also like GP I hate the phrase "paradigm shift" as I find its often brought up by purveyors of woo.
Then replace EMP with any implement of violence and hide in the basement for the rest of your life.
And they limit the number of T's in a pos
He has been a bit conservative with implementing his ideas - and hopefully that will improve with time. If you compare Bush's first four years to his second you will see that he becomes a lot more assertive, and perhaps Obama will be like this. Its a big responsibility and a natural reaction is to go slow as to not fuck it up - despite that going too slow is the easiest way of doing so.
I think this is a grossly unrealistic idea. The problem with big government is that its easy to say its too big - but try and remove parts of it and you will suddenly realise that the great majority is a whole heap of actually necessary small things that add up. You would do a lot better in revitalising the US govt, if you made a big focus on anti-corruption and improving competence and efficiency, that's were big savings can be made.
Not the poster but in Australia movie tickets cost $15 for a standard ticket - more ritzier set-ups go as high as $30. What is the cost in the US and elsewhere? Are we getting ripped off?
Using windows here - copy link gives direct link. No redirection.
Its not so much about the money as it is about your electoral system - it actively discourages minor parties from being elected. If you introduced preference voting so that you could vote for multiple parties (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_voting) I think you would see more options. As things currently stand there is an insurmountable level of inertia to starting a new party.
People at google are not using IE - People who use google products like gmail use IE. They are the ones that got really owned. Google itself did not get completely owned (if you trust Google's narrative).
Perhaps you would like to make that statement over a communications channel that does not invalidate your point.
If you want to know why the modern would exists its because of the scientific world view - and the important thing is that it does NOT tell you that everything is figured out - but it gives you an incremental process for doing so.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive but I am ever so tired of people equating science and religion. Educate yourself about history or you will end up repeating it.
I would accept this if terrorists where actually poor people who have no other options in life and the only thing they can do is use their life to strike against their oppressors (as is possibly the case in other parts of the world). In reality the folk that attack western countries seem to be the well off folk who are radicalised beyond all rationality. They just make life worse for the rest of their people.
And for the question of if they have legitimate grievances against the west - they do but they exaggerate and combine legitimate ones with crazy conspiracy theories which frankly a child could debunk. They are not honest about the atrocities they commit - ie atrocities in darfur and sudan are all western propaganda etc and the popular belief that jews organised 9/11 even within al-quada. There is just no common acceptance of realty that would make negotiations feasible.
Took my own advice - turns out you are right - kudos.
I think you need to think about that more carefully - try it in real life and see if the statistics match up with observation.
WTF I don't even... cut down on the drugs...
Can confirm second line to be true :D
Probably, but given our habit of causing tomorrows problems with today's solutions it would not be too surprising.
Resolution is 800x480 http://www.google.com/phone/static/en_US-nexusone_tech_specs.html
Normally that would work - except we have proof that the peer reviewed journals were intentionally kept from publishing anything that disagreed with the idea that we're all going to die unless liberals are elected to save us all. That's what you're not acknowledging is that things were rigged to prevent any disagreement (well, any publicly acknowledged disagreement) among scientists.
Statements like these don't even have to be disproved - only repeated for the public to come to our side :D This is bordering on a global warming poe.
If you have some experience dealing with them you will know that there exists no possible set of evidence that will change their mind. Given the overwhelming evidence in existance today why would that change their minds? It would be another Satan's trick, or an alternative interpretation of the same evidence etc etc. I'm willing to bet many would even claim that it proves them right.
The problem is we haven't found billions of planets just like ours - only a handful so far - and 'like ours' in a very vague sense. We are yet to find a planet that is within say 10% of all the parameters of ours. I don't know if there is a reason to suggest that our planet is unusual but until we can find another one the philosophers get to wax lyrical.
I sometimes find I select something - and the drop-down box is still selected as I try to scroll down with my mouse wheel - which scrolls the drop down box instead of the screen. I don't always notice that that is what happened until I have confirmed it.
They act as points of contact rather than as agents, as far as I know - but its a good question if they get immunity. Given that every major police force in the US would have such officers already - and this law was brought in because INTERPOL opened an office in NY with half a dozen folk - I would think not.
Interpol just handles exchange of data - they would have to ask the relevant US Police agency to arrest them, and then to extradite them to the Hague - which in most cases requires that the crime being extradited for is recognised as a crime by the US. Which obviously leaves two separate opportunities for the US to say no thanx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europol
I think you got these two mixed up.
FFS Interpol is not a police force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol