It's not a lie, really. And no, I'm not going to toss in "psychologically addictive" like everyone else here. I'm not a psychologist, I don't profess to be, and I'm not going to start making claims about a field I have little knowledge in, unlike so many here are prone to do (often erroneously, at that).
We have been lead to believe that marijuana is non-addictive, non-toxic, and perfectly safe, for some reason. Mainstream proponents seem to fall back on this assumption (with little evidence) or simply resort to the fallacious, "It's no worse than alcohol!"
A quick trot over to the NIH (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html) reveals that 1) marijuana is addictive for a recognizable percentage of users, 2) contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarettes, and 3) can increase the risk of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Additionally, it's also toxic, but the lethal dose is so high it isn't so much of a concern (50 joints or so).
So no, it's not as innocuous as we all have been lead to believe.
Thiomersal is only present in minuscule quantities, and yes, it is toxic. But it's effective, cheap, and safe in vaccines.
---
I find it curious how you think vaccines make any sort of money. Maybe a few cents per vaccine, at the most. Vaccines do cost money to develop and make, and it's pretty much at cost for a $25 flu vaccine. The goal of vaccines isn't to make money, it is to immunize as many people as possible. Cheaper is better, in that regard. A cheaper vaccine means that more people can afford it (and health insurance companies aren't afraid to soak up the cost, especially since they end up netting them savings).
I find it even more curious how you claim how people on the board of the CDC have ulterior motives. I haven't seen anything that suggests they do. And I would like to see evidence to prove the statement.
Or are you not really educated on the topic, but rather suffering from the dunning-kruger effect? Perhaps you should do more research before making such bold claims.
A classic example of appeal to popularity. Just because 85% of scientists don't think religion vs. science is in conflict doesn't mean that they aren't. The study was flawed from the beginning,
The quote said, "stealing copyrighted material". In English, this means one was stealing something that was copyrighted, since "copyrighted" is an adjective. All definitions of stealing accepted that I'm familiar with regard stealing as "taking away wrongfully". Stealing a DVD from a store is an example of this, since it satisfies that that the material stolen is copyrighted.
However, even if we were to look past this grammatical error and say, "they're also guilty of stealing," we create the problem touched on that downloading information is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. There is no taking away from anything. The information is merely copied, just as much if I were to take a picture of a painting. I did not steal the painting, I simply copied its information. If stealing were copyright infringement, then copyright infringement would have no use to the legal system. Stealing and downloading would be equals, and treated as the same. Because what's the difference between stealing 20 DVDs from a store and downloading 20 DVDs then?
Copyrights were invented to help contend with this problem that it isn't stealing. Copyright infringement is its own crime, but calling infringers guilty of stealing as well is simply wrong and an attempt to tug at our feelings. I know they teach logic in law school, but lawyers do seem to love to make the appeal to emotion fallacy.
You may want to educate yourself before posting claims.
1) It's still called global warming. Always has. The media calls it "climate change", even though properly it's global warming. 2) Ozone is O3, which exists as a gas in our atmosphere. A spacecraft can no more "puncture" ozone than you can puncture the air around you with your fists. 3) We first started recording global temperature change in the mid-20th century. 4) No reputable scientific paper or journal has predicted a "doomsday", the media make those claims. 5) CO2 is not the only "greenhouse" gas, or even the most important. 6) There is cause for concern, but no cause for "judgment day" or "doomsday".
It doesn't matter what laws they have in place or the methods they use. We'll simply find ways around it. It's really quite silly, they're attempting to hold onto a system that's morally flawed and very nearly outdated by fighting a large number of talented tech saavy people on the internet. They'd have better luck trying to call the internet police on the trolls at 4chan.
They were all motivated by money. Which makes perfect since, because not only where they not particularly rich, but also more successful than any billionaire living eve
Jobs have changed because there aren't as many of them. Machines do a lot of the tasks that used to be done half a decade ago. As a result, more higher education jobs are in demand and fewer menial tasks are required. These are the first steps towards pushing the entire monetary system to total collapse.
Mechanization displaces menial jobs, and as mechanization becomes more advanced, so too will more jobs become displaced for two reasons: 1) machines perform most specialized tasks far better than a human and 2) machines are far cheaper, don't form unions, and can work every day of the year.
For example, take the taxi driver. He must perform a difficult task of driving and navigation. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence have allowed Google to create an entire fleet of cars that more or less drive themselves. While only experimental, these will become more and more integrated into society. Taxi companies may eye it suspiciously at first, but it will eventually overtake the industry.
Taxi drivers do not need degrees. So you can see how the demand for jobs that use our more basic skills are being phased out and replaced. Jobs that require creative thinking, complex problem solving, and complex pattern recognition are in demand, because machines cannot do them.
Well, it's out in the open, so I don't know if you could consider it quite a bribe. I say plaudits to Microsoft for not keeping it all in secret like everyone else does.
Suppose I took two songs owned by two different copyright holders. Say I slowly change the pattern of one song so until it more resembles another song, and call this a gradient.
At what point does the owner of the first song no longer have a copyright over it?
Please RIAA, Zeno's been kicking your ass since ancient Greece.
Failed to solve #1 too, since it was a problem dealing with LIGHT and had nothing to do with plasma. If I tell you that it won't work with light and you tell me that it'll work with plasma as a retort, that's not proving me wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a lie, really. And no, I'm not going to toss in "psychologically addictive" like everyone else here. I'm not a psychologist, I don't profess to be, and I'm not going to start making claims about a field I have little knowledge in, unlike so many here are prone to do (often erroneously, at that).
We have been lead to believe that marijuana is non-addictive, non-toxic, and perfectly safe, for some reason. Mainstream proponents seem to fall back on this assumption (with little evidence) or simply resort to the fallacious, "It's no worse than alcohol!"
A quick trot over to the NIH (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html) reveals that 1) marijuana is addictive for a recognizable percentage of users, 2) contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarettes, and 3) can increase the risk of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Additionally, it's also toxic, but the lethal dose is so high it isn't so much of a concern (50 joints or so).
So no, it's not as innocuous as we all have been lead to believe.
Quit calling it climate change, it's global warming. It always has been.
Yes, let's not teach them about computers. That'll prepare them for a word filled with electronics.
I'd love to see these links.
Thiomersal is only present in minuscule quantities, and yes, it is toxic. But it's effective, cheap, and safe in vaccines.
---
I find it curious how you think vaccines make any sort of money. Maybe a few cents per vaccine, at the most. Vaccines do cost money to develop and make, and it's pretty much at cost for a $25 flu vaccine. The goal of vaccines isn't to make money, it is to immunize as many people as possible. Cheaper is better, in that regard. A cheaper vaccine means that more people can afford it (and health insurance companies aren't afraid to soak up the cost, especially since they end up netting them savings).
I find it even more curious how you claim how people on the board of the CDC have ulterior motives. I haven't seen anything that suggests they do. And I would like to see evidence to prove the statement.
Or are you not really educated on the topic, but rather suffering from the dunning-kruger effect? Perhaps you should do more research before making such bold claims.
Facebook should've constructed a comsat scanner, not a URL scanner.
Silly facebook.
A classic example of appeal to popularity. Just because 85% of scientists don't think religion vs. science is in conflict doesn't mean that they aren't. The study was flawed from the beginning,
It's easy, you just get them to sign a contract and get the rest of their money through data plans.
$25 dollar PC?
You do realize you're talking to a forum full of the tech savvy, right? When you say reformat, we do know what that means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Thanks for waiting.
It's probably because PCs can beat iPads in terms of raw power. Well that, and PCs aren't controlled by a totalitarian regime.
Yes, and "to appropriate" means to take for oneself.
Not in any definition of theft or steal that I know of.
The quote said, "stealing copyrighted material". In English, this means one was stealing something that was copyrighted, since "copyrighted" is an adjective. All definitions of stealing accepted that I'm familiar with regard stealing as "taking away wrongfully". Stealing a DVD from a store is an example of this, since it satisfies that that the material stolen is copyrighted.
However, even if we were to look past this grammatical error and say, "they're also guilty of stealing," we create the problem touched on that downloading information is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. There is no taking away from anything. The information is merely copied, just as much if I were to take a picture of a painting. I did not steal the painting, I simply copied its information. If stealing were copyright infringement, then copyright infringement would have no use to the legal system. Stealing and downloading would be equals, and treated as the same. Because what's the difference between stealing 20 DVDs from a store and downloading 20 DVDs then?
Copyrights were invented to help contend with this problem that it isn't stealing. Copyright infringement is its own crime, but calling infringers guilty of stealing as well is simply wrong and an attempt to tug at our feelings. I know they teach logic in law school, but lawyers do seem to love to make the appeal to emotion fallacy.
"because of the nature of the swarm downloads . . . every infringer is simultaneously stealing copyrighted material."
No, not stealing. Stealing copyrighted material is going into the store and shoplifting a DVD. Don't they teach grammar in law school?
You may want to educate yourself before posting claims.
1) It's still called global warming. Always has. The media calls it "climate change", even though properly it's global warming.
2) Ozone is O3, which exists as a gas in our atmosphere. A spacecraft can no more "puncture" ozone than you can puncture the air around you with your fists.
3) We first started recording global temperature change in the mid-20th century.
4) No reputable scientific paper or journal has predicted a "doomsday", the media make those claims.
5) CO2 is not the only "greenhouse" gas, or even the most important.
6) There is cause for concern, but no cause for "judgment day" or "doomsday".
RIAA gets their way, ISPs forced to shut down from substantial losses.
It doesn't matter what laws they have in place or the methods they use. We'll simply find ways around it. It's really quite silly, they're attempting to hold onto a system that's morally flawed and very nearly outdated by fighting a large number of talented tech saavy people on the internet. They'd have better luck trying to call the internet police on the trolls at 4chan.
Newton, Einstein, Curie, Planck, Hawking, Bohr, Sagan, Hubble, Galileo, Plato, Socrates, Eratosthenes, Leibniz, Descartes, Aristotle, etc.
They were all motivated by money. Which makes perfect since, because not only where they not particularly rich, but also more successful than any billionaire living eve
So a climatologist, who has dedicated his life to the study of the Earth's climate, wouldn't have accounted for something as basic as solar radiance?
That's like asking a rocket scientist if he accounted for gravity.
That's one hell of a slippery slope you have there.
Jobs have changed because there aren't as many of them. Machines do a lot of the tasks that used to be done half a decade ago. As a result, more higher education jobs are in demand and fewer menial tasks are required. These are the first steps towards pushing the entire monetary system to total collapse.
Mechanization displaces menial jobs, and as mechanization becomes more advanced, so too will more jobs become displaced for two reasons: 1) machines perform most specialized tasks far better than a human and 2) machines are far cheaper, don't form unions, and can work every day of the year.
For example, take the taxi driver. He must perform a difficult task of driving and navigation. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence have allowed Google to create an entire fleet of cars that more or less drive themselves. While only experimental, these will become more and more integrated into society. Taxi companies may eye it suspiciously at first, but it will eventually overtake the industry.
Taxi drivers do not need degrees. So you can see how the demand for jobs that use our more basic skills are being phased out and replaced. Jobs that require creative thinking, complex problem solving, and complex pattern recognition are in demand, because machines cannot do them.
Well, it's out in the open, so I don't know if you could consider it quite a bribe. I say plaudits to Microsoft for not keeping it all in secret like everyone else does.
Suppose I took two songs owned by two different copyright holders. Say I slowly change the pattern of one song so until it more resembles another song, and call this a gradient.
At what point does the owner of the first song no longer have a copyright over it?
Please RIAA, Zeno's been kicking your ass since ancient Greece.
You know, something about BP and an oil spill is nudging at me... I just wish I could put a finger on it.
Failed to solve #1 too, since it was a problem dealing with LIGHT and had nothing to do with plasma. If I tell you that it won't work with light and you tell me that it'll work with plasma as a retort, that's not proving me wrong.