From what I remember the incidence of infant infection has actual proved to be lower than expected, but who knows. There are a lot of variable in the whole thing and I haven't been keeping up with it as I should.
There is no reason for HIV to become "milder". It is a long term infection which provides its host ample time to reproduce and begin raising a child. It is spread only through close contact and, most likely, repeated contact (See the study comparing infection rates between Africans and S.E.Asians).
To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens. It would be perfect for a creature who had a life expectancy of up to mid thirties, begins reproducing at around 15 and has repeated sexual contact with a number of different people.
"evolution is solely responsible for the origin of life on Earth and there were no supernatural forces guiding the process along"
This statement shows you do not know the Theory of Evolution. In fact, it joins two separate theories. Evolution is about diversity and how living things on Earth got to the point they are at now. It does not speak to the origin of life on Earth, only how it went from simpler organisms to more complex ones. Theories on the origin of life are more complex and generally fall into the realm of biochemistry and molecular biology.
Then don't complain about people using Windows, the lack of hardware support for Linux, or say that Linux is ready for Joe User's desktop.
You don't buy a Mac and expect it to run Windows perfectly either.
Macs don't run Windowsm they run OS/X. And, the programs they run, run well. One can even run the Mac version of Office without problems.
And, while one does not need to get "specially Linux-certified hardware", one generally can not use the latest hardware or obscure hardware because there is no driver for said hardware.
They should present facts, and it is a fact that some people believe evolution is the explanation of the origin of life, so it is fair to teach that and to explain what evolution is. It's also a fact that a lot of people don't believe in evolution, so they should present that fact as well.
Let us examine the facts. The facts are:
The class in question is a science class
There is scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution has been observed in nature.
There is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. There is no proof of a designer and there has been no observation of a designer at work in nature.
You post shows an ignorance of evolutionary science and the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution changes with the evidence. Currently there is no scientific evidence supporting intellegent design.
A half-developed wing would aid a creature that jumps from tree to tree by allowing it to glide.
Because you are ignorant of something does not mean said thing does not exsist or that others do not know of said thing. Perhaps you should bother to learn about what you are commenting on before you post.
I figure you to be a supporter of ID and one who has learned about evolution from ID propaganda.
The real thing is that if hydrogen could assume this quantum state, it would in nature
Hate to do this to you, but lack of evidence for something is not evidence against said thing. Things to consider:
Certain isotopes are not found in nature because they are unstable. They can be manufactured, but are not found in "nature" here on Earth.
Irridium is rare on Earth but common in space.
Americium, curium, berkelium, and californium are not "found in nature" on Earth and were discovered in lab experiements.
It is entirely possible that hydrogen does take this form quite often in nature, but only in deep space. If this is the case, then We would not know of it's exsistance.
How come we never find hydrogen in that state? No hydrogen atom never dropped to that state on its own? Or if it did, how did it get back out, as it requires a lot of energy to get back.
I can think of few possible reason. It could be that energetic photons are easily absorbed by this form of hydrogen and thus solar radiation causes hydrogen to bump up into the state that we know it in. It could be that heat tends to keep the electrons in the higher energy state.
Regardless of all that of whether hydirinos exsist or not, your statement is still false.
Censorship is the suppression of information by a power. No one is suppressing information, rather a group is preventing a state from using the groups words in a document that supports something the group opposes.
This is a group saying "You can not use our words to support something we disagree with." That is not censorship.
Say one were to use the words in your post to support the showing of XXX videos to children by putting "They call it protecting children, when it's really censorship." with attribution in an article supporting such action. Would you feel it wrong to use your copyright to prevent such a thing?
The fakes have either been removed or have been labeled as such and held for ridicule as examples of bad science and how in science the end never justifies using deception as a means.
There are many primate fossils that show the development of humans from proto-primates to the current homo sapien.
In the context of the issue, I don't see a problem with them pointing out that evolution is just a theory and that theories are always challenged. I think they should push for further exploration of the matter.
As you are ignorant of all the meanings of the word theory, I can understand your confusion. You would do well to learn what theory means in the context of science (definition 1 in the link) and in the context used by ID proponents ( definition 6 in the link). It is this difference in definition that is the crux of the problem.
I beg to differ. This is not about silencing anyone. The copyright holders are saying "You can not use our words for this because we do not agree with what you are saying. Use your own words." This is the proper use of copyright.
The holders of the copyright do not wish their words twisted to imply support for something they do not agree with.
H1-B's are predominately hired into entry-level positions
Support this statement with facts.
If you've ever been involved in hiring an H1B visa person, you know that you must fill out government paperwork documenting the salaries of staff in equivalent positions. The starting salary of that H1B cannot be less than those workers.
Actually, they are not SUPPOSED to be paid less, but the point of the article is that they are, in fact, being paid less. The article charges that companies are abusing the system and are making up job titles to do so.
In the real world you get a stack of 300 resumes. You pick out the top 30. You bring them in for interviews. By law, you're not allowed to ask what kind of visa they might be on, only if they can legally work in the US. You send out job offers to the best candidates. You then find out your top 3 choices need H1B's. You either pursue them or settle for the lesser qualified candidates. If you have the budget (it costs me more to hire an H1B) and your company hasn't exhausted its H1B quota, you go for the more qualified H1B candidate. Otherwise you settle for a lesser candidate.
So, in the real world, the top 3 choices need H1Bs? What makes a candidate one of the top 3 choices? Could expected salary play into that?
Re:H1-B holders have less experience
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
You are assuming that the people being hired for H1Bs are fresh out of college. There is nothing to support this. The H1B worker could have 15 years experience in his native land.
A job title generally is something like "Senior Programmer/Analyst" or "Programmer III" and the title has a job description. It is not hard to match up jobs by description, even if the titles are different.
Re:I don't mean to sound ignorant or anything, but
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
This is not about outsourcing. This is about bringing low wage workers into the U.S. to avoid paying the going wage in the U.S. By law, companies are required to pay H1B workers what they would pay a U.S. worker. Instead, the companies are paying the workers less and avoiding hiring U.S. IT workers.
This argument is disingenuous. The problem isn't with cheap, foreign labor. The problem is that companies are importing the cheap foreign labor to America.
Following your argument, you would have no problem with the U.S. auto manufacturers importing cheap labor from Mexico to build cars because it would (theoretically) lower the cost of cars. And, you would have no problem with other companies importing cheap labor because it would lower costs as well.
Of course, it would lower wages across the board, increase unemployment, and might even make you unemployable. It would be a wonderous return to the pre-union days of company stores and $5.00 a day wages.
Re:Gravy Train Over--Time to Get Real
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and most of the world lives a subsistance farming exsistance with little or no healthcare, no computers, no refrigeration, no cars, and ramshackle housing.
You mistake my listing the problems with unions for a desire to destroy them. I just wish they were more responsible in their demands. While they should be protecting the workers, they should not be doing so at the expense of the company.
I would love to see a union force a company to base it's officers' pay on both performance and the pay of workers. But, what I absolutely hate is when the union hamstrings the operation and management of the company solely to protect a handful of jobs, or puts in place rules stating that only an electrician can change lightbulbs.
I guess it boils down to wanting to see some common sense, common decency, personal responsiblity, and respect on both sides of the table.
Slashdot Mirror
cool thanks
Excellent. Thanks
From what I remember the incidence of infant infection has actual proved to be lower than expected, but who knows. There are a lot of variable in the whole thing and I haven't been keeping up with it as I should.
And you have proof of this?
There is no reason for HIV to become "milder". It is a long term infection which provides its host ample time to reproduce and begin raising a child. It is spread only through close contact and, most likely, repeated contact (See the study comparing infection rates between Africans and S.E.Asians).
To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens. It would be perfect for a creature who had a life expectancy of up to mid thirties, begins reproducing at around 15 and has repeated sexual contact with a number of different people.
Kind of like prehistoric man.
This statement shows you do not know the Theory of Evolution. In fact, it joins two separate theories. Evolution is about diversity and how living things on Earth got to the point they are at now. It does not speak to the origin of life on Earth, only how it went from simpler organisms to more complex ones. Theories on the origin of life are more complex and generally fall into the realm of biochemistry and molecular biology.
Macs don't run Windowsm they run OS/X. And, the programs they run, run well. One can even run the Mac version of Office without problems.
And, while one does not need to get "specially Linux-certified hardware", one generally can not use the latest hardware or obscure hardware because there is no driver for said hardware.
Were these "alternatives" even remotely scientific? If not, then he deserved to be shot down.
Let us examine the facts. The facts are:
Evolution is a fact. ID is nothing more than myth. To follow your arguement out, science class should teach that science says the Earth is a sphere and that some believe that the Earth is flat and that both have equal merrit. The same could be said of space exploration as some believe the Apollo moon landings were staged
Science class should teach science and that is all it should teach.
You post shows an ignorance of evolutionary science and the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution changes with the evidence. Currently there is no scientific evidence supporting intellegent design.
A half-developed wing would aid a creature that jumps from tree to tree by allowing it to glide.
Because you are ignorant of something does not mean said thing does not exsist or that others do not know of said thing. Perhaps you should bother to learn about what you are commenting on before you post.
I figure you to be a supporter of ID and one who has learned about evolution from ID propaganda.
Hate to do this to you, but lack of evidence for something is not evidence against said thing.
Things to consider:
It is entirely possible that hydrogen does take this form quite often in nature, but only in deep space. If this is the case, then We would not know of it's exsistance.
I can think of few possible reason. It could be that energetic photons are easily absorbed by this form of hydrogen and thus solar radiation causes hydrogen to bump up into the state that we know it in. It could be that heat tends to keep the electrons in the higher energy state.
Regardless of all that of whether hydirinos exsist or not, your statement is still false.
One can obtain the SSN with the info you have described. All it takes is a bit of social engineering.
If you posted to the BB on CMT.com, they appear to have removed it because I can't find it.
Censorship is the suppression of information by a power. No one is suppressing information, rather a group is preventing a state from using the groups words in a document that supports something the group opposes.
This is a group saying "You can not use our words to support something we disagree with." That is not censorship.
Say one were to use the words in your post to support the showing of XXX videos to children by putting "They call it protecting children, when it's really censorship." with attribution in an article supporting such action. Would you feel it wrong to use your copyright to prevent such a thing?
The fakes have either been removed or have been labeled as such and held for ridicule as examples of bad science and how in science the end never justifies using deception as a means.
There are many primate fossils that show the development of humans from proto-primates to the current homo sapien.
As you are ignorant of all the meanings of the word theory , I can understand your confusion. You would do well to learn what theory means in the context of science (definition 1 in the link) and in the context used by ID proponents ( definition 6 in the link). It is this difference in definition that is the crux of the problem.
You conviently leave out the most important point:
ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.
I beg to differ. This is not about silencing anyone. The copyright holders are saying "You can not use our words for this because we do not agree with what you are saying. Use your own words." This is the proper use of copyright.
The holders of the copyright do not wish their words twisted to imply support for something they do not agree with.
Support this statement with facts.
Actually, they are not SUPPOSED to be paid less, but the point of the article is that they are, in fact, being paid less. The article charges that companies are abusing the system and are making up job titles to do so.
So, in the real world, the top 3 choices need H1Bs? What makes a candidate one of the top 3 choices? Could expected salary play into that?
You are assuming that the people being hired for H1Bs are fresh out of college. There is nothing to support this. The H1B worker could have 15 years experience in his native land.
A job title generally is something like "Senior Programmer/Analyst" or "Programmer III" and the title has a job description. It is not hard to match up jobs by description, even if the titles are different.
This is not about outsourcing. This is about bringing low wage workers into the U.S. to avoid paying the going wage in the U.S. By law, companies are required to pay H1B workers what they would pay a U.S. worker. Instead, the companies are paying the workers less and avoiding hiring U.S. IT workers.
This argument is disingenuous. The problem isn't with cheap, foreign labor. The problem is that companies are importing the cheap foreign labor to America.
Following your argument, you would have no problem with the U.S. auto manufacturers importing cheap labor from Mexico to build cars because it would (theoretically) lower the cost of cars. And, you would have no problem with other companies importing cheap labor because it would lower costs as well.
Of course, it would lower wages across the board, increase unemployment, and might even make you unemployable. It would be a wonderous return to the pre-union days of company stores and $5.00 a day wages.
Yes, and most of the world lives a subsistance farming exsistance with little or no healthcare, no computers, no refrigeration, no cars, and ramshackle housing.
Exactly, sort of.
You mistake my listing the problems with unions for a desire to destroy them. I just wish they were more responsible in their demands. While they should be protecting the workers, they should not be doing so at the expense of the company.
I would love to see a union force a company to base it's officers' pay on both performance and the pay of workers. But, what I absolutely hate is when the union hamstrings the operation and management of the company solely to protect a handful of jobs, or puts in place rules stating that only an electrician can change lightbulbs.
I guess it boils down to wanting to see some common sense, common decency, personal responsiblity, and respect on both sides of the table.
So, that is where my raise went!
Oh come on. Do you realize how much hard work it takes to steal all that money from a company? That is not even counting gutting the pension plan.