I disagree. Dark Matter is defined as one possible specific solution to this discrepancy. Specifically: It has to be matter. It has to be made up of particles. It has to be invisible. It has to make up most of the matter of our universe.
If it did not at least meet all of these criteria, Dark Matter would not exist.
Suspicions are one thing. He knew nothing. What, if someone that dresses like a pimp walks into your car dealership are you going to turn him down?
He looked sketchy and had loads of cash, so he probably did something illegal for a living. What was he supposed to do, call the cops and tell them that some guy bought some stuff off of him and he looked sketchy and how loads of cash?
If the guy looked like some upper class white guy, with a suit and tie on and was talking about going to the Opera afterwards no one would've even been suspicious of the loads of cash. You are saying that he should of turned down his business and called the cops because this guy had bling and let me guess, was black?
Well I imagine that if these small changes are not enough to get a new patent, then they are saying that this new variation of the old drug falls under the protection of the old drug.
Depending on what definition of dinosaur you use. "Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and all descendants" - wikipedia Which would make Ostriches dinosaurs.
Though more common definitions like: "A fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era" would make this impossible even if Humans were around 2 billion years ago, since a dianour is defined as something in a fossil.
I think it is more correct, interesting, and productive to ask is rape a bad thing in animals. In animals you still have (for the most part), females choosing who to breed with based on certain factors (the size of plumage for example). Rape in this context is the choice being made for her, based on other factors (speed and strength for example). She only wants to produce the best offspring she can, and sometimes that can mean rape is the best thing that can happen (and she does not necessarily dislike that it happened). Also, interestingly, it is quite possible that rape is entirely necessary in nature; As animals often have convoluted and counter-productive mating habits (stag horns, big is good to get you lots of mates; But actually make surviving harder). Mating criteria that do not promote actual useful abilities, it is entirely possible that these would get out of control and destroy many/all species if it were not counterbalanced by rape. Possibly.
So I would not call it a social construct. It is a breaking of a social ritual, preforming it sufficiently incorrectly.
Sounds like it might be more accurate to say that science makes people more judgemental and close-minded. "more likely to condemn"
I do not know why and how anyone would spin this as "more ethical" or a good thing, but is is pretty obvious that this shows that science in this instance has blinded these people to the ambiguity and greyness of the real world and morality.
They won, whining about who it would of been different, if it went differentially does not change this fact. Particularly since there is no reason to believe that these elements that you blame on the loss would be any different in this war, if it happens.
If Vietnam could kick the USes ass then NK could. And who knowns what a war would do to international relations.
And America is not structured in such a way to actually be able to sustain any type actual war for more than a few months. The US would simply run out of the money to produce $100,000 missiles and $10,000,000 helicopters before NK ran out of the ability to produce people, $20 AK-47s, and $5 explosives.
It is email. AKA over the web. AKA public. And someone with a subpoena can get your records off of your ISP, or just come into your house and take it off your computers.
Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.
A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.
American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.
I think they are very different institutions, and very different things.
In one you have people owning people. In another you have people owning non-human animals. Black slavery was not really slavery, as the blacks where not considered people to begin with.
In my opinion, that is one of major downfalls of living in civilization that has outlawed slavery. It becomes far harder, if not impossible, to tell if you are a slave or not.
Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population. Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.
And when someone says global warming or evolution in the US there are other INCORRECT ignorant images that might come to their minds. That does not change the definition of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Dark Matter is defined as one possible specific solution to this discrepancy.
Specifically:
It has to be matter.
It has to be made up of particles.
It has to be invisible.
It has to make up most of the matter of our universe.
If it did not at least meet all of these criteria, Dark Matter would not exist.
Ya, because they have been doing great things with the universe recently. -> Angry Birds: Star Wars
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
Suspicions are one thing. He knew nothing. What, if someone that dresses like a pimp walks into your car dealership are you going to turn him down?
He looked sketchy and had loads of cash, so he probably did something illegal for a living. What was he supposed to do, call the cops and tell them that some guy bought some stuff off of him and he looked sketchy and how loads of cash?
If the guy looked like some upper class white guy, with a suit and tie on and was talking about going to the Opera afterwards no one would've even been suspicious of the loads of cash. You are saying that he should of turned down his business and called the cops because this guy had bling and let me guess, was black?
They are surely more culpable than someone that has a business that installs concealed compartments.
Well I imagine that if these small changes are not enough to get a new patent, then they are saying that this new variation of the old drug falls under the protection of the old drug.
Depending on what definition of dinosaur you use.
"Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and all descendants" - wikipedia
Which would make Ostriches dinosaurs.
Though more common definitions like: "A fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era" would make this impossible even if Humans were around 2 billion years ago, since a dianour is defined as something in a fossil.
But, but, but they put their "i" in front of it. Everyone knows that they own the lowercase "i".
I think it is more correct, interesting, and productive to ask is rape a bad thing in animals.
In animals you still have (for the most part), females choosing who to breed with based on certain factors (the size of plumage for example). Rape in this context is the choice being made for her, based on other factors (speed and strength for example). She only wants to produce the best offspring she can, and sometimes that can mean rape is the best thing that can happen (and she does not necessarily dislike that it happened). Also, interestingly, it is quite possible that rape is entirely necessary in nature; As animals often have convoluted and counter-productive mating habits (stag horns, big is good to get you lots of mates; But actually make surviving harder). Mating criteria that do not promote actual useful abilities, it is entirely possible that these would get out of control and destroy many/all species if it were not counterbalanced by rape. Possibly.
So I would not call it a social construct. It is a breaking of a social ritual, preforming it sufficiently incorrectly.
Sounds like it might be more accurate to say that science makes people more judgemental and close-minded. "more likely to condemn"
I do not know why and how anyone would spin this as "more ethical" or a good thing, but is is pretty obvious that this shows that science in this instance has blinded these people to the ambiguity and greyness of the real world and morality.
"Does North Korea have the backing of anyone like the old USSR?", Yes China.
But in terms of military size they are very much the same.
They won, whining about who it would of been different, if it went differentially does not change this fact.
Particularly since there is no reason to believe that these elements that you blame on the loss would be any different in this war, if it happens.
If Vietnam could kick the USes ass then NK could. And who knowns what a war would do to international relations.
And America is not structured in such a way to actually be able to sustain any type actual war for more than a few months. The US would simply run out of the money to produce $100,000 missiles and $10,000,000 helicopters before NK ran out of the ability to produce people, $20 AK-47s, and $5 explosives.
This is not how you conduct a blitz.
Well it is as public as any Gmail account.
It is email. AKA over the web. AKA public.
And someone with a subpoena can get your records off of your ISP, or just come into your house and take it off your computers.
Take your pick.
Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.
A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.
American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.
I think they are very different institutions, and very different things.
In one you have people owning people.
In another you have people owning non-human animals. Black slavery was not really slavery, as the blacks where not considered people to begin with.
In my opinion, that is one of major downfalls of living in civilization that has outlawed slavery. It becomes far harder, if not impossible, to tell if you are a slave or not.
Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population.
Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.
But it is never pleasant.
And when someone says global warming or evolution in the US there are other INCORRECT ignorant images that might come to their minds. That does not change the definition of the word.
I am pretty sure this is only "legal" since no one is has tried take any of these people to court.