I don't know if you could sue Obama for signing this treaty and intentionally keeping it out of the ratification process that would make it binding. I sincerely doubt it. Whatever he said about it at the time was just lies and political hand waving.
I am curious. If Obama thought this was a bad treaty (which he obviously did, otherwise he would have tried to ram it through the ratification process) why would you want a different leader to pass it?
Personally, I have two young daughters who I am of course immensely concerned about protecting from predators. Yet I believe that there are plenty of laws already in place protecting them from being filmed, approached sexually or otherwise that keep them safe.
Some may see this as a nitpick, but it is a distinction that needs to be stated. Laws do not protect anyone. If they did there would be no penalties for violating them, because no one ever would.
Knowledge, forethought, foresight, preparedness, awareness, planning, practice, experience, redundancy. These are the components of protection and safety. Notice that none of these happen at the moment an unsafe situation occurs. If your child's first thought of safety or protection is at the moment they discover they need it they are most likely going to become a victim.
Thinking that laws will protect your children is one of them most dangerous and irresponsible thoughts you can have as a parent. A statute written on a piece of paper will not save your children from predators. They are predators. If you cannot face this first in your own thoughts you are doomed to raising children that will be easily victimized. Your thoughts and actions will ingrain helplessness in your children from an early age, leaving them defenseless against the real threats in the world. As a father I would recommend you look very closely at what you are unintentionally thinking and transmitting to your children.
Taking action early and preparing and training your children can, and possibly will, save their lives one day. More importantly, if you address this while they are young not only do they get to benefit from it now, and to practice it daily, but it is much easier to do than retraining an adult. Because concepts of your place in society are generally transmitted in many subtle ways it sinks in deep, below conscious thought, below language. By the teenage years it is pretty well established, and by early adulthood they are rather well fixed. Sadly, the normal path for a young adult to learn the truth about safety and protection is through victimization. Now not only do they have to deal with the victimization itself, but they also have to deal with the deep realization that they were never safe, never could have been safe, and they don't know how to generate safety, security, and protection in their own life for the foreseeable future. That combination of events can seriously fuck someone up. You don't want that on your conscience. Better to prevent it if you can.
You cannot preserve a child's innocence through ignorance. If you do not take the responsibility to prepare them for what the world will expose them to, who will? If you are the first one to introduce your child to a subject, no matter what that subject is, you get to implant that definition for life. Use it to their advantage.
You seriously think that progressive politics are antithetical to plutocratic rule or to the aims of the richest who run this country?
You poor, poor innocent little child. Shit who am I kidding, I envy your lack of cynicism and blind devotion. It would make my life so much simpler.
The way I see it progressive's aims are orthagonal to plutocratic rule. This is not mere happenstance or coincidence, it is by design. Plutocrats crafted that ideology (and others) intentionally for you to latch onto. Progressivism, as currently practiced and fomented by its adherents in this country, is a perversion of beneficial collectivism, just as republican politics are a subversion of the positive characteristics of individualism. Depending on which way you swing on the collectivism/individualism spectrum, one will appeal to you more. Both are focus-group-honed to razor sharpness and aimed at ideologically cuckolding the unwary. You raise their ideas instead of your own. In return you get dead children on the ground, like so many eggs kicked out of the nest.
In the version of America where I want to live we, the American people, see the necessity of retiring old technologies and industries without leaving our brothers and sisters who work in those industries to fend for themselves. Legislation would not just regulate those old, dirty industries out of existence but would also take the additional step of making provisions for those who work in those industries. Retraining them, reinvigorating their communities with economic support, and focusing on installing those new industries in areas hit the hardest by the shift.
This provides a clean break from the old technology. It also prevents those industry workers from being a fulcrum point in elections where the disavowed and bereft are easily mobilized and held up as an example for others to sympathize with. The results of which will, at best, delay the shift to new technologies, and at worst resurrect the stinking undead carcass of superseded industries which have already existed for too long.
"All the giant insects and arachnids promptly went extinct as their lungs simply could not breath at this new lower level."
A nitpick: Insects do not have lungs. Some spiders do not have lungs, some do.
In 200 million years the sentient plants who inhabit the Earth will erect open air temples filled with fossilized human remains in reverence and appreciation for increasing the CO2 levels enough for them to evolve.
I have a hard time believing that intelligent life like us is common in the universe. Those stars that are billions of light years away had about 9 billion years before the Earth formed to create intelligent life that thinks like us. Besides there are many that are not billions of light years away. The milky way galaxy is estimated to have between 100-400 billion stars, all within roughly 200,000 light years. There should be evidence everywhere by now if intelligent life like us is easy and prevalent. I personally wish it were so that intelligent life was easy and prevalent, but the evidence I see stands firmly in the way of that belief.
A couple of conjectures that I am more likely to believe than intelligent life similar to us is everywhere:
1) Self-conscious life is an anomaly. There is no sign of alien life trying to communicate or search for other life because they are vastly different from us mentally and the subject is completely irrelevant to them. In this scenario we are the most alien of aliens.
2) There are other methods of communication unbeknownst to us that are easily discovered by all other intelligent life. They use those methods and we don't. We could be observing them right now (FRB's, GRB's, CRB's, or other kinds of energy phenomena) and we don't know how to parse them.
3) Everyone else in the universe has learned the axiom that intelligence implies belligerence and keeps their mouth shut. Hiding is survival.
Another reason that mushrooms are less dangerous could be attributed to the fact that psilocybin is a prodrug, meaning specifically that it is not psychoactive until it is processed by the digestive system into psilocin. This creates a (variable) bottleneck to high levels of exposure based on how the drug is prepared, how it is consumed, and the digestive state of the individual who takes it.
Consuming raw caps and stems in large quantities will lead to a considerable amount of the drug leaving through the digestive tract, unprocessed and not absorbed. This is akin to a designed in fail safe mode for the drug. In essence your gut can only process so much of the psilocybin into psilocin at a time.
Some individuals, through serendipitous co-consumption as well as reasoned chemical forethought, have found ways to defeat the fail safes of psilocybin through ingesting certain items along with it to increase processing, as well as methods of externally pre-processing psilocybin into psilocin before consumption. This practice can be highly intoxicating and is contraindicated in inexperienced users, those with previous emotional or psychological issues, psychotics, and fucking normies.
If it takes that much explanation to get around the label "homophobic" you have already lost the argument. No one wants to listen to reason these days. Its all "You offended me and those people over there who can't help themselves so I will stand up for them and protect those poor helpless defenseless inadequate deficient worthless people who I care about but who are so oppressed and intrinsically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own that they need me and my like minded friends to interdict the whole world otherwise they would be trampled to death by the mean words of cruel people everywhere."
I swear if people couldn't virtue signal while demeaning the people they are trying to "protect," Twitter, Facebook, CNN, Fox News, and the Washington Post would collapse into a vacuum so strong it would suck the flesh right off of every journalist in America instantaneously.
Also, I like to introduce my wife by name and then say, "I'm her husband." I get some fantastically strange looks, which I fucking love. Suck death you ignorant traditionalist pigs!
If we saw evidence of life elsewhere in the solar system, or elsewhere in the galaxy your conjecture about how easy it is would carry more weight. We don't see life or evidence of it anywhere, in spite of all of the billions of stars and in spite of the billions of years all of those other places have had to develop it. Essentially I am saying that the Fermi paradox calls bullshit on your statement that life is easy to make.
Furthermore, modern science is at odds with your statement that unlikely is a bad theory. You say it is easy, but we can't even cheat and reproduce the circumstances that create it in a lab in order to reverse engineer the environmental circumstances that would allow it to happen. It appears to be quite difficult, even if you already have life on hand to study.
Also you say that we have found nothing special about the Earth. However, since we don't know what circumstances lead to the creation of life from non-life we cannot even begin to speak about what is important or not, or what is "special" or not about the Earth, that qualifies as a precursor for life. Furthermore, if it were merely placement, temperature, and composition that led to life spontaneous generation would still be a valid theory.
Simply put, if we don't know how it came about, we can't estimate how likely it is to occur elsewhere.
Intentionally terrible analogy, as almost all analogies are terrible. Don't miss the point by diving into the parts of the analogy that don't matter. Also, don't think for a second that coins and tables are not natural processes. Just because you think doesn't mean you are able to disassociate yourself from nature. Ant mounds are natural processes, just like computers, cell phones, cities, automobiles, and satellites are. They are just a subset of by-products of the natural process we label "life." Still natural. I don't know anything that isn't natural, when viewed from the perspective that all life and its resultant behavior is governed, enabled, and allowed by the underlying laws of the universe. Life is not separate, nor are the things that life produces.
We have no idea how life (coin), much less "intelligent" life (ourselves included), got here (table). Unless/until we do, any conjecture about how common or uncommon life (additional coins) is throughout the rest of the universe (additional tables), much less how common intelligent life is, is based on nothing other than feelings, wishes, and unprovable woo.
Maybe the structure is a life form. Some kind of spacefaring creature that eats planets, asteroids, comets, and the like to make a shell around a sun to capture all of the energy.
Then, when it is ready to reproduce it causes the sun to go supernova, distributing its spores throughout the surrounding solar systems.
Holy shit, I feel marginalized and discriminated against. All I want to do is immigrate to their star system and do the jobs all those damn entitled Glorpgleeps won't do.
Do they think all those antigrav sleds will pull themselves? HA!
Since we do not know the antecedents and chain of events that led to life happening in the first place, and since we have not observed non-terrestrial life, I am at odds with your statement that "Terrestrial life is proof that extraterrestrial life is 100% possible, and in fact, there being no other system of life in the universe besides what we have here would be the far weirder case."
We have no idea how astronomically difficult (or easy!) it was for life to become prevalent on this planet. It could be a series of ridiculously unlikely occurrences stacked one on top of another in excruciatingly specific order and requiring impeccable timing in a very specific environment is the only path leading to "life."
We really have no fucking idea what the requirements are. Until we do, using a singular known example with unknown provenance is logically unfounded.
An analogy would be you finding a gold coin on your coffee table. If you have no idea where it came from or how it got there you cannot assume that one would appear on other coffee tables in other homes across the world.
Her target is not you, me, or even scientists that do sciency stuff.
Her target is those that fund science. Just like politically correct speech is designed to circumvent free thought by proscribing what can be said, this is an attempt to limit and control what science is done, and why it is done, by shaping the viewpoints of those that fund it.
Welcome to the new Gestapo. They will cleanse you of all doubleplusungood thoughts and actions.
Similarly, this felt like a lecture to scientists and those who associate with them. The lesson appeared to be "searching for answers is not enough. You must find the answers that support this specific agenda, otherwise your science is deficient." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The responsibility is on the individual that wants to change these things to change them through their presence, their effort, and ultimately their exemplary contribution. Changing people's minds is that easy.
Unfortunately, people who are consumed with gender politics, panning for "microaggressions," and warrioring for socialish justiceness will never have the time to be a significant contributions to actual science that make a difference where it really matters. Instead they seek to make up artificial reasons why those who actually do scientific work and those that fund that work should be ashamed of themselves and their science. They want to change science into a slave to their political agenda. Circumventing the method that makes it science and enforcing a strict set of rules that ensure the output of any science meets their predetermined acceptability matrix.
In other words, these people think that science, just like language and behavior, should be beholden to their politics and nothing else. I can't think of anything more destructive to real science than than focusing on a political agenda first and then organizing science around it afterward.
It's not a joke. It is one possible result of the press and democrats ramping up the "red scare" tactics.
Sad that we finally have a president that could get us some normalcy a reduction in aggression and stonewalling but our defeated political party and the press are destroying any chance of peaceful progress. It is like they really want a war with Russia.
Something in my brain keeps advocating for the application of additional pressure and temperature to these experiments. That same something thinks that life did not evolve in primordial oceans but in the mid to deep lithosphere. Higher pressure and temperature require less catalysis. Temperature gradients abound. Worth a look at least.
The most fascinating thing about the whole issue is that all life and even the "non-life" we see is not a result of random chance. It is a direct result of the fundamental underpinnings and natural laws that govern matter and energy in this universe. Our structure, function, and form is as intricately tied to Carbon 14 and H2O as it is to the weight of the electron, the speed of light, and the force of gravity. That we are a construct of these laws and interactions, and that we study these laws and interactions while being a product of them, fascinates me.
Sorry, but I thought the whole reason this article was written was because the "permafrost" melted.
So I guess the question is, if permafrost melts is it still called permafrost? Is it like ice-9 in your imaginings? Forever frozen, even when its warm?
Also, you have got to love the hubris of calling something "perma-anything." Like with people who don't want tattoos because "They are permanent!" No, they are not. You are not. Just like permafrost. Thinking so reveals a deep disconnect with reality. A very fundamental and personal problem with the idea of impermanence, change, process...and ultimately I feel, death.
Ok, you obviously don't understand what I am referring to. Let me elucidate you:
Lynch gave two people immunity, limited the scope of the investigation of their laptops, then destroyed their laptops. Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Look it up. It's a fact.
Pagliano was granted limited immunity then pled the 5th. His immunity agreement was revealed. It specifically prevented anything he said in his testimony from being used to prosecute him. Also a fact. Look it up.
As a citizen watching my tax money being spent I want results and I want the truth. Evidence on those laptops could have been exculpatory, though it can be inferred by the requests of the individuals involved to have them destroyed that it was not. Regardless the decision to limit the scope of the investigation to a specific date range and then to irrevocably destroy that information was not in the interests of the people.
In addition, Pagliano could have been given blanket immunity from all future prosecution in exchange for his testimony. He was not, and I put that at the feet of a blatantly politicized process. I expect the reason he was not given blanket immunity from all future prosecution was to give the justice department a patsy, in case the heat got too hot on Clinton herself. I think Pagliano was as afraid of the Clintons as he was of the FBI and Justice department.
So, instead of the interests of the people being served all we got was a shit show that wasted time and our damn tax money. Closure was attainable and they fell short of the mark, and it certainyl wasn't due to the difficulty of the process, nor to the inscrutable nature of the evidence.
My first reaction to your comment " I can't see any heterosexual sexual assault, I mean, a chick can't rape a man" is to call you an ignorant pig, shit in your mouth, and burn down your house with you and your family trapped inside. This reaction is not your fault. It is merely misplaced rage from my rather recent realization that I lost my virginity at the age of 13 to an adult female rapist.
I was drunk. Insensate for the most of the attack. My rapist aroused me from unconsciousness by masturbating me with her hand while scratching, biting, and forcefully sucking on my neck, chest, abdomen, and legs. She also performed oral sex on me, biting me as well. When I became awake enough to become sexually aroused she would mount me and slap and bite and suck on my neck to try to keep me awake enough for her to get off.
I was covered in hickies so thick around my neck that when I went to school they wanted to call CPS on my parents. The principal was convinced my parents had choked me and tried to kill me. Luckily for my parents, but of the utmost embarrassment for me, Oprah had just done an expose on auto erotic asphyxiation. I heard someone whispering that term in the office outside and shortly after that my pleas to not call CPS worked.
It took almost 20 years for me to admit and realize I was raped. It happens. Don't fool yourself, and please realize how incredibly offensive your statement is to someone who was raped by a woman.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you could sue Obama for signing this treaty and intentionally keeping it out of the ratification process that would make it binding. I sincerely doubt it. Whatever he said about it at the time was just lies and political hand waving.
I am curious. If Obama thought this was a bad treaty (which he obviously did, otherwise he would have tried to ram it through the ratification process) why would you want a different leader to pass it?
Personally, I have two young daughters who I am of course immensely concerned about protecting from predators. Yet I believe that there are plenty of laws already in place protecting them from being filmed, approached sexually or otherwise that keep them safe.
Some may see this as a nitpick, but it is a distinction that needs to be stated. Laws do not protect anyone. If they did there would be no penalties for violating them, because no one ever would.
Knowledge, forethought, foresight, preparedness, awareness, planning, practice, experience, redundancy. These are the components of protection and safety. Notice that none of these happen at the moment an unsafe situation occurs. If your child's first thought of safety or protection is at the moment they discover they need it they are most likely going to become a victim.
Thinking that laws will protect your children is one of them most dangerous and irresponsible thoughts you can have as a parent. A statute written on a piece of paper will not save your children from predators. They are predators. If you cannot face this first in your own thoughts you are doomed to raising children that will be easily victimized. Your thoughts and actions will ingrain helplessness in your children from an early age, leaving them defenseless against the real threats in the world. As a father I would recommend you look very closely at what you are unintentionally thinking and transmitting to your children.
Taking action early and preparing and training your children can, and possibly will, save their lives one day. More importantly, if you address this while they are young not only do they get to benefit from it now, and to practice it daily, but it is much easier to do than retraining an adult. Because concepts of your place in society are generally transmitted in many subtle ways it sinks in deep, below conscious thought, below language. By the teenage years it is pretty well established, and by early adulthood they are rather well fixed. Sadly, the normal path for a young adult to learn the truth about safety and protection is through victimization. Now not only do they have to deal with the victimization itself, but they also have to deal with the deep realization that they were never safe, never could have been safe, and they don't know how to generate safety, security, and protection in their own life for the foreseeable future. That combination of events can seriously fuck someone up. You don't want that on your conscience. Better to prevent it if you can.
You cannot preserve a child's innocence through ignorance. If you do not take the responsibility to prepare them for what the world will expose them to, who will? If you are the first one to introduce your child to a subject, no matter what that subject is, you get to implant that definition for life. Use it to their advantage.
You seriously think that progressive politics are antithetical to plutocratic rule or to the aims of the richest who run this country?
You poor, poor innocent little child. Shit who am I kidding, I envy your lack of cynicism and blind devotion. It would make my life so much simpler.
The way I see it progressive's aims are orthagonal to plutocratic rule. This is not mere happenstance or coincidence, it is by design. Plutocrats crafted that ideology (and others) intentionally for you to latch onto. Progressivism, as currently practiced and fomented by its adherents in this country, is a perversion of beneficial collectivism, just as republican politics are a subversion of the positive characteristics of individualism. Depending on which way you swing on the collectivism/individualism spectrum, one will appeal to you more. Both are focus-group-honed to razor sharpness and aimed at ideologically cuckolding the unwary. You raise their ideas instead of your own. In return you get dead children on the ground, like so many eggs kicked out of the nest.
In the version of America where I want to live we, the American people, see the necessity of retiring old technologies and industries without leaving our brothers and sisters who work in those industries to fend for themselves. Legislation would not just regulate those old, dirty industries out of existence but would also take the additional step of making provisions for those who work in those industries. Retraining them, reinvigorating their communities with economic support, and focusing on installing those new industries in areas hit the hardest by the shift.
This provides a clean break from the old technology. It also prevents those industry workers from being a fulcrum point in elections where the disavowed and bereft are easily mobilized and held up as an example for others to sympathize with. The results of which will, at best, delay the shift to new technologies, and at worst resurrect the stinking undead carcass of superseded industries which have already existed for too long.
Yeah, I'm an idealist.
A nitpick: Insects do not have lungs. Some spiders do not have lungs, some do.
In 200 million years the sentient plants who inhabit the Earth will erect open air temples filled with fossilized human remains in reverence and appreciation for increasing the CO2 levels enough for them to evolve.
I have a hard time believing that intelligent life like us is common in the universe. Those stars that are billions of light years away had about 9 billion years before the Earth formed to create intelligent life that thinks like us. Besides there are many that are not billions of light years away. The milky way galaxy is estimated to have between 100-400 billion stars, all within roughly 200,000 light years. There should be evidence everywhere by now if intelligent life like us is easy and prevalent. I personally wish it were so that intelligent life was easy and prevalent, but the evidence I see stands firmly in the way of that belief.
A couple of conjectures that I am more likely to believe than intelligent life similar to us is everywhere:
1) Self-conscious life is an anomaly. There is no sign of alien life trying to communicate or search for other life because they are vastly different from us mentally and the subject is completely irrelevant to them. In this scenario we are the most alien of aliens.
2) There are other methods of communication unbeknownst to us that are easily discovered by all other intelligent life. They use those methods and we don't. We could be observing them right now (FRB's, GRB's, CRB's, or other kinds of energy phenomena) and we don't know how to parse them.
3) Everyone else in the universe has learned the axiom that intelligence implies belligerence and keeps their mouth shut. Hiding is survival.
Another reason that mushrooms are less dangerous could be attributed to the fact that psilocybin is a prodrug, meaning specifically that it is not psychoactive until it is processed by the digestive system into psilocin. This creates a (variable) bottleneck to high levels of exposure based on how the drug is prepared, how it is consumed, and the digestive state of the individual who takes it.
Consuming raw caps and stems in large quantities will lead to a considerable amount of the drug leaving through the digestive tract, unprocessed and not absorbed. This is akin to a designed in fail safe mode for the drug. In essence your gut can only process so much of the psilocybin into psilocin at a time.
Some individuals, through serendipitous co-consumption as well as reasoned chemical forethought, have found ways to defeat the fail safes of psilocybin through ingesting certain items along with it to increase processing, as well as methods of externally pre-processing psilocybin into psilocin before consumption. This practice can be highly intoxicating and is contraindicated in inexperienced users, those with previous emotional or psychological issues, psychotics, and fucking normies.
If it takes that much explanation to get around the label "homophobic" you have already lost the argument. No one wants to listen to reason these days. Its all "You offended me and those people over there who can't help themselves so I will stand up for them and protect those poor helpless defenseless inadequate deficient worthless people who I care about but who are so oppressed and intrinsically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own that they need me and my like minded friends to interdict the whole world otherwise they would be trampled to death by the mean words of cruel people everywhere."
I swear if people couldn't virtue signal while demeaning the people they are trying to "protect," Twitter, Facebook, CNN, Fox News, and the Washington Post would collapse into a vacuum so strong it would suck the flesh right off of every journalist in America instantaneously.
Also, I like to introduce my wife by name and then say, "I'm her husband." I get some fantastically strange looks, which I fucking love. Suck death you ignorant traditionalist pigs!
If we saw evidence of life elsewhere in the solar system, or elsewhere in the galaxy your conjecture about how easy it is would carry more weight. We don't see life or evidence of it anywhere, in spite of all of the billions of stars and in spite of the billions of years all of those other places have had to develop it. Essentially I am saying that the Fermi paradox calls bullshit on your statement that life is easy to make.
Furthermore, modern science is at odds with your statement that unlikely is a bad theory. You say it is easy, but we can't even cheat and reproduce the circumstances that create it in a lab in order to reverse engineer the environmental circumstances that would allow it to happen. It appears to be quite difficult, even if you already have life on hand to study.
Also you say that we have found nothing special about the Earth. However, since we don't know what circumstances lead to the creation of life from non-life we cannot even begin to speak about what is important or not, or what is "special" or not about the Earth, that qualifies as a precursor for life. Furthermore, if it were merely placement, temperature, and composition that led to life spontaneous generation would still be a valid theory.
Simply put, if we don't know how it came about, we can't estimate how likely it is to occur elsewhere.
Intentionally terrible analogy, as almost all analogies are terrible. Don't miss the point by diving into the parts of the analogy that don't matter. Also, don't think for a second that coins and tables are not natural processes. Just because you think doesn't mean you are able to disassociate yourself from nature. Ant mounds are natural processes, just like computers, cell phones, cities, automobiles, and satellites are. They are just a subset of by-products of the natural process we label "life." Still natural. I don't know anything that isn't natural, when viewed from the perspective that all life and its resultant behavior is governed, enabled, and allowed by the underlying laws of the universe. Life is not separate, nor are the things that life produces.
We have no idea how life (coin), much less "intelligent" life (ourselves included), got here (table). Unless/until we do, any conjecture about how common or uncommon life (additional coins) is throughout the rest of the universe (additional tables), much less how common intelligent life is, is based on nothing other than feelings, wishes, and unprovable woo.
Maybe the structure is a life form. Some kind of spacefaring creature that eats planets, asteroids, comets, and the like to make a shell around a sun to capture all of the energy.
Then, when it is ready to reproduce it causes the sun to go supernova, distributing its spores throughout the surrounding solar systems.
Holy shit, I feel marginalized and discriminated against. All I want to do is immigrate to their star system and do the jobs all those damn entitled Glorpgleeps won't do.
Do they think all those antigrav sleds will pull themselves? HA!
They ARE communicating with us, by dimming and brightening the star!
I have recorded and parsed the sequence. It says:
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
I see your [Genesis 2:7] and raise you...[John 10:16]
Since we do not know the antecedents and chain of events that led to life happening in the first place, and since we have not observed non-terrestrial life, I am at odds with your statement that "Terrestrial life is proof that extraterrestrial life is 100% possible, and in fact, there being no other system of life in the universe besides what we have here would be the far weirder case."
We have no idea how astronomically difficult (or easy!) it was for life to become prevalent on this planet. It could be a series of ridiculously unlikely occurrences stacked one on top of another in excruciatingly specific order and requiring impeccable timing in a very specific environment is the only path leading to "life."
We really have no fucking idea what the requirements are. Until we do, using a singular known example with unknown provenance is logically unfounded.
An analogy would be you finding a gold coin on your coffee table. If you have no idea where it came from or how it got there you cannot assume that one would appear on other coffee tables in other homes across the world.
Dammit! Don't you know it's quite rude to link to TV Tropes during normal business hours? I have work that will never get done now.
Her target is not you, me, or even scientists that do sciency stuff.
Her target is those that fund science. Just like politically correct speech is designed to circumvent free thought by proscribing what can be said, this is an attempt to limit and control what science is done, and why it is done, by shaping the viewpoints of those that fund it.
Welcome to the new Gestapo. They will cleanse you of all doubleplusungood thoughts and actions.
Similarly, this felt like a lecture to scientists and those who associate with them. The lesson appeared to be "searching for answers is not enough. You must find the answers that support this specific agenda, otherwise your science is deficient." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The responsibility is on the individual that wants to change these things to change them through their presence, their effort, and ultimately their exemplary contribution. Changing people's minds is that easy.
Unfortunately, people who are consumed with gender politics, panning for "microaggressions," and warrioring for socialish justiceness will never have the time to be a significant contributions to actual science that make a difference where it really matters. Instead they seek to make up artificial reasons why those who actually do scientific work and those that fund that work should be ashamed of themselves and their science. They want to change science into a slave to their political agenda. Circumventing the method that makes it science and enforcing a strict set of rules that ensure the output of any science meets their predetermined acceptability matrix.
In other words, these people think that science, just like language and behavior, should be beholden to their politics and nothing else. I can't think of anything more destructive to real science than than focusing on a political agenda first and then organizing science around it afterward.
It's not a joke. It is one possible result of the press and democrats ramping up the "red scare" tactics.
Sad that we finally have a president that could get us some normalcy a reduction in aggression and stonewalling but our defeated political party and the press are destroying any chance of peaceful progress. It is like they really want a war with Russia.
Something in my brain keeps advocating for the application of additional pressure and temperature to these experiments. That same something thinks that life did not evolve in primordial oceans but in the mid to deep lithosphere. Higher pressure and temperature require less catalysis. Temperature gradients abound. Worth a look at least.
The most fascinating thing about the whole issue is that all life and even the "non-life" we see is not a result of random chance. It is a direct result of the fundamental underpinnings and natural laws that govern matter and energy in this universe. Our structure, function, and form is as intricately tied to Carbon 14 and H2O as it is to the weight of the electron, the speed of light, and the force of gravity. That we are a construct of these laws and interactions, and that we study these laws and interactions while being a product of them, fascinates me.
I sincerely appreciated this comment. Thank you sir!
Sorry, but I thought the whole reason this article was written was because the "permafrost" melted.
So I guess the question is, if permafrost melts is it still called permafrost? Is it like ice-9 in your imaginings? Forever frozen, even when its warm?
Also, you have got to love the hubris of calling something "perma-anything." Like with people who don't want tattoos because "They are permanent!" No, they are not. You are not. Just like permafrost. Thinking so reveals a deep disconnect with reality. A very fundamental and personal problem with the idea of impermanence, change, process...and ultimately I feel, death.
Ok, you obviously don't understand what I am referring to. Let me elucidate you:
Lynch gave two people immunity, limited the scope of the investigation of their laptops, then destroyed their laptops. Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Look it up. It's a fact.
Pagliano was granted limited immunity then pled the 5th. His immunity agreement was revealed. It specifically prevented anything he said in his testimony from being used to prosecute him. Also a fact. Look it up.
As a citizen watching my tax money being spent I want results and I want the truth. Evidence on those laptops could have been exculpatory, though it can be inferred by the requests of the individuals involved to have them destroyed that it was not. Regardless the decision to limit the scope of the investigation to a specific date range and then to irrevocably destroy that information was not in the interests of the people.
In addition, Pagliano could have been given blanket immunity from all future prosecution in exchange for his testimony. He was not, and I put that at the feet of a blatantly politicized process. I expect the reason he was not given blanket immunity from all future prosecution was to give the justice department a patsy, in case the heat got too hot on Clinton herself. I think Pagliano was as afraid of the Clintons as he was of the FBI and Justice department.
So, instead of the interests of the people being served all we got was a shit show that wasted time and our damn tax money. Closure was attainable and they fell short of the mark, and it certainyl wasn't due to the difficulty of the process, nor to the inscrutable nature of the evidence.
My concerns from the email investigation were on two fronts:
1) Witnesses given immunity and then allowed to destroy evidence.
2) Witnesses given immunity and then allowed to plead the 5th.
That shit right there is fucked up beyond all imagining. Comey was involved with this. I think he should be imprisoned, not fired.
My first reaction to your comment " I can't see any heterosexual sexual assault, I mean, a chick can't rape a man" is to call you an ignorant pig, shit in your mouth, and burn down your house with you and your family trapped inside. This reaction is not your fault. It is merely misplaced rage from my rather recent realization that I lost my virginity at the age of 13 to an adult female rapist.
I was drunk. Insensate for the most of the attack. My rapist aroused me from unconsciousness by masturbating me with her hand while scratching, biting, and forcefully sucking on my neck, chest, abdomen, and legs. She also performed oral sex on me, biting me as well. When I became awake enough to become sexually aroused she would mount me and slap and bite and suck on my neck to try to keep me awake enough for her to get off.
I was covered in hickies so thick around my neck that when I went to school they wanted to call CPS on my parents. The principal was convinced my parents had choked me and tried to kill me. Luckily for my parents, but of the utmost embarrassment for me, Oprah had just done an expose on auto erotic asphyxiation. I heard someone whispering that term in the office outside and shortly after that my pleas to not call CPS worked.
It took almost 20 years for me to admit and realize I was raped. It happens. Don't fool yourself, and please realize how incredibly offensive your statement is to someone who was raped by a woman.