Owners of SUVs are already pay incrased taxes, as we consume, and must consequently pay for, more gasoline than other drivers. The price of gas includes the taxes used primarily for the maintenance and upkeep of roads.
We, from a proportional perspective, subsidize the quality of the roads that you enjoy driving on.
Yeah, I thank you for helping build more roads. (read: less forest, woods, natural habitat.) Laws of supply and demand: with more SUV drivers buying gasoline, prices rise for everybody.
Wrong. More SUVs = More Demand for Gas = Higher Prices (temporarily) = Building Modern Pumps = More Supply of Gas = Cheaper Prices (permanently)
Don't believe me? Ask yourself why the price of oil, a "non-renewable" resource, went DOWN in the past twenty years (as did gold, natural gas, etc).
Re:Not physicaly possible to travel faster then li
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
. The square root of -1 is a legitamate solution that solves true life equations.
Really? For what real-life situation? When will I ever need i gallons of gas, or have to pay $3i+2.95 for a magazine?
Christians seems to forget that of all the religions on this planet, they're a small minority.
Wrong. There are 1.8 billion Christians in the world (the bulk of them Roman Catholics). That is 30% of the world' population -- a sizeable plurality. Add in a billion Muslims (another Abrahamic religion), and you get 47% -- very nearly an absolute majority, believing in Genesis.
I believe it can reasonably be gathered that the bible is mostly a book of fables by which lessons are taught,
Wrong. The bulk of the bible is history, in the old sense -- an uncritical examanation of the past. It is as realiable as the march of Alexander the Great and the reign of Nero.
Did Alexander conquer Persia? Yes. Did his corpose miraculously refuse to decompose? Maybe. Did a hebrewic invasion of Palestine destroy pre-existing civiliations and replace them with a theocracy, then a kingdom? Yes. Did the walls of Jericho miracously fall at the sound of a trumpet? Possibly. Was there an Emperor Nero of Rome, under whose watch Rome burned down? Yes. Did he play a musical instrument in glee at this? Possibly. Did the Roman Empire use religion as a tool in conquered territories, and make the church a part of the state? Yes. In Palestine, did a collaborationist Church work to supress insurrection? Yes. Was Iesu Nazoreaum, self-proclaimed "Rex Iudeaeum," killed for insurrection? Possibly.
and the stories should not be taken so literally.
Many parts of it shouldn't be. The parables are obviously parables. Job as well is meant for a "lesson." Judith, a book of the Apocrypha, is almost universally read symbollically. (Judith = Jewish Lady, the reference to Nebachaneezer of the Assyrians is like saying "Hitler, King of the Russians." Obviously meant to be read as "Super Evil Dude")
After all, the bible has been changed, translated, and manipulated by how many kings and religious leaders by now? As we know the bible today, it has been a work-in-progress for hundreds of years.
Wrong. The Catholic Bible has been around in its current form since Emperor Constantine called the First Council of Nicea, around AD 400. The Protestant Bible removes several Old Testament books, but adds no new ones.
Any major changes in the content of the Bible would have been during Slavery (in Egypt), Exile (in Babylon), Occupation (in Roman Palestine), and Persecution (across Rome before Constantine), which were all millenia ago.
For hundreds of years the debate has been about the meaning of the Bible, not the content of the Bible.
I too think it's a little early for a scientist to come to such a profound conclusion. Let's wait for more of the Big Picture to unravel.
Why should the WHO have a monopoly on the.health TLD? Should we give the WTO.trade? Should we give the WorldBank.finance? APEC.asia? The UN Council for Human Rights.family?
This is not a debate against modern medicine v. new age quackery, or science v. superstition. It's about giving UN regulatory power over what would be a good portion of the internet. The UN has never been a friend of either the internet or a free flow of information.
It is not a good idea to give the United Nations/The World Health Organization this control. If they wish to run their own site, say health.un.org, health.who.org, I have no problem with that. But it is foolish to believe that giving the WHO autority of a TLD is a good idea. They will either punish groups that use a.health domain for a purpose that the WHO don't like (what if southafricamedicalassociation.health publishes a paper denying HIV causes AIDS), or, much worse, prior restrait.
I also fear that the WHO won't stop there. The UN (of which the WHO is a part) has already tried to tax and censor the internet because of political reasons. With that mindset, it's only logical to do the same thing for medical reasons. You want to operate a web site that advocates smoking, or drinking, or steak eating, or having sex without protection? Pay a cent tax per hit.
The UN has already seen fit to run over individual beliefs when the issue's important. It's hard to feel sorry for hate groups when the United Nations advocates their banning. But what of a Roman Catholic site that decries birth control? What of a vegan site that implores the visitor not to consume animal products?
Giving an organization that's adamently against free-information (in both meanings) is a bad idea. I hope you will reconsider.
Studies show Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is closely correlated with LTDI (Long Term Disability Insurance)...
Sorry, just had to say it:-) Someone I know who works with many CFS sufferers and other disabled people has seen a strong correlation. It seems to just be a trendy disease, like "vapours" used to be... Could be a variant of depression in some cases...
There's a lot of room of fraud in the definition. I was diagnosed with "fibromyalgia" (fibro = muscle, myalgia = pain). The test with how sensitive they observe your reflexes to be. The test is not that objective. Even then (I was in 7th grade at the time) I wasn't to sure of it. (I was a big fan of Sagan and the Skeptical Inquireror even then, and new something was up).
Later one (by the time I was in ninth grade), FM was reclassified as "FMCFIDS" (fibromyalgia-chronic fatigue-immune defenciency syndrome). A lot of fadishism was involved.
What I think they were doing is lumping many vaguely similar maladies together under one umbrella. FMCFIDS did not include spasms, or memory loss, but I suffered from those. Also, my mom and I felt that the fatigue/immune defency (and even depression, which fortunetly I didn't have!) were just a function of the pain and the stress associated with that.
But all this is a great argument in favor of freedom of information on the net. All this information was available. Skeptical articles saying it's hooey. Fibromyalgia support groups which were sappy. (To my horror, I found out the majority of sufferers were women! Ugh!) Israeli articles about spontaneous remission in schoolkids. There was no WHO controlling the flow of it.
And if there is a.health TLD, the WHO will be involed! Reputable journals already have their own domains. The bureaucrats will come out, and say "we have to protecttthe people from bad information, we have to protect the people from themselves," and regulate medical information just as they regulate medicine itself.
There is innovation. Many slashdotters may not care, but for those of use who need this sort of information international regulation doesn't sound cool.
Despite the professions arrogant claims, modern medicine does not know everything. What causes CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)? Is it physical or mental? A combination? What is the best way to deal with it?
That is a real concern for millions of people (sufferers and families), and virtually no "facts" are known about it. What you would call "bogus," reports that have not gone through the wonderfully-quick process that is anything WHO, are useful. Being able to find a report from Israel that showed a x% remission rate for ages y-z was a godsend. Being able to show that report to my doctor, who said he never heard of any remissions, was more wonderful than you could believe.
One of the internet's greatest benefits is allowing patients to learn so much about what ails them. To the patients who don't blidnly trust, but want to learn all the facts, the freedom of information on the internet is fantastic.
Is everything on the web gold? Of course not. But is regulation by an bloated, international treaty organization the answer? You seem to think so.
Remember that Galileo has
done it's purpose and to avoid a possible extraterrestrial contamination of another celestial body that possibly may supporting life, they decided to crash it into another planet that (most likely) does not support any life.
But what's the point? Life is not sacred. We kill it all the time. Millions of Americans don't care if by carelessly running they kill an ant. Few tears are shed for the poor help plants burned as weeds every year, or the billions of e. coli bacteria cruelly killed each year to save a few human lives. There are concerted efforts to commit genocide upon "alien" species in California, the Greak Lakes, and other locals.
What sort of weird mixture of elitism ("Oh, as scientists we can spend billions to protect miniscule life forms from a vague threat"), hypocracy ("But the reason we still land on Mars is.... But the reason we're still planning on sending a probe to Europa's Ocean is....") and extreme altruism ("Earth life isn't good enough") concoted this zany scheme?
I remember using it about 5 years, and liked it since: a) it was relatively fast b) it fit on a floppy Whatever happened to Derive? Who made it?
They're on to better and smaller things.
SoftWarehouse Inc was purchased by Texas Intrusments, and put to work. The TI-89, the best calculator ever made, uses "Derive" derived software to do it's symbolic functions (Derivation, Integration, Factorying, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. More SUVs = More Demand for Gas = Higher Prices (temporarily) = Building Modern Pumps = More Supply of Gas = Cheaper Prices (permanently)
Don't believe me? Ask yourself why the price of oil, a "non-renewable" resource, went DOWN in the past twenty years (as did gold, natural gas, etc).
Really? For what real-life situation? When will I ever need i gallons of gas, or have to pay $3i+2.95 for a magazine?
Wrong. There are 1.8 billion Christians in the world (the bulk of them Roman Catholics). That is 30% of the world' population -- a sizeable plurality. Add in a billion Muslims (another Abrahamic religion), and you get 47% -- very nearly an absolute majority, believing in Genesis.
Wrong. The bulk of the bible is history, in the old sense -- an uncritical examanation of the past. It is as realiable as the march of Alexander the Great and the reign of Nero.
Did Alexander conquer Persia? Yes. Did his corpose miraculously refuse to decompose? Maybe. Did a hebrewic invasion of Palestine destroy pre-existing civiliations and replace them with a theocracy, then a kingdom? Yes. Did the walls of Jericho miracously fall at the sound of a trumpet? Possibly. Was there an Emperor Nero of Rome, under whose watch Rome burned down? Yes. Did he play a musical instrument in glee at this? Possibly. Did the Roman Empire use religion as a tool in conquered territories, and make the church a part of the state? Yes. In Palestine, did a collaborationist Church work to supress insurrection? Yes. Was Iesu Nazoreaum, self-proclaimed "Rex Iudeaeum," killed for insurrection? Possibly.
Many parts of it shouldn't be. The parables are obviously parables. Job as well is meant for a "lesson." Judith, a book of the Apocrypha, is almost universally read symbollically. (Judith = Jewish Lady, the reference to Nebachaneezer of the Assyrians is like saying "Hitler, King of the Russians." Obviously meant to be read as "Super Evil Dude")
Wrong. The Catholic Bible has been around in its current form since Emperor Constantine called the First Council of Nicea, around AD 400. The Protestant Bible removes several Old Testament books, but adds no new ones.
Any major changes in the content of the Bible would have been during Slavery (in Egypt), Exile (in Babylon), Occupation (in Roman Palestine), and Persecution (across Rome before Constantine), which were all millenia ago.
For hundreds of years the debate has been about the meaning of the Bible, not the content of the Bible.
Why should the WHO have a monopoly on the .health TLD? Should we give the WTO .trade? Should we give the WorldBank .finance? APEC .asia? The UN Council for Human Rights .family?
This is not a debate against modern medicine v. new age quackery, or science v. superstition. It's about giving UN regulatory power over what would be a good portion of the internet. The UN has never been a friend of either the internet or a free flow of information.
It is not a good idea to give the United Nations/The World Health Organization this control. If they wish to run their own site, say health.un.org, health.who.org, I have no problem with that. But it is foolish to believe that giving the WHO autority of a TLD is a good idea. They will either punish groups that use a .health domain for a purpose that the WHO don't like (what if southafricamedicalassociation.health publishes a paper denying HIV causes AIDS), or, much worse, prior restrait.
I also fear that the WHO won't stop there. The UN (of which the WHO is a part) has already tried to tax and censor the internet because of political reasons. With that mindset, it's only logical to do the same thing for medical reasons. You want to operate a web site that advocates smoking, or drinking, or steak eating, or having sex without protection? Pay a cent tax per hit.
The UN has already seen fit to run over individual beliefs when the issue's important. It's hard to feel sorry for hate groups when the United Nations advocates their banning. But what of a Roman Catholic site that decries birth control? What of a vegan site that implores the visitor not to consume animal products?
Giving an organization that's adamently against free-information (in both meanings) is a bad idea. I hope you will reconsider.
There's a lot of room of fraud in the definition. I was diagnosed with "fibromyalgia" (fibro = muscle, myalgia = pain). The test with how sensitive they observe your reflexes to be. The test is not that objective. Even then (I was in 7th grade at the time) I wasn't to sure of it. (I was a big fan of Sagan and the Skeptical Inquireror even then, and new something was up).
Later one (by the time I was in ninth grade), FM was reclassified as "FMCFIDS" (fibromyalgia-chronic fatigue-immune defenciency syndrome). A lot of fadishism was involved.
What I think they were doing is lumping many vaguely similar maladies together under one umbrella. FMCFIDS did not include spasms, or memory loss, but I suffered from those. Also, my mom and I felt that the fatigue/immune defency (and even depression, which fortunetly I didn't have!) were just a function of the pain and the stress associated with that.
But all this is a great argument in favor of freedom of information on the net. All this information was available. Skeptical articles saying it's hooey. Fibromyalgia support groups which were sappy. (To my horror, I found out the majority of sufferers were women! Ugh!) Israeli articles about spontaneous remission in schoolkids. There was no WHO controlling the flow of it.
And if there is a .health TLD, the WHO will be involed! Reputable journals already have their own domains. The bureaucrats will come out, and say "we have to protecttthe people from bad information, we have to protect the people from themselves," and regulate medical information just as they regulate medicine itself.
There is innovation. Many slashdotters may not care, but for those of use who need this sort of information international regulation doesn't sound cool.
Despite the professions arrogant claims, modern medicine does not know everything. What causes CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)? Is it physical or mental? A combination? What is the best way to deal with it?
That is a real concern for millions of people (sufferers and families), and virtually no "facts" are known about it. What you would call "bogus," reports that have not gone through the wonderfully-quick process that is anything WHO, are useful. Being able to find a report from Israel that showed a x% remission rate for ages y-z was a godsend. Being able to show that report to my doctor, who said he never heard of any remissions, was more wonderful than you could believe.
One of the internet's greatest benefits is allowing patients to learn so much about what ails them. To the patients who don't blidnly trust, but want to learn all the facts, the freedom of information on the internet is fantastic.
Is everything on the web gold? Of course not. But is regulation by an bloated, international treaty organization the answer? You seem to think so.
But what's the point? Life is not sacred. We kill it all the time. Millions of Americans don't care if by carelessly running they kill an ant. Few tears are shed for the poor help plants burned as weeds every year, or the billions of e. coli bacteria cruelly killed each year to save a few human lives. There are concerted efforts to commit genocide upon "alien" species in California, the Greak Lakes, and other locals.
What sort of weird mixture of elitism ("Oh, as scientists we can spend billions to protect miniscule life forms from a vague threat"), hypocracy ("But the reason we still land on Mars is.... But the reason we're still planning on sending a probe to Europa's Ocean is....") and extreme altruism ("Earth life isn't good enough") concoted this zany scheme?
They're on to better and smaller things.
SoftWarehouse Inc was purchased by Texas Intrusments, and put to work. The TI-89, the best calculator ever made, uses "Derive" derived software to do it's symbolic functions (Derivation, Integration, Factorying, etc.)
The derive software itself is at http://www.derive.com/dfdset.htm