Well we have to ask ourselves what we want. A single world market, or separate markets for each continent/state/region. The answer for the rich is simple : A single market for workforce and separate markets for everything else - they can afford to buy things where they are chap, if they feel like it. Now the answer for everyone else is not quite so clear, but either choice has benefits and drawbacks.
Yes, since once he's done working he can move back to China and retire on the money he's made. A US worker could live for a few months on those same savings.
So a person wearing a bomb is going to be afraid of a gun? If they are willing to blow themselves up, then threatening to shoot them after the fact is not going to dissuade them.
Or it might be that people are not taught incorrectly in those fields before they get to school. Imagine if kids were told by their parents that everything that nuclear reaction, that oxygen you breathe in changes into carbon and hydrogen.... Now imagine what a chemistry class filled with those kids would look like.
What does the start of life have with evolution? Evolution is what happens to life AFTER it starts. And you can demonstrate it, if you take some time. Just take some bacteria and add small amounts of antibiotics to them over a few weeks. At the end, you'll have antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
If there was a single market, then yes, prices in low income countries would go down. But at the same time, income would go up. Local businesses could charge more for their products in the local market while also paying their employees more. At the same times, prices and income in high income countries would go down.
Wasn't this intended for young children (around 3 years). By the time they want to turn off the location services, those are not really needed any more (or they can turn them back on if they get lost).
And how are the primaries any different? Just like the real elections, they are winner takes all in most states. The difference is only that the candidates all 'lean' in the same way, so electing the guy you have won't make quite so big of a difference.
It completely depends on your behavior. If you act like you are likely to harm me, then keeping the gun holstered does not make it any less threatening. And if you then reach for it, or a phone near it, I'm going to interpret that as you trying to kill me.
Can you outrun a bullet? If they were at arm's length (if Zimmerman caught Martin for example), and Zimmerman pulled a gun and threatened to shoot, wouldn't the smart thing be to try to get the gun away from him? After all, bullets are pretty fast, and you're not all that hard to hit from 1m away if you don't have a running start.
But before your family decided to leave, how many of their subject did they kill or get killed?
And a world without religion would not be peaceful, but it would be more peaceful then what we have now. It would be much harder to motivate people to fight, if they didn't believe in an afterlife. After all, what is the point of joining the army to attack your neighbor, if you aren't likely to be able to enjoy the spoils. It would also decrease the number of excuses the rulers could use for those same was. Not to mention the reduced legitimacy of rulers - kings could no longer claim to be crowned by the will of God.
As for the French revolution, it was a revolution - those are mostly bloody affairs. That does not excuse any murders that it allowed, but it was not some sort of an atheist bloodbath. Executions were common at the time in all countries. The French just made it an 'equal opportunity' punishment, not one mostly reserved for the powerless. And those responsible for the 'Reign of terror' were themselves later executed, if I remember correctly.
No, the people who benefited were mostly the rich - church and the local feudal lords. Perhaps the accuser did get some reward (could take control of the land that the accused used to work, or got rid of an annoying neighbor), but most of the property went to the authorities. And when talking about religion stopping the rich from murdering the poor, did you ever notice how it didn't work in the opposite direction? The rich were able to do anything they wanted in most of Europe, and the Church supported them (at least their local one). Lords held the poor more or less enslaved, taxed them until they starved, killed them for sport during wars,.. And all the while the Church preached how that was the will of God, and how the poor would be rewarded in Heaven. So ask yourself how many peasants did your family kill before being forced out of France (by Catholics I presume). Did the French revolution come even close to the number of casualties that all the wars during the previous centuries caused? Or were the death just more noticable, since 'important' people died?
Well think about the search for pink invisible Unicorns. Let's say there are a large number of people that think they exist, and want to talk about them. So scientists go and explore the subject, study them. They find that they are unable to detect the unicorns and unable to discover any effect that the unicorns might have on our universe. So they form a theory that the unicorns do not exist. Now that does not mean the issue is settled forever, but it does mean the unicorn people should stop claiming that the unicorns are certainly there, and demanding that everyone should follow the will of the unicorns. Should the unicorn people discover a way to detect the unicorns, then the theory will have been proven false and everyone can go back to sacrificing apples and sugar cubes to the equine overlords.
Someone needs to start a religion that states there is no god. Then use the laws to shut down the preaching of all other religions, as they blaspheme against it.
The problem might be that rational thinking can't just invent carrots. It can't dream up an afterlife and promise it's believers that they get to go there.
My guess is that once person can 'full' comprehend the world, there will be no room for religion - everything will be explained, there will be no faith, just knowledge. But that moment is a LONG time away (if it ever comes). And until then people will keep believing in superstitions. But luckily people are quite capable of holding several conflicting convictions and not being shut down by them.
It's actually different than 100 dice. In your example you are looking for one unlikely, but still relatively high probability event. But there is not just one combination of genes that can work. There are a nearly infinite number of them. So it's like throwing a million dice, and then looking if the result looks pretty (is 'alive'). Sure most results won't, but one eventually might. But if you try to calculate the probability of just that pattern showing up you'll see that it's virtually impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
You could also some sort of a mass driver, only firing it when it's pointing in an appropriate direction.
Well we have to ask ourselves what we want. A single world market, or separate markets for each continent/state/region.
The answer for the rich is simple : A single market for workforce and separate markets for everything else - they can afford to buy things where they are chap, if they feel like it.
Now the answer for everyone else is not quite so clear, but either choice has benefits and drawbacks.
I think there are treaties preventing the government from prohibiting import, if those same items are legal to sell in the US.
Yes, since once he's done working he can move back to China and retire on the money he's made. A US worker could live for a few months on those same savings.
So a person wearing a bomb is going to be afraid of a gun? If they are willing to blow themselves up, then threatening to shoot them after the fact is not going to dissuade them.
But downloading a different browser did not remove IE from your machine. Does Google insist on sending you search results, even if you use Bing?
Or it might be that people are not taught incorrectly in those fields before they get to school. Imagine if kids were told by their parents that everything that nuclear reaction, that oxygen you breathe in changes into carbon and hydrogen.... Now imagine what a chemistry class filled with those kids would look like.
What does the start of life have with evolution? Evolution is what happens to life AFTER it starts. And you can demonstrate it, if you take some time.
Just take some bacteria and add small amounts of antibiotics to them over a few weeks. At the end, you'll have antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
So the label he chose for himself did not expose his values and philosophy?
Nah, that's 2 clicks. January 2nd is just one.
If there was a single market, then yes, prices in low income countries would go down. But at the same time, income would go up. Local businesses could charge more for their products in the local market while also paying their employees more.
At the same times, prices and income in high income countries would go down.
Wasn't this intended for young children (around 3 years). By the time they want to turn off the location services, those are not really needed any more (or they can turn them back on if they get lost).
And how are the primaries any different? Just like the real elections, they are winner takes all in most states. The difference is only that the candidates all 'lean' in the same way, so electing the guy you have won't make quite so big of a difference.
It completely depends on your behavior. If you act like you are likely to harm me, then keeping the gun holstered does not make it any less threatening. And if you then reach for it, or a phone near it, I'm going to interpret that as you trying to kill me.
Is it legal to stop random people and hold them prisoner 'until the police can talk to them'?
Would you take the same stance if Martin was a white woman? Or would you say that she was in the right when she maced the guy who was following her?
Can you outrun a bullet? If they were at arm's length (if Zimmerman caught Martin for example), and Zimmerman pulled a gun and threatened to shoot, wouldn't the smart thing be to try to get the gun away from him? After all, bullets are pretty fast, and you're not all that hard to hit from 1m away if you don't have a running start.
But before your family decided to leave, how many of their subject did they kill or get killed?
And a world without religion would not be peaceful, but it would be more peaceful then what we have now. It would be much harder to motivate people to fight, if they didn't believe in an afterlife. After all, what is the point of joining the army to attack your neighbor, if you aren't likely to be able to enjoy the spoils. It would also decrease the number of excuses the rulers could use for those same was. Not to mention the reduced legitimacy of rulers - kings could no longer claim to be crowned by the will of God.
As for the French revolution, it was a revolution - those are mostly bloody affairs. That does not excuse any murders that it allowed, but it was not some sort of an atheist bloodbath. Executions were common at the time in all countries. The French just made it an 'equal opportunity' punishment, not one mostly reserved for the powerless. And those responsible for the 'Reign of terror' were themselves later executed, if I remember correctly.
No, the people who benefited were mostly the rich - church and the local feudal lords. Perhaps the accuser did get some reward (could take control of the land that the accused used to work, or got rid of an annoying neighbor), but most of the property went to the authorities.
And when talking about religion stopping the rich from murdering the poor, did you ever notice how it didn't work in the opposite direction? The rich were able to do anything they wanted in most of Europe, and the Church supported them (at least their local one). Lords held the poor more or less enslaved, taxed them until they starved, killed them for sport during wars,.. And all the while the Church preached how that was the will of God, and how the poor would be rewarded in Heaven. So ask yourself how many peasants did your family kill before being forced out of France (by Catholics I presume). Did the French revolution come even close to the number of casualties that all the wars during the previous centuries caused? Or were the death just more noticable, since 'important' people died?
It's taking advantage of their fragile state, and it's done by most religions. So you can do it, since it's obviously ok, if the religious do it.
Well think about the search for pink invisible Unicorns. Let's say there are a large number of people that think they exist, and want to talk about them. So scientists go and explore the subject, study them. They find that they are unable to detect the unicorns and unable to discover any effect that the unicorns might have on our universe. So they form a theory that the unicorns do not exist.
Now that does not mean the issue is settled forever, but it does mean the unicorn people should stop claiming that the unicorns are certainly there, and demanding that everyone should follow the will of the unicorns.
Should the unicorn people discover a way to detect the unicorns, then the theory will have been proven false and everyone can go back to sacrificing apples and sugar cubes to the equine overlords.
Someone needs to start a religion that states there is no god. Then use the laws to shut down the preaching of all other religions, as they blaspheme against it.
The problem might be that rational thinking can't just invent carrots. It can't dream up an afterlife and promise it's believers that they get to go there.
My guess is that once person can 'full' comprehend the world, there will be no room for religion - everything will be explained, there will be no faith, just knowledge. But that moment is a LONG time away (if it ever comes). And until then people will keep believing in superstitions. But luckily people are quite capable of holding several conflicting convictions and not being shut down by them.
It's actually different than 100 dice. In your example you are looking for one unlikely, but still relatively high probability event. But there is not just one combination of genes that can work. There are a nearly infinite number of them. So it's like throwing a million dice, and then looking if the result looks pretty (is 'alive'). Sure most results won't, but one eventually might. But if you try to calculate the probability of just that pattern showing up you'll see that it's virtually impossible.