That does not follow. Some As make some Bs. There is something that looks like a B, therefore it was made by an unknown A. It might be sane, but it is not logical.
No, I don't consider it as evidence because there is no evidence of it existing when the fossils were laid down.
They certianly wouldn't have been smaller!
Why not? Please explain in detail why they would not have been smaller, given that there may have been larger predators that would target larger shelless cephlapods. Oh, and let us not forget that smaller prey would have been more numerous.
Given that shell-free cephlapods don't exectly leave a good direct fossil record, finding a kill-bone arrangement that they are known to favor today is about the best you can ask for.
That is begging the question: The "kill-bone" arrangement was made by a "kraken". The kraken must have existed because the kill-bone arrangement exists." To put this in perspective "The universe was made by a god. The god must have existed because the universe is here." Do you see the problem with the logic now?
It is a conjecture. In order for this to be a theory, there would have to be evidence the supposed "kraken" existed, which there isn't. Really, this scientist, and I am using the term loosely, is just begging the question.
You sound like the oft-said joke against Microsoft. And, you are quite wrong.
By not having a clear and coherent list of grievances and goals, Occupy Wall Street comes off as a bunch of loons and lemmings.
Regardless of the message they want to get out, the message I am receiving is "Wah! You are bad people! Wah! We are mad and want stuff! It is not fair that you have money and we don't so we are going to throw a tantrum! Wah! Animal Rights! Wah! I fucked off in school and want $20.00 an hour to work at McDonald's!"
The mass of people I see aren't going to be voting and few seem to care about "the moneyed interests dominating the government" as much as they care about their pet cause.
They don't seem to be a movement as much as a muddle of people who have all decided to go to the same place at the same time to make their own individual demands. And, so, they have no power. Think light bulbs and lasers.
subscribe and read someone else's twitter feed like in Buzz
read my FB feed
cross-post easily to twitter or FB
I can't see any of my other Google services in Plus. No Voice, no Docs, no Gmail. Not even Calendar?!?
I can have G+ open in one tab, and if I want to check out my feeds, iGoogle home page or Reader, if I want to see my email, I have to open either the iGoogle home page or Gmail in another tab. If I want to see Buzz, I have to have Gmail open.
Really, if Google wants Plus to survive it needs to bundle Buzz into it, and add the ability to have the same kind of widgets for Google products that are available on iGoogle. I don't want to have four different Google tabs open. I don't want to have 4 different social network tabs open. They should work hard to get cross-posting and cross-reading FB and Twitter working. They should also find a way to, at the very least, read public posts on Twitter ala Buzz.
I want to be able to create an event post in Plus and have it show on my Calendar. I want to be able to see my Gmail inbox. I want to see my Buzz feed in my Plus feed. I want to be able to receive event notifications through Plus. I want to be able to display my Reader feed in my Plus feed. I want a search box at the top that opens a new tab/window. What I don't want is two or more tabs open for a single website. What I don't want is four tabs open for social networking sites.
The systems are set up to accommodate the largest segment of society. It is the lowest reasonable common denominator. Sadly, this means it is not set up to handle the extremes well, if at all. It is a fact of life. What is sadder still is that school systems will try to pull up the lower extremes through "mainstreaming" while ignoring those who have the most potential and talent on the idea that they can fend for themselves.
Really, before you go spouting off about things, maybe you should learn what the words you are using actually mean. Your personal definitions don't mean anything.
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "right" or the phrase "human right". A right is something the government is required to give you and if they don't they are being evil. A human right is something you are do for simply being human. According to the U.N., every single person on the face of the planet deserves internet access simply for existing and not providing it is a grave moral failure.
Few people actually need internet access for work, even in the United States, and most of those exist to support the internet.
There are people who believe that paying a 15% or less tax rate on the billions of dollars they make "should more or less be a right", They are wrong and so are the people you reference. Internet access is a luxury. Absolutely no one needs it to live.
Not having internet access is a problem only for overly entitled first world people. Most of the human population does not have nor needs internet access. Calling internet access a human right is like declaring access to Starbucks a human right and just as stupid.
Dom Perignon and the price is too high for most people. Most people just don't take it, they do without. "The price is too high" is not an excuse nor a justification. If the price is too high, then you don't buy it.
Really? So, the people who live in the Amazon rain forest, the jungles of Borneo, the wilds of Africa, etc without internet access are being denied their human rights? Is the UN going to create a free global wireless internet access system and give out free generators, computers, and devices to access this free global system they are going to build to everyone on the planet?
Declaring such a thing a "human right" is stupid and arrogant in the extreme. One does not need internet access, at all, period. It is a convenience, nothing more, not less. They may as well declare access to underarm deodorant a human right as well.
With physical media, making a copy, is often a labour intensive process, it only became cheap with the advent of the printing press, and subsequent technology. So back when copyright laws were invented, there was still a time and effort required to copy anything, so making copies of something someone else made required access to the original item and significant amount of time to produce a copy.
You have that completely backwards. The entire reason for copyright law was to ensure the people who created, or had created as work for hire, were able to profit from creating the work. When it was hard and expensive to copy an item, there were no copyright laws. There was no upside to making copies because it was so expensive and time-consuming that one was better off just creating an original work. As copying gets easier, copyright laws are MORE important because it becomes easier for someone to make copies of a work and sell them or give them away thus destroying the copyright holder's market for the work.
So who loses money when people pirate using the internet? You may laugh, but it's other pirates
No, because other "pirates" don't invest any money into making the work. The people who lose money to pirates are the people who create a work or pay for a work to be created as work for hire, also known as the copyright holders, for the purpose of selling the work, hopefully for a profit.
Seriously, it sounds like you think it costs nothing to create a work or that they fall from the sky to be picked up off the ground. TV shows, movies, musical performances, plays, paintings, pictures, etc all cost money to create. From models and actors, to instruments, to cameras, to the writers, etc., it takes money and effort to create a work. Do you think models pose for free? Do you think cameras are free? Do you think musicians, actors, directors, choreographers, cameramen, recording engineers, editors, etc work for free? Don't you think they want to get paid for their work just as you get paid for yours, assuming you actually work and don't get an allowance from your parents? Who do you think pays them, and where do you think those people get the money?
I have my own domain and email server. Every company gets it's own email address. I don't want to get from a company anymore, or I start getting spam to a specific address, I simply delete that address. You know, like I did to Border's email address when they went out of business.
The same thing would happen with this proposal. People would think it is a great idea, then FUD would start. People would worry about being tracked, privacy, etc. And, the backlash would begin.
Hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. There is a data recovery company that set up a floating head system that will read dented or warped platters. Apparently, it was fairly easy to do.
Then, why do christians decry homosexuality and try to prevent homosexual marriage? Why do christians try to codify their religious teaching and force others to live according to their religion? Why do christians try to get the old testament's creation myth taught in schools as science? Why do christians harass, berate, and oppress people who are not christians, and do those things to the point that the other people kill themselves?
I have seen all of that and none of that sounds like what you have described. Sounds like you are a bit out of touch there, skippy.
Slashdot Mirror
That does not follow. Some As make some Bs. There is something that looks like a B, therefore it was made by an unknown A. It might be sane, but it is not logical.
No, I don't consider it as evidence because there is no evidence of it existing when the fossils were laid down.
They certianly wouldn't have been smaller!
Why not? Please explain in detail why they would not have been smaller, given that there may have been larger predators that would target larger shelless cephlapods. Oh, and let us not forget that smaller prey would have been more numerous.
Given that shell-free cephlapods don't exectly leave a good direct fossil record, finding a kill-bone arrangement that they are known to favor today is about the best you can ask for.
That is begging the question: The "kill-bone" arrangement was made by a "kraken". The kraken must have existed because the kill-bone arrangement exists." To put this in perspective "The universe was made by a god. The god must have existed because the universe is here." Do you see the problem with the logic now?
If scientists had not abandoned the scientific use of the word, it would be impossible for ID proponents to misrepresent the world "theory".
It is a conjecture. In order for this to be a theory, there would have to be evidence the supposed "kraken" existed, which there isn't. Really, this scientist, and I am using the term loosely, is just begging the question.
The lack of goals is a feature, not a bug.
You sound like the oft-said joke against Microsoft. And, you are quite wrong.
By not having a clear and coherent list of grievances and goals, Occupy Wall Street comes off as a bunch of loons and lemmings.
Regardless of the message they want to get out, the message I am receiving is "Wah! You are bad people! Wah! We are mad and want stuff! It is not fair that you have money and we don't so we are going to throw a tantrum! Wah! Animal Rights! Wah! I fucked off in school and want $20.00 an hour to work at McDonald's!"
The mass of people I see aren't going to be voting and few seem to care about "the moneyed interests dominating the government" as much as they care about their pet cause.
They don't seem to be a movement as much as a muddle of people who have all decided to go to the same place at the same time to make their own individual demands. And, so, they have no power. Think light bulbs and lasers.
I can't:
I can have G+ open in one tab, and if I want to check out my feeds, iGoogle home page or Reader, if I want to see my email, I have to open either the iGoogle home page or Gmail in another tab. If I want to see Buzz, I have to have Gmail open.
Really, if Google wants Plus to survive it needs to bundle Buzz into it, and add the ability to have the same kind of widgets for Google products that are available on iGoogle. I don't want to have four different Google tabs open. I don't want to have 4 different social network tabs open. They should work hard to get cross-posting and cross-reading FB and Twitter working. They should also find a way to, at the very least, read public posts on Twitter ala Buzz.
I want to be able to create an event post in Plus and have it show on my Calendar. I want to be able to see my Gmail inbox. I want to see my Buzz feed in my Plus feed. I want to be able to receive event notifications through Plus. I want to be able to display my Reader feed in my Plus feed. I want a search box at the top that opens a new tab/window. What I don't want is two or more tabs open for a single website. What I don't want is four tabs open for social networking sites.
The systems are set up to accommodate the largest segment of society. It is the lowest reasonable common denominator. Sadly, this means it is not set up to handle the extremes well, if at all. It is a fact of life. What is sadder still is that school systems will try to pull up the lower extremes through "mainstreaming" while ignoring those who have the most potential and talent on the idea that they can fend for themselves.
Human rights are " universal, inherent rights."
Look at every government that has been accused of violating human rights and tell us how they are described.
No, bad for them as they are stating that YOU are required to pay for everyone to have internet access.
Try reading what wikipedia says about human rights Human rights are conceived as universal and egalitarian, with all people having equal rights by virtue of being human.
Really, before you go spouting off about things, maybe you should learn what the words you are using actually mean. Your personal definitions don't mean anything.
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "right" or the phrase "human right". A right is something the government is required to give you and if they don't they are being evil. A human right is something you are do for simply being human. According to the U.N., every single person on the face of the planet deserves internet access simply for existing and not providing it is a grave moral failure.
Few people actually need internet access for work, even in the United States, and most of those exist to support the internet.
There are people who believe that paying a 15% or less tax rate on the billions of dollars they make "should more or less be a right", They are wrong and so are the people you reference. Internet access is a luxury. Absolutely no one needs it to live.
Not having internet access is a problem only for overly entitled first world people. Most of the human population does not have nor needs internet access. Calling internet access a human right is like declaring access to Starbucks a human right and just as stupid.
No one needs internet access. Even people who "need" it for work don't actually need it. I should know. I "need" it for work.
Dom Perignon and the price is too high for most people. Most people just don't take it, they do without. "The price is too high" is not an excuse nor a justification. If the price is too high, then you don't buy it.
Really? So, the people who live in the Amazon rain forest, the jungles of Borneo, the wilds of Africa, etc without internet access are being denied their human rights? Is the UN going to create a free global wireless internet access system and give out free generators, computers, and devices to access this free global system they are going to build to everyone on the planet?
Declaring such a thing a "human right" is stupid and arrogant in the extreme. One does not need internet access, at all, period. It is a convenience, nothing more, not less. They may as well declare access to underarm deodorant a human right as well.
Please explain in detail how surfing the web and illegally downloading copyrighted works is an "effective contribution to the country".
Oh, so you know everybody and are sure everybody will download illegal copies because you say so. Good luck with that.
With physical media, making a copy, is often a labour intensive process, it only became cheap with the advent of the printing press, and subsequent technology. So back when copyright laws were invented, there was still a time and effort required to copy anything, so making copies of something someone else made required access to the original item and significant amount of time to produce a copy.
You have that completely backwards. The entire reason for copyright law was to ensure the people who created, or had created as work for hire, were able to profit from creating the work. When it was hard and expensive to copy an item, there were no copyright laws. There was no upside to making copies because it was so expensive and time-consuming that one was better off just creating an original work. As copying gets easier, copyright laws are MORE important because it becomes easier for someone to make copies of a work and sell them or give them away thus destroying the copyright holder's market for the work.
So who loses money when people pirate using the internet? You may laugh, but it's other pirates
No, because other "pirates" don't invest any money into making the work. The people who lose money to pirates are the people who create a work or pay for a work to be created as work for hire, also known as the copyright holders, for the purpose of selling the work, hopefully for a profit.
Seriously, it sounds like you think it costs nothing to create a work or that they fall from the sky to be picked up off the ground. TV shows, movies, musical performances, plays, paintings, pictures, etc all cost money to create. From models and actors, to instruments, to cameras, to the writers, etc., it takes money and effort to create a work. Do you think models pose for free? Do you think cameras are free? Do you think musicians, actors, directors, choreographers, cameramen, recording engineers, editors, etc work for free? Don't you think they want to get paid for their work just as you get paid for yours, assuming you actually work and don't get an allowance from your parents? Who do you think pays them, and where do you think those people get the money?
The MPAA is an American organization and does not fall under French authority.
Thanks for playing, karma whore.
I have my own domain and email server. Every company gets it's own email address. I don't want to get from a company anymore, or I start getting spam to a specific address, I simply delete that address. You know, like I did to Border's email address when they went out of business.
I remember when RFID came out and there was a commercial with a guy walking through a supermarket stuffing things into his oversized coat like a very bad shoplifter and he walks out and is automatically charged for everything thanks to RFID and having his card on file. Everyone talked about how cool that was and how great it would be. That lasted about a two weeks, then the FUD started. If you don't know what the backlash was, just read the comments of the attached video.
The same thing would happen with this proposal. People would think it is a great idea, then FUD would start. People would worry about being tracked, privacy, etc. And, the backlash would begin.
Hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. There is a data recovery company that set up a floating head system that will read dented or warped platters. Apparently, it was fairly easy to do.
Probably Leisure Suit Larry and other embarrassing information.
Oh, and don't toss the platters. Take them to the recycling center as well.
Disassemble the drives then take the platters and housing down to your local metal recycling center. Destroyed drives AND some pocket cash.
It has no value, period. Suggesting it does is just disingenuous.
It's not my problem if they're wrong. =)
Congratulations! You are a fundie!
Then, why do christians decry homosexuality and try to prevent homosexual marriage? Why do christians try to codify their religious teaching and force others to live according to their religion? Why do christians try to get the old testament's creation myth taught in schools as science? Why do christians harass, berate, and oppress people who are not christians, and do those things to the point that the other people kill themselves?
I have seen all of that and none of that sounds like what you have described. Sounds like you are a bit out of touch there, skippy.