"while the US which used such a giant share back in 1990 will always be allowed to."
This is the part I don't understand. Who is doing the "allowing"? The US is a soverign nation, soverign nations don't have to ask permission to do stuff, absent a treaty.
Hold on, what? Because the US does not sign a trade agreement that would have a substantial negative impact, it's making it impossible for others to compete with the US economy?
That doesn't make any sense. There's PLENTY of competition. The US economy is the most productive in the world right now, but why on would you assume that that won't change? There's a LOT of competition, and India and China are growing like crazy. Why should they get a free leg up? They're doing just fine.
Conversely, why should the US be penalized for having the biggest economy?
If you normalize versus production (pick your metric), the US is not using a disproportionate amount of resources, nor creating a disproportionate amount of pollution.
That's utter horseshit. It's "Evolutionists" (because they carry membership cards...they say "Joe Smith, Evolutionist" on them...) who expose and debunk these hoaxes, because THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS FOR.
I think you need to step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths. Despite the fact that I may be 'playing with fire', somehow I fail to quake in my boots.
Methinks thou dost take thyself a bit too seriously.
Ah. So all the evolutionists somehow got together in a room somewhere, and said "Hey! Let's make this fake fossil!"
Why would they ever need to do that? What does one (or five, or any number) incidence of fraud have to do with the veracity of a body of scientific knowlege?
Slashdot Mirror
You did see that it was from Microsoft, right?
"but at least they might prevent crime"
I'm concerned about a different kind of crime than you are.
Yes, I would like muggings and assaults and street crime to not happen anymore. But that stuff is small potatoes...
Calculating waste heat was a significant fraction of my study of thermodynamics. What are you trying to say?
It's slipping release dates like crazy, it's shedding features like a wet dog sheds water.
Let me turn it around: From a project management perspective, what part of this could be described as "success"?
There's three or four hypotheticals in your statment that I'm not prepared to analyze. If you say so!
"while the US which used such a giant share back in 1990 will always be allowed to."
This is the part I don't understand. Who is doing the "allowing"? The US is a soverign nation, soverign nations don't have to ask permission to do stuff, absent a treaty.
Hold on, what? Because the US does not sign a trade agreement that would have a substantial negative impact, it's making it impossible for others to compete with the US economy?
That doesn't make any sense. There's PLENTY of competition. The US economy is the most productive in the world right now, but why on would you assume that that won't change? There's a LOT of competition, and India and China are growing like crazy. Why should they get a free leg up? They're doing just fine.
She doesn't read /., but she calls herself the sugar momma, too. Amazing what well-adjusted humans can tolerate, huh?
Conversely, why should the US be penalized for having the biggest economy?
If you normalize versus production (pick your metric), the US is not using a disproportionate amount of resources, nor creating a disproportionate amount of pollution.
I don't have a "sence" of anything, and I laugh at stuff that's funny all the time. You just weren't funny.
That's utter horseshit. It's "Evolutionists" (because they carry membership cards...they say "Joe Smith, Evolutionist" on them...) who expose and debunk these hoaxes, because THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS FOR.
I think you need to step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths. Despite the fact that I may be 'playing with fire', somehow I fail to quake in my boots.
Methinks thou dost take thyself a bit too seriously.
Do you need a hug?
Well, since you're willing to indict the Greenhouse denier, regardless of facts or logic, I guess we're just playing along with YOU.
You called the tune, Doc.
You're doing it wrong. I gots me a sugar momma.
Anybody who assumes that they know what's going on in my bedroom that has never met me before doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
YOU might not be getting laid. I'M doing fine.
"it was a mistaken find easily exposed through peer review"
Ah, demonstrating that science can identify and correct errors. Cool! How do you identify and correct errors in non-scientific philosophical systems?
What are these "good laws" of which you speak?
Ah. So all the evolutionists somehow got together in a room somewhere, and said "Hey! Let's make this fake fossil!"
Why would they ever need to do that? What does one (or five, or any number) incidence of fraud have to do with the veracity of a body of scientific knowlege?
Let's compare the sum positive results of your "social Darwinism" to the sum positive results of, say, the germ theory of disease.
Science wins.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria.
"statistically unlikely"
So anything that doesn't display a strict Gaussian distribution must be an Artifact of the Will of God Made Manifest?
"I have an a priori commitment to a philosophy that rejects the time and chance model."
If you've already made up your mind, why continue the discussion?
I'm not totally sure who you're rebutting, but OK! I think you're pretty much right.
What do you mean you've never heard of pen missile?