I continue to be impressed by the depth of stupidity of some posters. Your objection (deaf people? seriously?) just goes to show that no matter what you do someone will make up a fake, contrived, ridiculous situation to complain about.
In large portions of the US, we use this new-fangled thing called hydro-electric power, and we supplement it with wind power.
If you click that link, you'll see that there is no way in hell "large portions" of the US use hydro.
Which calls the veracity of your entire post into question, and seeing as another poster debunked your cost numbers, I'd say you're just making things up.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research?
Never. Adults are the subject of research all the time. I know that's not what you really wanted to know, but imprecision in a discussion of this type irritates me.
To answer the question you meant to ask but didn't, at the average age that it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
And to be honest, the "embryo is a viable human" doesn't pass the sniff test. You can come up with all the intractable questions you like, they really don't change anything.
Asking those people to come in to the office is pretty much the same as telling them their job has moved hundreds (or thousands) of miles away, and they can either move or quit.
Which by the way, happens EVERY DAY and is perfectly legal. In fact, when put in that context, it becomes obvious why a lawsuit is a stupid suggestion.
If you're telecommuting from Orlando to Seattle, you knew that were you to be asked into the office it would be a problem, but decided to do the job anyway.
That's not for a judge to arbitrate, it's for a grown person to expect and plan for.
I'm sorry, but yes you are. Given the context of the discussion, it's pretty ridiculous to bring up calories from sources we can't digest. They're irrelevant.
Except that's not what is happening in this case. "Telecommuters" or whatever jargon you choose to use are being asked to come back to the office. That's not remotely comparable to the situation you describe. The suggestion of a lawsuit, in this case, is a perfect example of the "sue-happy" mentality you agree is a problem.
You can post some facts to support your statement like I asked originally. You've continually avoided doing so despite every attempt by me. Calling me a cretin does nothing but demonstrate that you have no facts and have to resort to insults because you know you're wrong.
So facts. Names don't offend me one bit, they just prove that I'm right about you.
Please prove with facts that the current system is equally wasteful in comparison to a government system which does not currently exist.
Do it or admit you can't please, save the insults for someone who will fall for them.
you need me to spoonfeed you proof about the fucking obvious before you accept it?
No, I need you to give SOME evidence apart from your essentially worthless opinion. Since the point is central to your argument, it would seem you should have SOME evidence to form your opinion. Should, but don't apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
And you failed, so you started cursing at people.
Peruse the threads on this subject sometime so you can see exactly how wrong you are.
I continue to be impressed by the depth of stupidity of some posters. Your objection (deaf people? seriously?) just goes to show that no matter what you do someone will make up a fake, contrived, ridiculous situation to complain about.
The researchers that he cherry picked the data from said it, not me. So, either they're lying or he is.
So, yeah, he did. I have no reason to think a dozen or so scientists would lie, but I certainly think this quack would.
You're full of shit, even if you read the book.
And unlike you, I understand what "large" means, and I don't make shit up to pretend I have all the facts.
The numbers don't lie. You did.
If you click that link, you'll see that there is no way in hell "large portions" of the US use hydro.
Which calls the veracity of your entire post into question, and seeing as another poster debunked your cost numbers, I'd say you're just making things up.
No actually, you didn't. You redefined terminology to meet your own expectations. That is not a logical argument.
How about I disagree because you are abusing semantics and changing definitions, thereby being incredibly disingenuous?
No.
Never. Adults are the subject of research all the time. I know that's not what you really wanted to know, but imprecision in a discussion of this type irritates me.
To answer the question you meant to ask but didn't, at the average age that it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
And to be honest, the "embryo is a viable human" doesn't pass the sniff test. You can come up with all the intractable questions you like, they really don't change anything.
No it isn't. You've misunderstood the arguments being presented.
It is you who are wrong.
Not exactly, he's cherry-picking the data that supports him and discounting the rest.
Unless, as I just stated, he's cherry-picking the data that agrees with him and discarding the rest. he is, so his conclusion is useless.
On this, at least, you are correct. That being said, a scientist worth his salt wouldn't do what this guy did because he'd be a pariah.
Which by the way, happens EVERY DAY and is perfectly legal. In fact, when put in that context, it becomes obvious why a lawsuit is a stupid suggestion.
If you're telecommuting from Orlando to Seattle, you knew that were you to be asked into the office it would be a problem, but decided to do the job anyway.
That's not for a judge to arbitrate, it's for a grown person to expect and plan for.
I'm sorry, but yes you are. Given the context of the discussion, it's pretty ridiculous to bring up calories from sources we can't digest. They're irrelevant.
I was having a Trepanation.
Except that's not what is happening in this case. "Telecommuters" or whatever jargon you choose to use are being asked to come back to the office. That's not remotely comparable to the situation you describe. The suggestion of a lawsuit, in this case, is a perfect example of the "sue-happy" mentality you agree is a problem.
You can post some facts to support your statement like I asked originally. You've continually avoided doing so despite every attempt by me. Calling me a cretin does nothing but demonstrate that you have no facts and have to resort to insults because you know you're wrong.
So facts. Names don't offend me one bit, they just prove that I'm right about you.
Those last two aren't me and the first one is a link to my comment page. Why did you bother posting that?
I don't have anything against you personally, but that question makes me want to slap you.
At no point did I do anything but try to engage you in debate, and I was honest and straightforward without being insulting.
You called me a "fucking moron".
You lost your opportunity to ask me questions. Come back when you grow up.
Because they were consuming fewer calories. That' all there is to it, no magic or voodoo or pixie dust, just fewer calories.
So no facts, that's exactly what I thought.
I didn't do that, I gave you two arguments against government controlled medicine that were neither morally nor logically bankrupt.
At no point did I advocate FOR private insurance. You are wrong again.
Do it or admit you can't please, save the insults for someone who will fall for them.
No, I need you to give SOME evidence apart from your essentially worthless opinion. Since the point is central to your argument, it would seem you should have SOME evidence to form your opinion. Should, but don't apparently.
Great argument.
YOU were the one making claims of "moral" and "logical" bankruptcy. You were wrong.