Actually, the ACA began as HR 3590 with the title "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" with the purpose of "[t]o amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." Being a House Resolution, signified by the "HR" portion of the bill number, the bill for raising revenue did originate in the House, fulfilling the requirements of the Origination Clause, a.k.a., Article I, Section 7. Cf., http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:
... To blame any one branch when the large bulk of the spending is automatic mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare. With the sequester and other cuts, increasingly the only expenditures remaining tend to be direct payments; so, even if the amount of direct payments did not increase, the fraction of payments which are direct payments would increase. Additionally, since the total GDP is still lower than it would be if the recession happened, the "15% of GDP" is not surprising, especially when the question "Why do so many more People meet the requirements for these direct payments?" is asked an answered: the law has not significantly changed in these areas; therefore, the only remaining explanation is more People are meeting the requirements because Their economic situation has changed, which would also account for the 29% increase.
At the same time, since January of 2009, real GDP (that is, GDP after adjusting for inflation) has increased almost 11% according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, if We presume in a typical year the rate of such expenditures fluctuates at a rate equal to the growth rate of GDP, since 2009 that "29% increase" ignores a scaling factor of the same "almost 11%" and, after accounting for that factor, the rate of increase is ~16%.
And ID/creationism still makes no predictions, unlike the pseudoscience of WF (PoWF). Sounds like People are simply being duped/confused because of the PoWF's sciency appearance.
Well, I suppose at least Americans are protected from AiG and the CM by the courts. It still doesn't explain the discrepancy with the response to WF. However, the fact the pseudoscience of WF can make predictions, however erroneous, might. "Well, at least it sounds scientific."
People Who criticize creationism but do not criticize pseudoscience often have a deep seated hatred for any religion, however benign or benevolent, and find creationism a convenient "lightning rod" or "rallying point" to unleash Their resentment/anger/frustration/etc.
Can we adequately provide for a global population 50% larger than it is now (without buggering the planet in the process)?
According to the book, "The Ultimate Resource", yes. The idea behind the book is creativity and ingenuity are two things of which Humans can never "run out". Whenever demand for a certain product or class of products expands faster than supply, the price of that product/class increases, discouraging their consumption and encouraging searching for feasible substitutes and/or new sources. One illustrative example is the price of crude oil extracted from traditional sources versus shale oil in the first decade of the 21st century: at the start of the decade, shale oil extraction was economically unfeasible; as the price of crude oil from traditional sources increased during the decade, the potential profit from the sale of oil exceeded the cost of extraction from shale, enabling an increase in the total supply of oil.
So, can We adequately provide for a global population 50% larger than now? Unless We see that 50% increase happen overnight, yes. Even if We did see the increase overnight, the fluctuations in prices would drive Us to find a way to make it work or risk death, which is a very powerful motivator, for better or worse.
The key word in that sentence is "anecdotal". Unless some studies can corroborate the claim the existence anecdotal evidence, IMHO, is unhelpful and irrelevant, unless that evidence leads to investigation to corroborate the otherwise rumors of cheating.
Hmm, such investigation could help raise U.S. research output.;-)
Not really. The title is just syntactically ambiguous. The OP did not specify whether the "Government Ban" was the ban-by-the-government-upon-the-non-government-sector or the ban-for-use-by-the-government variety. Such ambiguity is the cost of using english instead of, say, lojban.
I could be wrong but I think I figured out a key piece in the puzzle concerning scientific inquiry in Iran. Could it be They don't know what a "saucer" is? Granted, it could be a translation error but it's worth verifying.
As I said elsewhere, there's a difference between Weak ID (God is behind evolution) and Strong ID (God interfered with evolution). I'm only interested in the latter case, because as you say, the first is indistinguishable from, well, evolution.
Does strong ID make any predictions which can be tested and, if strong ID is wrong, the results would differ from predictions? If not, it is not science but a philosophy. It may be a fine philosophy but a philosophy none the less.
There exists a difference, however, between design and biologically advantageous patterns. Such patterns could occur hypothetically without a Designer. ID would need to make some sort of testable prediction which could distinguish between the two in order to be considered science. This prediction would need to be one which, if ID is incorrect, would be different than the results of the given test. (This is the falsifiability quality to which Tom refers.) ID makes no such prediction and, consequently, is not science.
In 2002, the UN releases a report which projected would food supply to exceed population growth by 2030 (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7828-en.html). Unless food supply growth were to stagnate or the report is in significant error, reaching this goal may not be as difficult as it may sound at first. Of course, the proposals of the UK may also help to reach that excess growth.
Not quite. Sharia is simply the law of the Almighty as described by Islam. However Muslims differ as to what exactly it entails. The difference of opinions on Sharia is analogous to those found amongst Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism, as well as the various 'flavors' of Christianity, on the respective interpretations of G-d's law.
You have Me until #2. According to the Discovery Institute, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" and not "something interfered with evolution". Interfering may have been the way by which the intelligent cause worked but is not required.
To make matters more complicated, building a statistical model would not necessarily work because that model, if intelligent design were wrong, might be inaccurate. We would need a model which, if intelligent design were wrong, We could be confident would be accurate every time, which is not going to happen because Humans do not know enough to get statistical models right 100% of the time; hence, the phrase "margin of error".
As such, i.d. can make no predictions distinguishable from, "Whoops, the model used needs a slight tweak to account for all the data available", leaving it a philosophy and not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the ACA began as HR 3590 with the title "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" with the purpose of "[t]o amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." Being a House Resolution, signified by the "HR" portion of the bill number, the bill for raising revenue did originate in the House, fulfilling the requirements of the Origination Clause, a.k.a., Article I, Section 7. Cf., http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:
But I personally have nothing to hide.
Even if You are completely innocent, You have "something to hide". So agree both a defense Attorney and a law enforcement Officer as well as every other law enforcement Officer I have ever met.
The ACA is a regulatory bill with spending provisions analogous to almost every other regulatory bill; not what I would call a spending bill.
... To blame any one branch when the large bulk of the spending is automatic mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare. With the sequester and other cuts, increasingly the only expenditures remaining tend to be direct payments; so, even if the amount of direct payments did not increase, the fraction of payments which are direct payments would increase. Additionally, since the total GDP is still lower than it would be if the recession happened, the "15% of GDP" is not surprising, especially when the question "Why do so many more People meet the requirements for these direct payments?" is asked an answered: the law has not significantly changed in these areas; therefore, the only remaining explanation is more People are meeting the requirements because Their economic situation has changed, which would also account for the 29% increase. At the same time, since January of 2009, real GDP (that is, GDP after adjusting for inflation) has increased almost 11% according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, if We presume in a typical year the rate of such expenditures fluctuates at a rate equal to the growth rate of GDP, since 2009 that "29% increase" ignores a scaling factor of the same "almost 11%" and, after accounting for that factor, the rate of increase is ~16%.
SB 1062 does not legalize discrimination based on sexual preference (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf) because it already is legal to do so (https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lgbt-inclusive-public-accommodations-laws1). I am not saying such discrimination should be legal. Anyone saying otherwise, however, is either ignorant or perpetrating the political equivalent of a fraud.
And ID/creationism still makes no predictions, unlike the pseudoscience of WF (PoWF). Sounds like People are simply being duped/confused because of the PoWF's sciency appearance.
Well, I suppose at least Americans are protected from AiG and the CM by the courts. It still doesn't explain the discrepancy with the response to WF. However, the fact the pseudoscience of WF can make predictions, however erroneous, might. "Well, at least it sounds scientific."
I don't recall the Creation Museum trying to get creationism taught in public schools either.
People Who criticize creationism but do not criticize pseudoscience often have a deep seated hatred for any religion, however benign or benevolent, and find creationism a convenient "lightning rod" or "rallying point" to unleash Their resentment/anger/frustration/etc.
This may just be the funniest thing I have read all year!
Can we adequately provide for a global population 50% larger than it is now (without buggering the planet in the process)?
According to the book, "The Ultimate Resource", yes. The idea behind the book is creativity and ingenuity are two things of which Humans can never "run out". Whenever demand for a certain product or class of products expands faster than supply, the price of that product/class increases, discouraging their consumption and encouraging searching for feasible substitutes and/or new sources. One illustrative example is the price of crude oil extracted from traditional sources versus shale oil in the first decade of the 21st century: at the start of the decade, shale oil extraction was economically unfeasible; as the price of crude oil from traditional sources increased during the decade, the potential profit from the sale of oil exceeded the cost of extraction from shale, enabling an increase in the total supply of oil. So, can We adequately provide for a global population 50% larger than now? Unless We see that 50% increase happen overnight, yes. Even if We did see the increase overnight, the fluctuations in prices would drive Us to find a way to make it work or risk death, which is a very powerful motivator, for better or worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Metaphors
That should read, "corroborate the claim, the existence of anecdotal evidence ...".
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.
The key word in that sentence is "anecdotal". Unless some studies can corroborate the claim the existence anecdotal evidence, IMHO, is unhelpful and irrelevant, unless that evidence leads to investigation to corroborate the otherwise rumors of cheating.
;-)
Hmm, such investigation could help raise U.S. research output.
Not really. The title is just syntactically ambiguous. The OP did not specify whether the "Government Ban" was the ban-by-the-government-upon-the-non-government-sector or the ban-for-use-by-the-government variety. Such ambiguity is the cost of using english instead of, say, lojban.
Introducing the MacBook Space: it's so light it's weightless!
Unless the Authors are receiving some sort of payoff to distribute puff pieces for Apple, I don't see how this qualifies as "spin".
I could be wrong but I think I figured out a key piece in the puzzle concerning scientific inquiry in Iran. Could it be They don't know what a "saucer" is? Granted, it could be a translation error but it's worth verifying.
Its like the article writers are so in bed with apple they just can't write about the iphone enough.
Do You have any evidence of this claim? Some kind of documented kickback, perhaps?
As I said elsewhere, there's a difference between Weak ID (God is behind evolution) and Strong ID (God interfered with evolution). I'm only interested in the latter case, because as you say, the first is indistinguishable from, well, evolution.
Does strong ID make any predictions which can be tested and, if strong ID is wrong, the results would differ from predictions? If not, it is not science but a philosophy. It may be a fine philosophy but a philosophy none the less.
There exists a difference, however, between design and biologically advantageous patterns. Such patterns could occur hypothetically without a Designer. ID would need to make some sort of testable prediction which could distinguish between the two in order to be considered science. This prediction would need to be one which, if ID is incorrect, would be different than the results of the given test. (This is the falsifiability quality to which Tom refers.) ID makes no such prediction and, consequently, is not science.
That should be "released" and not "releases".
In 2002, the UN releases a report which projected would food supply to exceed population growth by 2030 (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7828-en.html). Unless food supply growth were to stagnate or the report is in significant error, reaching this goal may not be as difficult as it may sound at first. Of course, the proposals of the UK may also help to reach that excess growth.
Sharia 2.0 in the American way.
Not quite. Sharia is simply the law of the Almighty as described by Islam. However Muslims differ as to what exactly it entails. The difference of opinions on Sharia is analogous to those found amongst Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism, as well as the various 'flavors' of Christianity, on the respective interpretations of G-d's law.
You have Me until #2. According to the Discovery Institute, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" and not "something interfered with evolution". Interfering may have been the way by which the intelligent cause worked but is not required.
To make matters more complicated, building a statistical model would not necessarily work because that model, if intelligent design were wrong, might be inaccurate. We would need a model which, if intelligent design were wrong, We could be confident would be accurate every time, which is not going to happen because Humans do not know enough to get statistical models right 100% of the time; hence, the phrase "margin of error".
As such, i.d. can make no predictions distinguishable from, "Whoops, the model used needs a slight tweak to account for all the data available", leaving it a philosophy and not science.