Wearing a seatbelt is a public declaration that someone doesn't care if everyone else has to pay more for their health care costs after their accident.
By that reasoning, refusing to wear a seatbelt does cause harm. So again, please provide an example of something that is morally wrong but does not cause harm.
1) The symptoms made me search for a problem not the other way. When I started having those symptoms I didn't knew the base station was there.
So you had a bad day with some headaches and nausea. You blame it on the first thing you see, a telco tower.
2) The symptoms were exactly those received from EMF exposure(not taking the into consideration its strength). When I searched the web for the condition the I had around 80% of the things mentioned.
People who have psychosomatic syndromes often complain of the same vague symptoms.
3) Everytime I moved somewhere else for a couple of days, the thing went off. 4) When I "solved" the problem, the symptoms went off.
The placebo effect is amazing isn't it.
5) And finally maybe all the conditions in the world that can't not be diagnosed with precisely are psychosomatic?
Maybe, maybe not. Until you can demonstrate EM sensitivity in a lab, you can hardly blame people for being skeptical.
The problem here isn't Facebook. It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
Nothing in that article tells me whether they controlled for consumption. Does anyone have a link to the actual article published in PBB? My institution doesn't subscribe, and it's impossible to comment intelligently without reading the actual article. FWIW, the corn lobby claims that they didn't control for consumption at all:
Moreover, the researchers concluded that the rats gained more weight from high fructose corn syrup than they would have from sugar, yet the researchers had no proper basis for drawing this conclusion since they failed to provide sucrose controls for part of the study's short-term experiments and no sucrose controls whatsoever were present in any of the long-term experiments.
Post a sign. Children must be supervised. When you find unsupervised children, call the police. Have their parents cited. Problem solved. Leaving your children unsupervised at the library is no different from leaving them unsupervised at any business, or street corner for that matter. If the child isn't old enough to supervise himself, that's neglect.
I don't think you can bait and switch kids into reading this way, but that's not the only reason libraries should carry video games. Video games are a new medium that's quickly becoming part of our cultural heritage. It's just as important that libraries preserve and distribute them as any other medium. It's just as important for a young person to be exposed to masterpieces like Ocarina of Time as it is for them to listen to the Hot Fives and Sevens, or read Where the Red Fern Grows.
Also, I wonder if this study holds true for various other pleasurable inputs.
Yes. All this research shows is that pleasurable stimuli are reinforcing. Fatty foods activate reward pathways in the same way cocaine does. But so does sex, gambling, shopping, video games, etc. Choose your poison.
Youtube has always removed copyrighted material when informed too. Yet we found out recently that they intentionally allowed the hosting of copyrighted material in order to boost their market (and mind) share. I'd be surprised if Rapidshare, et. al, hasn't pursued the same strategy. Personally, I've never used Rapdishare for anything that wasn't pirated.
Unreliable means it works, just not all the time. If I have 10% success picking decent eateries out of a phone book, and 50% success picking them off of the internet, then I'm going for the internet.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
Do you have a better option for someone just passing through who just wants a nice place to eat? The only alternative I'm aware of is the back of the phone book. With online reviews, I can check a few sites and mostly figure out whether it's the kind of place I'm going to like. Back of the phonebook is a total crapshoot.
Sure, there are a few things you can point to that banks and insurance companies do that are worth while. But, you know Al-Qaeda provides some social services. That doesn't mean they're not evil. When banks are making billions off of 'securitization' and insurance companies are paying people to find reasons to deny coverage (which stops people from, you know, actually doing work) I think it's fair to characterize them as leeches.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy. Morals (in the western world) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.
That's another way of saying that moralism is irrational. If moralism doesn't correspond to harm, it's entirely irrelevant and worthless.
But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how's the weather, and you lie about it, then no one is going to usually die over that.
And it's also not immoral. Might even be good for a laugh.
Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy. Most people have moral offense to either
And those people are being irrational. If they push their morals on other people, then they are causing harm, and therefore acting immorally.
Being negligent is morally wrong too. If you can't exercise the care necessary to do something correctly, you shouldn't do it at all.
Imprisonment causes much greater harm than smoking pot ever could. Therefore marijuana prohibition is immoral.
Wearing a seatbelt is a public declaration that someone doesn't care if everyone else has to pay more for their health care costs after their accident.
By that reasoning, refusing to wear a seatbelt does cause harm. So again, please provide an example of something that is morally wrong but does not cause harm.
For that matter are there *any* generic keyword domains that have any use whatsoever?
1) The symptoms made me search for a problem not the other way. When I started having those symptoms I didn't knew the base station was there.
So you had a bad day with some headaches and nausea. You blame it on the first thing you see, a telco tower.
2) The symptoms were exactly those received from EMF exposure(not taking the into consideration its strength). When I searched the web for the condition the I had around 80% of the things mentioned.
People who have psychosomatic syndromes often complain of the same vague symptoms.
3) Everytime I moved somewhere else for a couple of days, the thing went off. 4) When I "solved" the problem, the symptoms went off.
The placebo effect is amazing isn't it.
5) And finally maybe all the conditions in the world that can't not be diagnosed with precisely are psychosomatic?
Maybe, maybe not. Until you can demonstrate EM sensitivity in a lab, you can hardly blame people for being skeptical.
is actually more convenient and better than P2P.
I'm guessing you never used Oink.
So what do you purpose to replace "at-will" employment?
Protected class status for political opinions would work. The same way you can't fire someone for their religion or ethnicity.
So if you found out one of your employees was a member of the KKK, you'd keep him on the payroll?
If he's a good worker, no.
Why not use SDL & C? It's available on more platforms than Flash. If I want to play a game, I'll use my operating system. Not my browser.
The problem here isn't Facebook. It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
Beans are cheap source of protein. They make a great alternative to meat, and can make a little meat go a lot farther. They're also very healthy.
Nothing in that article tells me whether they controlled for consumption. Does anyone have a link to the actual article published in PBB? My institution doesn't subscribe, and it's impossible to comment intelligently without reading the actual article. FWIW, the corn lobby claims that they didn't control for consumption at all:
What do you think is in HFCS? Glucose and fructose are sugars.
Buy your girlfriend some nice chocolates. You might be surprised.
Short sighted would be more correct.
What's the difference? When have conservatives ever looked towards the future? A conservative, by definition wants to conserve the past.
Post a sign. Children must be supervised. When you find unsupervised children, call the police. Have their parents cited. Problem solved. Leaving your children unsupervised at the library is no different from leaving them unsupervised at any business, or street corner for that matter. If the child isn't old enough to supervise himself, that's neglect.
There's only one question that needs to be answered here. Which platform is Cave publishing on? Superior games == superior gaming machine.
I don't think you can bait and switch kids into reading this way, but that's not the only reason libraries should carry video games. Video games are a new medium that's quickly becoming part of our cultural heritage. It's just as important that libraries preserve and distribute them as any other medium. It's just as important for a young person to be exposed to masterpieces like Ocarina of Time as it is for them to listen to the Hot Fives and Sevens, or read Where the Red Fern Grows.
Also, I wonder if this study holds true for various other pleasurable inputs.
Yes. All this research shows is that pleasurable stimuli are reinforcing. Fatty foods activate reward pathways in the same way cocaine does. But so does sex, gambling, shopping, video games, etc. Choose your poison.
Youtube has always removed copyrighted material when informed too. Yet we found out recently that they intentionally allowed the hosting of copyrighted material in order to boost their market (and mind) share. I'd be surprised if Rapidshare, et. al, hasn't pursued the same strategy. Personally, I've never used Rapdishare for anything that wasn't pirated.
Unreliable means it works, just not all the time. If I have 10% success picking decent eateries out of a phone book, and 50% success picking them off of the internet, then I'm going for the internet.
Exactly, thank you. Units should mean whatever is most useful to those who use them.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
Do you have a better option for someone just passing through who just wants a nice place to eat? The only alternative I'm aware of is the back of the phone book. With online reviews, I can check a few sites and mostly figure out whether it's the kind of place I'm going to like. Back of the phonebook is a total crapshoot.
Sure, there are a few things you can point to that banks and insurance companies do that are worth while. But, you know Al-Qaeda provides some social services. That doesn't mean they're not evil. When banks are making billions off of 'securitization' and insurance companies are paying people to find reasons to deny coverage (which stops people from, you know, actually doing work) I think it's fair to characterize them as leeches.
Fine, whatever. He should still find something positive to contribute.