It's not a numbers game but an average affect on the body and any empirical evidence from other countries changes to laws would confirm that legalization does not provide a significant increase in usage or users (although does seem to increase tourism).
If you've got a gripe, I suggest keeping it brief, because really, nobody read all that. Also post it under your user name.
From the bits I read, my answer would be that there is no mind control as such. It just happens that people that people with similar view points are attracted to the existing group of people that share those views.
objectivity does not require absolute truth
If identical conclusions about something are reached by independent observers, it becomes objective truth.
Absolute truth is for crazy people.
I don't think the idea is to turn tv into porno central.
Up north in Canada, stations are allowed to show nudity at certain hours. What it allows is for stations to chose to not censor tv shows or movies from the creators original vision. I can only think of two stations (showcase & citytv) in my area that show any sort of blue movies and that's usually one day a week. It allows us to watch the sopranos as it was filmed. It also goes for the radio as well. I remember listing in the car while I was driving my mom somewhere and Closer by NIN came on. Awkward.
First of all, Pascal's wager is in regards to the existence of god, not religion.
Moreover, the biggest problem with his wager is that it is all about how believing in god benefits you as an individual, whereas, there is no discussion as to people making decisions that affect more than themselves. Furthermore, the wager only matters if you believe that the gambit is for eternal life in the first place. If you believe in god, but not heaven (or whatever flavour of that you like), there is no difference in the wager to not believing in god and not believing in heaven. He's essentially trying to convince himself that he's not an idiot for believing without reason (whereas most people feel no need to justify it).
As for groupthink in science, there is at least a possibility of evidence arising to sway opinion. Good luck with that in religion, it's an all or nothing gamble.
Also, there isn't faith in peers in the scientific community. Some people are trusted more than others, but any reputable scientist will publish the results of their theory and everyone else interested in that field worth their salt will attempt to find flaws in the findings.
The problem wasn't raising rates causing more foreclosures. The problem is that the lenders weren't holding the debts, they were selling them as investments to other parties (retirement funds and what not). They were incredibly profitable for 10 years, but now, not so much.
-No one buys the investments
-No one can lend money
-No one can refinance (unless they actually can do things like prove their income)
-No one can keep their home.
That's why 10% (think about how huge that number is) of homes in America are in foreclosure. I also saw yesterday that 10% of home in California have had their electricity cut off. I'd recommend not listening to any of the idiots on TV talking about how it's a good time to buy with prices being low. They won't be jumping up any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a numbers game but an average affect on the body and any empirical evidence from other countries changes to laws would confirm that legalization does not provide a significant increase in usage or users (although does seem to increase tourism).
Your link doesn't work, but I would guess that the older data doesn't count women as people.
You skipped the acquiring step, where there is a significant difference and the money travels through significantly different channels as well.
If you've got a gripe, I suggest keeping it brief, because really, nobody read all that. Also post it under your user name. From the bits I read, my answer would be that there is no mind control as such. It just happens that people that people with similar view points are attracted to the existing group of people that share those views.
"an omnipotent being that takes personal interests in the lives of humans" If that's true, God is a first rate asshole.
objectivity does not require absolute truth If identical conclusions about something are reached by independent observers, it becomes objective truth. Absolute truth is for crazy people.
I don't think the idea is to turn tv into porno central. Up north in Canada, stations are allowed to show nudity at certain hours. What it allows is for stations to chose to not censor tv shows or movies from the creators original vision. I can only think of two stations (showcase & citytv) in my area that show any sort of blue movies and that's usually one day a week. It allows us to watch the sopranos as it was filmed. It also goes for the radio as well. I remember listing in the car while I was driving my mom somewhere and Closer by NIN came on. Awkward.
First of all, Pascal's wager is in regards to the existence of god, not religion. Moreover, the biggest problem with his wager is that it is all about how believing in god benefits you as an individual, whereas, there is no discussion as to people making decisions that affect more than themselves. Furthermore, the wager only matters if you believe that the gambit is for eternal life in the first place. If you believe in god, but not heaven (or whatever flavour of that you like), there is no difference in the wager to not believing in god and not believing in heaven. He's essentially trying to convince himself that he's not an idiot for believing without reason (whereas most people feel no need to justify it). As for groupthink in science, there is at least a possibility of evidence arising to sway opinion. Good luck with that in religion, it's an all or nothing gamble. Also, there isn't faith in peers in the scientific community. Some people are trusted more than others, but any reputable scientist will publish the results of their theory and everyone else interested in that field worth their salt will attempt to find flaws in the findings.
The problem wasn't raising rates causing more foreclosures. The problem is that the lenders weren't holding the debts, they were selling them as investments to other parties (retirement funds and what not). They were incredibly profitable for 10 years, but now, not so much. -No one buys the investments -No one can lend money -No one can refinance (unless they actually can do things like prove their income) -No one can keep their home. That's why 10% (think about how huge that number is) of homes in America are in foreclosure. I also saw yesterday that 10% of home in California have had their electricity cut off. I'd recommend not listening to any of the idiots on TV talking about how it's a good time to buy with prices being low. They won't be jumping up any time soon.
polka music???? really???
Dammit. Emigration
Freeedom of speech does have an impact on migration patterns though. Historically, oppression is one of many reasons for emmigration .