All of the available evidence supports Evolution and there is a TON of evidence in. Our entire understanding of biology rests on Evolution and the proofs for it stem from a dozen other areas of science (for example, radioactive decay of elements). If some piece of evidence came up that completely overturned Evolution, it would likely throw all of our science into doubt. Given that our science was so successful so far (e.g. you don't get a rover to Mars with bad science), the chances are insanely remote that this would happen. You're probably more likely to win the Powerball lottery jackpot three times in a row than find substantial evidence that Evolution is wrong.
This isn't to say that Evolution is perfect, of course. Scientists are constantly tweaking the theory. But this is more of a case of "dot the i's and cross the t's" than "rewrite the whole theory."
And even if Hitler took the Theory of Evolution and twisted it to his own devices (which, as you pointed out, he didn't), that doesn't mean you toss out the Theory of Evolution. You just ditch his twisted and distorted mis-usage of the theory. Hitler also took rocket science and used that to kill a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we don't use rockets to go into space.
"Obviously Google is discriminating against us by removing our listings. The German government should pass a law REQUIRING Google to include our sites. While still paying the copyright fees, of course."
In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?
So the next time my kids ask for their cereal to be made just like on the box....
As someone who is Jewish, I haven't seen this. Yes, there are atheists who are vocally against all religions even existing (as opposed to a "you believe in your god and I'll believe there is no god" attitude). But specifically targeting Jews? I just don't see it. If anything, atheists are more opposed to Christian fundamentalists who want to force their brand of religion on everyone. (This includes Jews, though the fundamentalist groups in question usually disguise their wording a wanting "Judeo-Christian" beliefs enforced. "Judeo-Christian" is a code word to get Jews on board, but would quickly be turned into Christian if they ever got their way.) When it comes to this, Jews and Atheists are in the same boat as we both don't want our lives governed based on someone else's religious beliefs.
The Palestinians who fled did so with the expectation that the attacking Arab states would drive the Jews into the sea and then they'd get their land back (along with the Jews' land). When Israel won, they found they had bet on the losing side and suddenly wanted to return and get their land back. If you were at war with a neighboring country, some of your populace left to join your enemy, and the war ended with an uneasy truce with both sides still expressing hostile intent, would you welcome the deserting populace back into your midst with open arms? Israel would have been foolish to do so. Meanwhile, some of the Arabs living there didn't flee and they (and their descendants) still live in Israel and are treated as full citizens.
It's all part of Disney's plan to take over the world. Step 1 was buying LucasFilm for their secret Real Lightsaber division. Step 2 is highly flexible robots. Step 3 is create their own army of Sith Robots. Please just submit because if that doesn't work, they unleash the army of Robotic Jar-Jar Binks'!
Good point. And if a country doesn't play nice (e.g. opposes a new rule the ITU decides on like "don't criticize religions"), they could route that county's DNS servers to a special "black hole" server that doesn't route at all - effectively knocking out Internet until that country complies. They might not have the clout to push around the US to start with, but they could bully smaller countries into submission and work their way up.
I was wondering this as well. Suppose the ITU gains control tomorrow and, with their first act, confirms everyone's worst suspicions and bans all religious criticism online. I doubt the US would go along with it and - given the EU's resolution - the EU might stand with them. How, then, would the ITU enforce the "don't criticize any religions" rule on the Internet as a whole? (Granted, I wouldn't want them to get in that position whether they could enforce that rule or not.)
Have you met anyone who watches Fox News regularly?
My father. *hangs head in shame*
Needless to say, I avoid all political discussions with him lest it devolve into me trying (and failing) to convince him that Obama isn't an anti-semitic Muslim socialist who will destroy America with his horrible liberalism.
Actually, the "Palestinian problem" didn't happen when Israel was formed. When it was formed, the Arabs living there were free to join in the society. Then, the Arab countries surrounding Israel told the Arabs living there "We're going to invade and drive these Jews into the sea. Flee to our countries. You'll be safe and can return to your lands when the Jews are gone." Many of the Arabs fled, the surrounding countries invaded but were pushed back. Suddenly, those that fled found they weren't welcomed back. (Would you welcome someone back who sided with a country who was trying to exterminate you?) Meanwhile, the countries they fled to (Jordan, Syria, etc) decided they didn't want these people integrating into their society and kept them in refugee camps. Bonus: It made them easy pawns to play to both keep their own population in line (See what that monster Israel did? Now don't look at the horrid things we're doing.) and to gain sympathy on the world stage (Look at these suffering Palestinians in our lands who we don't help. Isn't Israel evil?).
Is Israel 100% innocent? No. They've taken some actions that I disagree with (e.g. not dealing harshly with the settlers who do nothing but hurt Israel's cause). But they also didn't start this conflict and they can't end it alone. If Israel puts down their arms first, they'll be wiped out. If the Palestinians put down their arms, Israel would do the same and there would be peace.
"food scarcity" is only really a problem if you base bio-diesel off of corn. I've heard proposals to base it off of farmed algae, kudzu (a fast growing invasive species in the South), and other plants that aren't used for food. If those pan out, they might provide more bang for the buck than corn and have the side benefit of not affecting food prices. Then again, the corn lobby is powerful and knows how to push their agenda through. (See corn-based gas additives, HFCS subsidized so it is cheaper than sugar, etc.)
The truth should be obvious to any Doctor Who fan. The "it's only ocean" that the scientists saw was obviously a perception filter. The island is being used as a staging area for a Dalek assault.
1) Believing in Climate Change must be like a religion. 2) No Climate Change believers have resorted to illegal acts to stop pollution. Therefore: Even Climate Change Believers don't believe in their "religion" enough so why should everyone else?
I'd argue that 1 is wrong because most folks who "believe" (using that word loosely) in climate change do so because they've seen the evidence. As for 2, you can believe in a religion and not commit illegal acts to further your religion. I'm Jewish and keep kosher. I don't go around bombing pork processing centers. Does this mean that I'm not a "true believer"? If a religious belief I held was opposed by a societal law (e.g. If a public school was requiring students to recite Christian prayers), I'd work within the system to change this law (e.g. talk to the school board, local/state officials, etc). I wouldn't immediately resort to violence. (Going back to my example, bombing the school might stop the forced prayers in the short term, but would only hurt my cause long term.) So even if #1 and #2 were true, your conclusion is false.
I got an electric lawn mower when my gas powered one died. I have a corded model, but I love it so much more than my old gas lawnmower. No pulling a cord over and over hoping this time the engine will turn on. No checking the oil, gas, etc. No stinky smell from the exhaust. Just plug it in, turn it on, and go. Yes, I need to keep an eye on the cord, but I just changed my mowing pattern (from outside perimeter working my way in to up and down from left to right) and it works fine. Honestly, the "need to watch out for the cord" hassle is a lot less than the "maintain the internal combustion engine" hassle.
But, in the summary, it said it could be detected a week after imbibing. So guy smokes pot and then, five days later, is pulled over by a cop. The cop suspects him of being under the influence (was driving erratically for some reason or perhaps the cop is just stereotyping based on what the guy looks like) so administers the test. This shows a small amount of THC in his system and he's arrested of driving under the influence (zero tolerance). However, he hasn't smoked any pot at all in a few days and is definitely not under the influence.
That's why it's important to figure out how to sort through the "smoked a bunch of weed and is now driving impaired" folks and the "smoked some weed hours/days ago, is fine now, but has detectable remnants of THC in his system."
A few years ago, there was a lawsuit where a guy who had been convicted of murder sued Wikipedia to get his name and crime details removed. This was based on some German privacy laws, but could this fall under a Right To Be Forgotten as well? Could we get people suing individuals who post information about them (especially true information) because those people would rather the incidents be forgotten? Could posting "I just saw X and Y getting quite cozy over lunch together" on Facebook lead to a lawsuit from X and Y because their spouses didn't approve.
Not abolished. Just rolled back to pre-911 levels. Keep the cockpit doors bolted shut. Keep metal detectors and the X-Ray machines for carry-ons. Ditch the "3oz of liquid" rule, the Rapiscan systems, etc. The TSA has to stop pretending that every new rule they dream up to inconvenience passengers dramatically increases security.
I've dealt with some great TSA officials too. It's important to note that most TSA officials aren't monsters who just want to feel up passengers and oggle their Rapiscan-provided naked images. They're people who actually are trying to do their job as best as possible. Many don't like the rules that the TSA administrators decide on, either. Look at the people in line near you - limited to people of your gender - and think how it would be if you had to "invasive search" each and every one of them.
The problem lies both with the few TSA officials who are attracted to the job for the sense of power it gives them and (to a much greater extent) with the people in charge who set rules based on who is giving campaign contributions and how they can best claim to be increasing security (while not actually doing anything).
It's not "ashamed of their body" as much as it is "wants to be in control of who they show their body off to." There is a very small list of people who I allow to see me without clothes on: My wife and my doctor. That's about it. If I decide that Person A should see me without clothes (and Person A agrees), then it's fine for me to remove my clothes in front of them. The current situation is Person A (the TSA) essentially forcing me to remove my clothes in front of them if I want to get on an airplane.
It's already been shown that these scanners don't work (hide a weapon on your side and you'll pass). The only reason they are in airports is because 1) Rapiscan paid a lot of money to lobby for them to be put there and 2) so politicians (and the TSA) could claim to be stopping terrorists to win political points. The fact that they haven't stopped a single real terrorist doesn't matter. Why invest in security when security theater (especially theater that benefits a big campaign contributer) will suffice until the next election?
In essence, the politicians sold away my freedom to choose who I show my unclothed body to in exchange for a few campaign bucks and an "I fought the terrorists" campaign slogan.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the available evidence supports Evolution and there is a TON of evidence in. Our entire understanding of biology rests on Evolution and the proofs for it stem from a dozen other areas of science (for example, radioactive decay of elements). If some piece of evidence came up that completely overturned Evolution, it would likely throw all of our science into doubt. Given that our science was so successful so far (e.g. you don't get a rover to Mars with bad science), the chances are insanely remote that this would happen. You're probably more likely to win the Powerball lottery jackpot three times in a row than find substantial evidence that Evolution is wrong.
This isn't to say that Evolution is perfect, of course. Scientists are constantly tweaking the theory. But this is more of a case of "dot the i's and cross the t's" than "rewrite the whole theory."
And even if Hitler took the Theory of Evolution and twisted it to his own devices (which, as you pointed out, he didn't), that doesn't mean you toss out the Theory of Evolution. You just ditch his twisted and distorted mis-usage of the theory. Hitler also took rocket science and used that to kill a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we don't use rockets to go into space.
"Obviously Google is discriminating against us by removing our listings. The German government should pass a law REQUIRING Google to include our sites. While still paying the copyright fees, of course."
So the next time my kids ask for their cereal to be made just like on the box....
As someone who is Jewish, I haven't seen this. Yes, there are atheists who are vocally against all religions even existing (as opposed to a "you believe in your god and I'll believe there is no god" attitude). But specifically targeting Jews? I just don't see it. If anything, atheists are more opposed to Christian fundamentalists who want to force their brand of religion on everyone. (This includes Jews, though the fundamentalist groups in question usually disguise their wording a wanting "Judeo-Christian" beliefs enforced. "Judeo-Christian" is a code word to get Jews on board, but would quickly be turned into Christian if they ever got their way.) When it comes to this, Jews and Atheists are in the same boat as we both don't want our lives governed based on someone else's religious beliefs.
The Palestinians who fled did so with the expectation that the attacking Arab states would drive the Jews into the sea and then they'd get their land back (along with the Jews' land). When Israel won, they found they had bet on the losing side and suddenly wanted to return and get their land back. If you were at war with a neighboring country, some of your populace left to join your enemy, and the war ended with an uneasy truce with both sides still expressing hostile intent, would you welcome the deserting populace back into your midst with open arms? Israel would have been foolish to do so. Meanwhile, some of the Arabs living there didn't flee and they (and their descendants) still live in Israel and are treated as full citizens.
It's all part of Disney's plan to take over the world. Step 1 was buying LucasFilm for their secret Real Lightsaber division. Step 2 is highly flexible robots. Step 3 is create their own army of Sith Robots. Please just submit because if that doesn't work, they unleash the army of Robotic Jar-Jar Binks'!
Good point. And if a country doesn't play nice (e.g. opposes a new rule the ITU decides on like "don't criticize religions"), they could route that county's DNS servers to a special "black hole" server that doesn't route at all - effectively knocking out Internet until that country complies. They might not have the clout to push around the US to start with, but they could bully smaller countries into submission and work their way up.
I was wondering this as well. Suppose the ITU gains control tomorrow and, with their first act, confirms everyone's worst suspicions and bans all religious criticism online. I doubt the US would go along with it and - given the EU's resolution - the EU might stand with them. How, then, would the ITU enforce the "don't criticize any religions" rule on the Internet as a whole? (Granted, I wouldn't want them to get in that position whether they could enforce that rule or not.)
My father. *hangs head in shame*
Needless to say, I avoid all political discussions with him lest it devolve into me trying (and failing) to convince him that Obama isn't an anti-semitic Muslim socialist who will destroy America with his horrible liberalism.
Actually, the "Palestinian problem" didn't happen when Israel was formed. When it was formed, the Arabs living there were free to join in the society. Then, the Arab countries surrounding Israel told the Arabs living there "We're going to invade and drive these Jews into the sea. Flee to our countries. You'll be safe and can return to your lands when the Jews are gone." Many of the Arabs fled, the surrounding countries invaded but were pushed back. Suddenly, those that fled found they weren't welcomed back. (Would you welcome someone back who sided with a country who was trying to exterminate you?) Meanwhile, the countries they fled to (Jordan, Syria, etc) decided they didn't want these people integrating into their society and kept them in refugee camps. Bonus: It made them easy pawns to play to both keep their own population in line (See what that monster Israel did? Now don't look at the horrid things we're doing.) and to gain sympathy on the world stage (Look at these suffering Palestinians in our lands who we don't help. Isn't Israel evil?).
Is Israel 100% innocent? No. They've taken some actions that I disagree with (e.g. not dealing harshly with the settlers who do nothing but hurt Israel's cause). But they also didn't start this conflict and they can't end it alone. If Israel puts down their arms first, they'll be wiped out. If the Palestinians put down their arms, Israel would do the same and there would be peace.
"food scarcity" is only really a problem if you base bio-diesel off of corn. I've heard proposals to base it off of farmed algae, kudzu (a fast growing invasive species in the South), and other plants that aren't used for food. If those pan out, they might provide more bang for the buck than corn and have the side benefit of not affecting food prices. Then again, the corn lobby is powerful and knows how to push their agenda through. (See corn-based gas additives, HFCS subsidized so it is cheaper than sugar, etc.)
The fetus has a tiny Delorian in there with it.
"Won't I run into the Uterus' wall?"
"You're not thinking Fourth Dimensionally."
"Yeah, I have a real problem with that."
The truth should be obvious to any Doctor Who fan. The "it's only ocean" that the scientists saw was obviously a perception filter. The island is being used as a staging area for a Dalek assault.
Recording Industry: "We won't pocket a single penny of the levy money!"
*gets big sack of levy money*
*pulls out one penny*
Recording Industry: "This is the single penny we won't pocket." *tosses one penny to the artists to divide up*
Your argument seems to be:
1) Believing in Climate Change must be like a religion.
2) No Climate Change believers have resorted to illegal acts to stop pollution.
Therefore: Even Climate Change Believers don't believe in their "religion" enough so why should everyone else?
I'd argue that 1 is wrong because most folks who "believe" (using that word loosely) in climate change do so because they've seen the evidence. As for 2, you can believe in a religion and not commit illegal acts to further your religion. I'm Jewish and keep kosher. I don't go around bombing pork processing centers. Does this mean that I'm not a "true believer"? If a religious belief I held was opposed by a societal law (e.g. If a public school was requiring students to recite Christian prayers), I'd work within the system to change this law (e.g. talk to the school board, local/state officials, etc). I wouldn't immediately resort to violence. (Going back to my example, bombing the school might stop the forced prayers in the short term, but would only hurt my cause long term.) So even if #1 and #2 were true, your conclusion is false.
I got an electric lawn mower when my gas powered one died. I have a corded model, but I love it so much more than my old gas lawnmower. No pulling a cord over and over hoping this time the engine will turn on. No checking the oil, gas, etc. No stinky smell from the exhaust. Just plug it in, turn it on, and go. Yes, I need to keep an eye on the cord, but I just changed my mowing pattern (from outside perimeter working my way in to up and down from left to right) and it works fine. Honestly, the "need to watch out for the cord" hassle is a lot less than the "maintain the internal combustion engine" hassle.
So your plan is sit around and Nature will save us? That's just a short hop away from Senator Inhofe's "only God can change the climate" statement.
But, in the summary, it said it could be detected a week after imbibing. So guy smokes pot and then, five days later, is pulled over by a cop. The cop suspects him of being under the influence (was driving erratically for some reason or perhaps the cop is just stereotyping based on what the guy looks like) so administers the test. This shows a small amount of THC in his system and he's arrested of driving under the influence (zero tolerance). However, he hasn't smoked any pot at all in a few days and is definitely not under the influence.
That's why it's important to figure out how to sort through the "smoked a bunch of weed and is now driving impaired" folks and the "smoked some weed hours/days ago, is fine now, but has detectable remnants of THC in his system."
A few years ago, there was a lawsuit where a guy who had been convicted of murder sued Wikipedia to get his name and crime details removed. This was based on some German privacy laws, but could this fall under a Right To Be Forgotten as well? Could we get people suing individuals who post information about them (especially true information) because those people would rather the incidents be forgotten? Could posting "I just saw X and Y getting quite cozy over lunch together" on Facebook lead to a lawsuit from X and Y because their spouses didn't approve.
This was right after they discovered geckos on Mars.
Maybe Marvin Martian should hire Frank Doyle. He does some good work making big booms for the Mythbusters.
Not abolished. Just rolled back to pre-911 levels. Keep the cockpit doors bolted shut. Keep metal detectors and the X-Ray machines for carry-ons. Ditch the "3oz of liquid" rule, the Rapiscan systems, etc. The TSA has to stop pretending that every new rule they dream up to inconvenience passengers dramatically increases security.
I've dealt with some great TSA officials too. It's important to note that most TSA officials aren't monsters who just want to feel up passengers and oggle their Rapiscan-provided naked images. They're people who actually are trying to do their job as best as possible. Many don't like the rules that the TSA administrators decide on, either. Look at the people in line near you - limited to people of your gender - and think how it would be if you had to "invasive search" each and every one of them.
The problem lies both with the few TSA officials who are attracted to the job for the sense of power it gives them and (to a much greater extent) with the people in charge who set rules based on who is giving campaign contributions and how they can best claim to be increasing security (while not actually doing anything).
It's not "ashamed of their body" as much as it is "wants to be in control of who they show their body off to." There is a very small list of people who I allow to see me without clothes on: My wife and my doctor. That's about it. If I decide that Person A should see me without clothes (and Person A agrees), then it's fine for me to remove my clothes in front of them. The current situation is Person A (the TSA) essentially forcing me to remove my clothes in front of them if I want to get on an airplane.
It's already been shown that these scanners don't work (hide a weapon on your side and you'll pass). The only reason they are in airports is because 1) Rapiscan paid a lot of money to lobby for them to be put there and 2) so politicians (and the TSA) could claim to be stopping terrorists to win political points. The fact that they haven't stopped a single real terrorist doesn't matter. Why invest in security when security theater (especially theater that benefits a big campaign contributer) will suffice until the next election?
In essence, the politicians sold away my freedom to choose who I show my unclothed body to in exchange for a few campaign bucks and an "I fought the terrorists" campaign slogan.