I've never understood why this gets thrown around as a measure of the quality of health care received, when there are tons of other factors that have much more of an affect on this (exercise, smoking, eating right, etc.).
Well, I never said that you didn't know what it was. It was just that you didn't explain anything. Your response was a little like saying a clock radio is a radio with a clock. It doesn't offer any new information. Yet you acted like you offered some great insight, when you clearly didn't.
And it's a popular product: Look at how many people fly.
Um, no we do NOT like the product that the TSA provides (security/screening). But the TSA has a monopoly on airport security, which is required to fly. Trust me, if you could chose between a TSA airport and a non-TSA airport, people would be flocking to the non-TSA airport. And I suspect a lot of people would choose non-screening airports if they knew they could just show up to their flight and walk to the gate with no wait.
...science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.
Well, that's not entirely true. Things always start out as a theory, but once it has reached a certain level of certainty and repeatability, it is usually referred to as a law ('The law of gravity', etc.)
The great thing about science is that it is willing to look at just about anything that might overturn even something as concrete as a law... but you better have some proof to back it up. And the bible doesn't count as proof.
The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.
Too bad that isn't even close to being true:
On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing.[17]
Hmmm, now who was president in 93-94? Ah, yes, Bill Clinton, who thought he could simply talk everyone into getting along. North Korea saw what a wimp he was, and realized they could start developing nukes and Clinton wouldn't have the balls to do anything about it.
Isn't it fun to jump to conclusions based on nothing?
God, +5 insightfuls are handed out like candy if you bash the right person...
And they wanted nuclear electricity. And even if Iran doesn't NEED that, they might want it too, why not, idiot?
No, we wanted nuclear weapons. Nuclear electricity was just an offshoot of that. And now you've stooped to name calling? That's just sad, really.
Oh, you're stupid, uninformed AND illiterate. Good day.
More name calling? What do you expect to get from that? Also, I'm a little unsure how you think I am illiterate since I have been reading and responding to your posts. You don't know what illiterate means? Also, saying 'good day' usually means you are done speaking... but then you keep on typing away.
...history of a country, which has absolutely nothing to do with [...] today
I do like that you intentionally cut off the word ancient from my post. Name calling and having to edit my posts to try and make your argument? I think you have officially hit rock bottom.
How is comparing nuclear development of the USA to Iran's nuclear development 'digressing'? Especially since it was you that brought up the USA in the first place?
1. The US of A
Or have you already forgotten what you posted?
Even if that were true (which it isn't, because there were experimental reactors and those used solely to obtain Plutonium before the bomb was created),
By 'reactor', I'm referring to electrical generation reactors, not the simple 'reaction' of a nuclear pile. From wikipedia and the history of nuclear reactors:
Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho,...
...that doesn't mean we couldn't have built commercial reactors first.
But we didn't. That's my point.
...because you have always been destructive rather than constructive.
Unlike those peaceful Iranians? One of their stated goals is the complete annihilation of another country (Israel).
...because the reactors have already been developed. So your "point" is moot and you're just projecting...
The reactors are a cover to develop weaponized nuclear technology. Go see my original point about them having more oil than they know what to do with, and you will see how silly it is to think that they need nuclear reactors. Hell, their county is loaded with more sun and useless land such that they should be developing solar energy if they need a new source of electricity.
You tried to derail the discussion with your idiotic insinuation while I just responded on topic, only giving you several reasons behind my position.
I compare the nuclear development of two countries, in a discussion about nuclear technology, and you say I'm off topic. You bring up things like the ancient history of a country, which has absolutely nothing to do with the countries today , and you think you are staying on topic?
I do not digress. You might want to look up that word before using it. My point (which you seem to have missed), is that we only have nuclear reactors because we develop nuclear bombs first. We didn't sit around and say, "Gee, I wish we had some other way to generate electricity!". But you seem to think that is what Iran is doing.
...as to a nation with couple of millenia of history...
I fear for the people that modded your post 'insightful'. COULD your theory make sense? Sure, in an abstract kind of way. Does it make sense when you consider Iran's past and what they want in the future? Not even a little.
Do you really think these laws were put into place for blacks beating up whites? I have a feeling most DAs aren't really going to push to hard for a hate crime when a white person, catholic, or straight person gets beat up...
I'm perfectly within my rights to hate or like whatever damn group/race/religion I want. The government should have no say in trying to make it illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
...that the very modest overall difference in exercise, smoking, eating habits, etc...
That's quite an assumption you have made: http://www1.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average%20weight%20USA%20vs%20China%20vs%20Canada&lk=2
We have over twice the rate of obesity as Canada. You consider that 'modest'?
...as measured by things like life expectancy...
I've never understood why this gets thrown around as a measure of the quality of health care received, when there are tons of other factors that have much more of an affect on this (exercise, smoking, eating right, etc.).
Well, I never said that you didn't know what it was. It was just that you didn't explain anything. Your response was a little like saying a clock radio is a radio with a clock. It doesn't offer any new information. Yet you acted like you offered some great insight, when you clearly didn't.
So you've managed to deduce that software defined radio is a radio defined in software? Awesome.
And it's a popular product: Look at how many people fly.
Um, no we do NOT like the product that the TSA provides (security/screening). But the TSA has a monopoly on airport security, which is required to fly. Trust me, if you could chose between a TSA airport and a non-TSA airport, people would be flocking to the non-TSA airport. And I suspect a lot of people would choose non-screening airports if they knew they could just show up to their flight and walk to the gate with no wait.
Osama Bin Laden had a degree in Civil Engineering[1]
Yeah, but the old joke goes:
Q: What is the difference between a civil and aeronautical engineer?
A: An aeronautical engineer builds weapons. A civil engineer builds targets.
Osama was the wrong type of engineer to be a terrorist!
The great thing about science is that it is willing to look at just about anything that might overturn even something as concrete as a law.
Could you at least read my whole post before commenting on it. Thanks.
If you measure two values of 2.3 and 2.4, both measured to one significant digit,
Um, 2.3 and 2.4 have two significant digits.
However, when you sum them, you would add the measured values (including the estimated decimal value).
Your original numbers are either measurements or estimates, not both.
If you measure values of 2.3 and 2.4, why would you ever round them to 2? Either your measurement is accurate to tenths or it isn't.
Let's say we do your rounding (for whatever reason). Then 2+2=4. Period.
You still only have one significant digit, so you have to round that value to 5.
You never had one significant digit, you had two.
A scientist needs to know how to take measurements and how to perform math on those measurements.
I agree, and I pray you never become a scientist.
Special thanks to Mr. Nance, my high school chemistry teacher.
Thanks to Mr. Nance, my high school chemistry special teacher.
There, I fixed that for you.
...science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.
Well, that's not entirely true. Things always start out as a theory, but once it has reached a certain level of certainty and repeatability, it is usually referred to as a law ('The law of gravity', etc.)
The great thing about science is that it is willing to look at just about anything that might overturn even something as concrete as a law... but you better have some proof to back it up. And the bible doesn't count as proof.
...that it is nowhere near Cape Cod, or Ted Kennedy's ghost will haunt you for ruining his view!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#Controversy
If you bought a new Camry for $20,000 and you had to come up with $4,000 to repair it, you'd think twice about the purchase;
$4,000 to repair something like a transmission isn't that unusual.
Wow, people will blame ANYTHING on Bush:
The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.
Too bad that isn't even close to being true:
On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Plutonium
Hmmm, now who was president in 93-94? Ah, yes, Bill Clinton, who thought he could simply talk everyone into getting along. North Korea saw what a wimp he was, and realized they could start developing nukes and Clinton wouldn't have the balls to do anything about it.
Isn't it fun to jump to conclusions based on nothing?
God, +5 insightfuls are handed out like candy if you bash the right person...
...and thus within reach of challenging the fossil fuel hegemony.
Oh, if only solar were a wee bit cheaper, it would compete with oil! This is becoming the Duke Nukem of the power industry...
Isn't this the opposite of dumping?
What if it's a robotic hand?!?!
And they wanted nuclear electricity. And even if Iran doesn't NEED that, they might want it too, why not, idiot?
No, we wanted nuclear weapons. Nuclear electricity was just an offshoot of that. And now you've stooped to name calling? That's just sad, really.
Oh, you're stupid, uninformed AND illiterate. Good day.
More name calling? What do you expect to get from that? Also, I'm a little unsure how you think I am illiterate since I have been reading and responding to your posts. You don't know what illiterate means? Also, saying 'good day' usually means you are done speaking... but then you keep on typing away.
...history of a country, which has absolutely nothing to do with [...] today
I do like that you intentionally cut off the word ancient from my post. Name calling and having to edit my posts to try and make your argument? I think you have officially hit rock bottom.
How is comparing nuclear development of the USA to Iran's nuclear development 'digressing'? Especially since it was you that brought up the USA in the first place?
1. The US of A
Or have you already forgotten what you posted?
Even if that were true (which it isn't, because there were experimental reactors and those used solely to obtain Plutonium before the bomb was created),
By 'reactor', I'm referring to electrical generation reactors, not the simple 'reaction' of a nuclear pile. From wikipedia and the history of nuclear reactors:
Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho,...
...that doesn't mean we couldn't have built commercial reactors first.
But we didn't. That's my point.
...because you have always been destructive rather than constructive.
Unlike those peaceful Iranians? One of their stated goals is the complete annihilation of another country (Israel).
...because the reactors have already been developed. So your "point" is moot and you're just projecting...
The reactors are a cover to develop weaponized nuclear technology. Go see my original point about them having more oil than they know what to do with, and you will see how silly it is to think that they need nuclear reactors. Hell, their county is loaded with more sun and useless land such that they should be developing solar energy if they need a new source of electricity.
You tried to derail the discussion with your idiotic insinuation while I just responded on topic, only giving you several reasons behind my position.
I compare the nuclear development of two countries, in a discussion about nuclear technology, and you say I'm off topic. You bring up things like the ancient history of a country, which has absolutely nothing to do with the countries today , and you think you are staying on topic?
You digress...
I do not digress. You might want to look up that word before using it. My point (which you seem to have missed), is that we only have nuclear reactors because we develop nuclear bombs first. We didn't sit around and say, "Gee, I wish we had some other way to generate electricity!". But you seem to think that is what Iran is doing.
...as to a nation with couple of millenia of history...
Ah, you DO know what digress means!
1. The US of A
A quick question for you:
Which did the USA develop first, the nuclear bomb or the nuclear reactor?
2. What happened to nuclear is so green, and fossil fuels pollute?
You seriously think Iran gives a flying fuck about how 'green' their energy generation is?
I fear for the people that modded your post 'insightful'. COULD your theory make sense? Sure, in an abstract kind of way. Does it make sense when you consider Iran's past and what they want in the future? Not even a little.
Well, if you actually believe that a nation that is sitting on buttloads of oil needs nuclear technology for 'energy', then I feel sorry for you.
...as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user.
This may be the most asinine thing I have ever read in a /, summary...
Do you really think these laws were put into place for blacks beating up whites? I have a feeling most DAs aren't really going to push to hard for a hate crime when a white person, catholic, or straight person gets beat up...
If you don't even know the difference between an accident and armed robbery, then I'm not sure if you should even be commenting on this.
Or do you think people accidentally punch people?
I'm perfectly within my rights to hate or like whatever damn group/race/religion I want. The government should have no say in trying to make it illegal.