That is not true, Cambodia under the Red Khmer was truly communist, they even disallowed private gardens and forced everybody to wear the same clothes.
Oh come on - the mouse in the video seems to be extremely slow and probably already heavily injured. The chickens outnumber the mouse and are so confused and timid that they let it get away.
Aircraft carriers are only bigger by volume but they weight much less than the biggest battleships. So for all practical purposes (especially cost) they are smaller than battleships.
Put a t-Rex into a forest with a pride of hungry lions. How long do you think the Rex would last?
Interesting question, the answer would obviously depend on whether the T-Rex would find enough food. Maybe the T-Rex could hunt elephants? Also new research hints that T-Rex may have been more of a scavanger than a hunter, so maybe T-Rex just follows the lions and chases them away everytime they kill a gazelle? On the other hand, a T-Rex probably weights more than a pack of lions, therefore it would have to snatch away the prey of several lion packs.
So probably you are right and the T-Rex would starve.
Wait, I've been told that evolution "stopped" 10,000 years ago and that is why human intelligence is exactly the same for everybody except for dissidents who are stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'd really be interested what kind of supernatural force made evolution "stop" for humans but allowed it for dinosaurs and all other non-humans. Also why - and how - does this supernatural force make an exception to the exception for dissidents and makes only them stupid, while everybody else is exactly equal?
Basically we have evolution which says that genes exist and that different populations have different traits. Then we have the unexplained exception for human intelligence, which is designed (uh?) to be exactly the same for everybody - which means that in some way evolution was suspended for the human brain which is designed (uh?) to be exactly equal for everybody, regardless of any genes - but not for the non-brainy parts, which are still dependent on genes. But then again we have the exception to the exception for dissidents who are all stupid and not equal at all. Hmmm....
Kind of hard to understand what makes evolution happen only in some cases, maybe somebody can clear this one up.
Who talked about ostracism? Oh, that was you. I also don't quite get it how you can mix up "screening for a disease" with "deny it's existence", isn't that the complete opposite? So who is talking about denying Ebola's existence - or if not that not doing anything about it? Oh, you again.
100 years ago, screening for diseases was normal procedure for immigration in pretty much every country - especially if that disease was contagious.
Yes that was before political correctness.
Today we screen only for those "dangerous" soda bottles and creams that people like you think can be used to hijack a plane. But AIDS, Ebola, Thyphus? No problem, who cares that thousands or even millions will die of it?
... let all ebola-infected people into Western countries, do not - ever - screen anybody for it (that would be racist), create a ribbon campaign for feeling good and kill the jobs of everybody who dares to disagree on that.
It worked great with AIDS, why shouldn't it work with Ebola?
The Soyuz had two loss of crew accidents in 120 flights. And ten more mission failures.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.
The difference is that the Soyus does not have nearly as much launch delays as the Space Shuttle. The weather could delay a Space Shuttle start for months. That is also part of reliability - a launcher is worthless if you can't use it because the weather is not perfect.
Forever, because terraforming Mars makes no sense.
Just think about it: Here on Earth, we put more and more plants under greenhouse because greenhouses are simply better for plant growth than the natural environment.
Any terraforming of Mars would not only take almost forever but would result in an Antarctica-like climate were you would still need greenhouses anyway. It just makes much more sense to skip the terraforming-part altogether and just use greenhouses without any terraforming.
So a vaccine that failed the test stops being a vaccine? That is news for me. Also we do not live in a static world - yesteryear's vaccine might be ineffective to today's viruses. Also what about vaccines that have been approved in some countries and rejected in others?
Also this does not distinguish between the "no-brainer" vaccines where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks and costs and the vaccines that are just barely beneficial.
So basically the question is completely wrong and should instead be: "Do you believe that the testing procedures of vaccines are safe and effective."
In that case I would also say that this is doubtful.
How many can tolerate the obvious truth, supported by thousands of studies, that average differences in intelligence across the various peoples of the world and especially races are due to genetic factors?
Interesting question. The TV tells that evolution exists but race differences (especially in morality, behaviour and intelligence) don't exist. But evolution requires race differences - what now?
Also the TV admits that race differences exists for things that are too obvious to deny (like appearance, body size, blood pressure, testosterone levels, etc.) but deny any differences for things that may have been tested and confirmed countless times but are touching on the subject of what makes us human and what distinguishes us from animals (intelligence, behavior, morality, etc.). Essentially the TV claims that evolution works on the human body, but not on the human brain.
People who are raised by the TV (and there are a lot of those) actually believe these contradictions, it is what Orwell called "doublethink".
This "let's throw all vaccines into one giant pot and treat them as if they were the same thing" - opinion is the main reason why I am increasingly sceptic.
Just because SOME vaccines are safe and effective, how does this make them ALL safe? It is a fact of life that some diseases can be treated well with vaccines and some not at all.
The question about safety has to be answered for each vaccine individually (and also btw for each surgery).
To proclaim that "vaccines are safer than surgeries" - what complete and utter nonsense is that? What vaccine can cure a broken leg? What surgery can cure an infection?
"Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting."
Well that is kind of a loaded question, because every vaccine is different.
SOME vaccines are safe and effective, SOME are safe and not effective (i.e. a placebo, the drug companies most favorite kind of drug), SOME come with a greater risk than the disease itself.
To give the pharmaceutical industry a blank cheque by believing that ALL vaccines are safe and effective is just as stupid as proclaiming that "all drugs are safe and effective".
Every vaccine is different and the safeness and effectiveness is completely undefined for vaccines in general.
I had a similar problem (although in my case they fixed it remarkably fast - in a few days) and that's exactly why I like to have both the stable and slow moving OpenOffice along with the fast moving LibreOffice.
Yeah right, there also were too many PC-makers out there...
It is a great thing that I can have both LibreOffice and OpenOffice installed on my PC without them knowing from each other so that when LO crashes on a document (which did happen here) I can still use OO as a backup.
OpenOffice is the more stable "enterprise-ready" version that won't change too much.
LibreOffice is the bleeding-edge version that incorporates new features (SVG-support, yay!) but sometimes also introduces new bugs. They also seem to think that users should update every couple of months.
And the best feature of them all:
You cannot easily install two versions of either OpenOffice or LibreOffice, you can however install OpenOffice along LibreOffice, so you can have the best of both worlds.
In Switzerland ever adult male (who was in the army, which is most of them) has a government-issued rifle in his own home. Bear in mind, that's a real automatic military rifle and not some "civilian" semi-automatic.
Murder-rate: 0.6 to 0.7 (2007-2011), lower than most European countries.
I don't see why this fact should give rise to cries of racism, when it is just as much sexist and ageist.
This is because on TV-shows (doesn't matter if you watch CSI, Monk, Columbo or anything else), pretty close to 100% of the murderers are middle-aged, well-off, white males. (in rare instances it may also be a well-off white woman)
People who are raised by the TV are believing this as reality. They are looking at this day-in and day-out year after year - of course they will think it is racism when you contradict that.
Probably the MS-fans will think that's a problem, because LibreOffice is not "compatible".
In fact the very fact that LibreOffice is an independent implementation of the file formats is a big advantage, because it is much more robust - When you reverse-engineer something you usually cover all possibilities (of a variable, etc.) - this is also the reason why you can often open corrupted.doc files with LibreOffice.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not true, Cambodia under the Red Khmer was truly communist, they even disallowed private gardens and forced everybody to wear the same clothes.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution never "stopped" and no one credible said that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci...
http://bigthink.com/videos/we-...
Oh come on - the mouse in the video seems to be extremely slow and probably already heavily injured. The chickens outnumber the mouse and are so confused and timid that they let it get away.
Aircraft carriers are only bigger by volume but they weight much less than the biggest battleships. So for all practical purposes (especially cost) they are smaller than battleships.
Put a t-Rex into a forest with a pride of hungry lions. How long do you think the Rex would last?
Interesting question, the answer would obviously depend on whether the T-Rex would find enough food. Maybe the T-Rex could hunt elephants? Also new research hints that T-Rex may have been more of a scavanger than a hunter, so maybe T-Rex just follows the lions and chases them away everytime they kill a gazelle? On the other hand, a T-Rex probably weights more than a pack of lions, therefore it would have to snatch away the prey of several lion packs.
So probably you are right and the T-Rex would starve.
Wait, I've been told that evolution "stopped" 10,000 years ago and that is why human intelligence is exactly the same for everybody except for dissidents who are stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'd really be interested what kind of supernatural force made evolution "stop" for humans but allowed it for dinosaurs and all other non-humans. Also why - and how - does this supernatural force make an exception to the exception for dissidents and makes only them stupid, while everybody else is exactly equal?
Basically we have evolution which says that genes exist and that different populations have different traits. Then we have the unexplained exception for human intelligence, which is designed (uh?) to be exactly the same for everybody - which means that in some way evolution was suspended for the human brain which is designed (uh?) to be exactly equal for everybody, regardless of any genes - but not for the non-brainy parts, which are still dependent on genes. But then again we have the exception to the exception for dissidents who are all stupid and not equal at all. Hmmm....
Kind of hard to understand what makes evolution happen only in some cases, maybe somebody can clear this one up.
Who talked about ostracism? Oh, that was you.
I also don't quite get it how you can mix up "screening for a disease" with "deny it's existence", isn't that the complete opposite?
So who is talking about denying Ebola's existence - or if not that not doing anything about it? Oh, you again.
100 years ago, screening for diseases was normal procedure for immigration in pretty much every country - especially if that disease was contagious.
Yes that was before political correctness.
Today we screen only for those "dangerous" soda bottles and creams that people like you think can be used to hijack a plane.
But AIDS, Ebola, Thyphus? No problem, who cares that thousands or even millions will die of it?
... let all ebola-infected people into Western countries, do not - ever - screen anybody for it (that would be racist), create a ribbon campaign for feeling good and kill the jobs of everybody who dares to disagree on that.
It worked great with AIDS, why shouldn't it work with Ebola?
The Soyuz had two loss of crew accidents in 120 flights. And ten more mission failures.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.
The difference is that the Soyus does not have nearly as much launch delays as the Space Shuttle. The weather could delay a Space Shuttle start for months. That is also part of reliability - a launcher is worthless if you can't use it because the weather is not perfect.
Only SOME men have multiple partners. Quite a lot Africans (arguably most of them) can never afford a woman or even a prostitute.
And yes, studies have already confirmed that the AIDS rates are higher for high-income African males than poor ones.
Forever, because terraforming Mars makes no sense.
Just think about it: Here on Earth, we put more and more plants under greenhouse because greenhouses are simply better for plant growth than the natural environment.
Any terraforming of Mars would not only take almost forever but would result in an Antarctica-like climate were you would still need greenhouses anyway. It just makes much more sense to skip the terraforming-part altogether and just use greenhouses without any terraforming.
So a vaccine that failed the test stops being a vaccine? That is news for me. Also we do not live in a static world - yesteryear's vaccine might be ineffective to today's viruses. Also what about vaccines that have been approved in some countries and rejected in others?
Also this does not distinguish between the "no-brainer" vaccines where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks and costs and the vaccines that are just barely beneficial.
So basically the question is completely wrong and should instead be: "Do you believe that the testing procedures of vaccines are safe and effective."
In that case I would also say that this is doubtful.
Because we don't know how to measure intelligence accurately enough and control for all the other factors to narrow it down to just genetics.
That is a nonsense argument and you know it.
If the human body is influenced by evolution, then so is the human brain, simply because the brain is part of the body.
When you propose that for some reason all brains are functionally the same and are not influenced by genes, then the burden on proof is on you.
In other words you agree with your TV-set that the human body is formed by evolution (= genes), but the human brain is not influenced by evolution?
That kind of proves benzapp's point completely.
How many can tolerate the obvious truth, supported by thousands of studies, that average differences in intelligence across the various peoples of the world and especially races are due to genetic factors?
Interesting question. The TV tells that evolution exists but race differences (especially in morality, behaviour and intelligence) don't exist. But evolution requires race differences - what now?
Also the TV admits that race differences exists for things that are too obvious to deny (like appearance, body size, blood pressure, testosterone levels, etc.) but deny any differences for things that may have been tested and confirmed countless times but are touching on the subject of what makes us human and what distinguishes us from animals (intelligence, behavior, morality, etc.). Essentially the TV claims that evolution works on the human body, but not on the human brain.
People who are raised by the TV (and there are a lot of those) actually believe these contradictions, it is what Orwell called "doublethink".
This "let's throw all vaccines into one giant pot and treat them as if they were the same thing" - opinion is the main reason why I am increasingly sceptic.
Just because SOME vaccines are safe and effective, how does this make them ALL safe? It is a fact of life that some diseases can be treated well with vaccines and some not at all.
The question about safety has to be answered for each vaccine individually (and also btw for each surgery).
To proclaim that "vaccines are safer than surgeries" - what complete and utter nonsense is that? What vaccine can cure a broken leg? What surgery can cure an infection?
"Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting."
Well that is kind of a loaded question, because every vaccine is different.
SOME vaccines are safe and effective, SOME are safe and not effective (i.e. a placebo, the drug companies most favorite kind of drug), SOME come with a greater risk than the disease itself.
To give the pharmaceutical industry a blank cheque by believing that ALL vaccines are safe and effective is just as stupid as proclaiming that "all drugs are safe and effective".
Every vaccine is different and the safeness and effectiveness is completely undefined for vaccines in general.
I had a similar problem (although in my case they fixed it remarkably fast - in a few days) and that's exactly why I like to have both the stable and slow moving OpenOffice along with the fast moving LibreOffice.
Yeah right, there also were too many PC-makers out there...
It is a great thing that I can have both LibreOffice and OpenOffice installed on my PC without them knowing from each other so that when LO crashes on a document (which did happen here) I can still use OO as a backup.
Wrong, both have their place:
OpenOffice is the more stable "enterprise-ready" version that won't change too much.
LibreOffice is the bleeding-edge version that incorporates new features (SVG-support, yay!) but sometimes also introduces new bugs. They also seem to think that users should update every couple of months.
And the best feature of them all:
You cannot easily install two versions of either OpenOffice or LibreOffice, you can however install OpenOffice along LibreOffice, so you can have the best of both worlds.
NASA budget: around $17bn
Russian Space Agency budget: $5.6bn
Yeah, but Russia is not burdened by affirmative action, so that makes it about even.
In Switzerland ever adult male (who was in the army, which is most of them) has a government-issued rifle in his own home. Bear in mind, that's a real automatic military rifle and not some "civilian" semi-automatic.
Murder-rate: 0.6 to 0.7 (2007-2011), lower than most European countries.
I don't see why this fact should give rise to cries of racism, when it is just as much sexist and ageist.
This is because on TV-shows (doesn't matter if you watch CSI, Monk, Columbo or anything else), pretty close to 100% of the murderers are middle-aged, well-off, white males. (in rare instances it may also be a well-off white woman)
People who are raised by the TV are believing this as reality. They are looking at this day-in and day-out year after year - of course they will think it is racism when you contradict that.
Probably the MS-fans will think that's a problem, because LibreOffice is not "compatible".
In fact the very fact that LibreOffice is an independent implementation of the file formats is a big advantage, because it is much more robust - When you reverse-engineer something you usually cover all possibilities (of a variable, etc.) - this is also the reason why you can often open corrupted .doc files with LibreOffice.
If that what you say were even remotely true, we would have seen a reduction in crime after welfare was greatly expanded in the 1960s.
But that didn't happen - on the contrary, crime AND welfare payments increased.