Snakehead is not on the lists though. Checked the Virginia advisories too, wasn't on the list there either. So the original point still isn't proven that eating the Snakehead would be more dangerous to your health than other fish.
You'd have controlled fish farms though instead and they wouldn't be part of the natural ecosystem anymore. Even if there's economic incentive doesn't mean people won't fish the hell out of a species. Take certain delicacies in Britain. There's a worm that you can fish for that used be considered a common man food, but overfishing has made it so hard to get that the prices for it are so high that it's now a rich man's food
Wait... wouldn't it bet better for intelligent discourse if they read the linked article instead of just the summary? If they read the article, then we wouldn't be wasting time talking about a typo.
This question makes no sense. The Native Americans for argument's sake are the government. The funded themselves...
Tribal Leader - "Life here isn't getting better, what's over that mountain? Everyone grab your stuff and we're going to find a better place to live." Eventually that led to migration into the Americas.
Also to add, if the moon is too far from the planet, seasonal temperatures might swing too much. And if it's too close, it would be tidally locked to the planet. Add to that if the planet possess a strong magnetic sphere it'd wreak havoc on the moon's. By and large, it'd be unlikely to find a Pandora around any of these planets.
Unless the moon’s mass exceeds 23 percent of Earth’s mass, plate tectonics and a strong magnetic field are impossible (both considered necessities for stable life). For such necessities to last for a few billion years requires a mass and a density virtually equivalent to Earth’s. The largest moons around our Gas giants do not exceed past 3%.
I don't see it pushing up Drake's equation though. We're also eliminating those same planets as being possible for life. All those super earths we found that had potential for life were knocked out of the second variable in the equation.
I'm just going to point out that various denominations do not hold that the only credible body of evidence is the Bible. Sola scriptura is heretical in the Catholic Church.
There's a lot to gripe at here, but I'll stick with the most relevant to the point. People seem to keep forgetting that the modern scientifiic method was (at least in part) pioneered and established by religious monks who used it for various purposes. From researching astronomy and biology, to yes, theology. Robert Grosseteste was a Bishop! Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk! Very early Christian theologians argued that science was a means of more accurately understanding the Bible. And they urged people to view Greek wisdom (one of the earliest bases for scientific thought and methodology) as the "handmaidens of theology."
Theologians are philosophers. Scientists are merely philosophers who use the scientific method.
The Air Force doesn't have HUDs in the new helmets so you don't take your eyes off the "road." I'm going to ignore that there are no roads for an aircraft. But a combat pilot is constantly moving their head about the cabin, looking as much around the plane as they can. The HUD is there so that certain information is always there while they cast their gaze about the plane and they don't have to keep looking back to a fixed point on the their console for that information.
HEY HEY GUYS!!! I just discovered this great thing, when an apple falls from a tree and lands on the ground there must be some sort of force doing it! I think I'll call it fallivity. Yeah! And if you notice everything pulled down by fallivity falls at the same speed! 9.81 m/s^2 by my calculations!
I'm not saying they didn't do well. In fact I'm kind of stating the opposite, they did better. The problem was, most of their advances and efforts weren't about increasing production and efficiency and by that token economic growth. France stagnated economically during the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a result. It's a common question in European history classes, why Britain and not France for the industrial revolution? And pretty much every answer boils down to, their priorities were elsewhere.
I'm was out of shape and not the best at basketball in college, yet I routinely was able to join in pick up games at the athletic center. Quite often playing with/against those that were on the school's basketball team. That's a roughly equivalent example to yours.
Maybe you should have gone with, why don't you head down to your closest NBA team and try to get on that professional team.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In providing for the common defence you may need to establish R&D operations to find better versions of guns and other arms. In promoting the general welfare the government may need establish R&D to operations to find better cures for diseases, find better ways to facilitate transportation of goods and materials.
I guess you're also against the Louisiana Purchase.
I'm confused, is this supposed to mean that it's easy or hard? I feel like it's the former, but the latter makes more sense. Because haggus is pretty good.
Retirement is between 62-67 in the US and 55-70 worldwide. Society has already decided it's probably best to throw in the towel at that point. So it's not a huge deal if my brain decides to. By then my kids would probably be grown up, I won't be having anymore, entertainment activities will probably start to diminish at that point as well. Most everything past 60 is gravy in my mind, heck if I die at 60, my kids will get more of my retirement. Not saying I'd kill myself or advocate for someone killing me when I retire, or to go out and do that to others. Let's be honest after retirement you're just chilling in the waiting room while you wait for death to call your number.
Yeah that hurts if 100% of your population is living together. But if the population is segmented into 10-20% semi-isolated groups, that would help mitigate the effects of a pandemic wouldn't it?
The black plague killed something like 30-60% of Europe's population. But the world only lost an estimated 15-25% of the population. If early man had not explorer for new land and places to live the world population might've looked closer to Europe's loss wouldn't it?
Proof of point. Pre-industrial France to pre-industrial Britain. France was technologically superior, but they used that technology for artistic ventures like marionettes. Britain used it to increase its production.
Slashdot Mirror
Snakehead is not on the lists though. Checked the Virginia advisories too, wasn't on the list there either. So the original point still isn't proven that eating the Snakehead would be more dangerous to your health than other fish.
What does free market capitalism have to do with it? What people didn't hunt things for specific body parts before capitalism?
You'd have controlled fish farms though instead and they wouldn't be part of the natural ecosystem anymore. Even if there's economic incentive doesn't mean people won't fish the hell out of a species. Take certain delicacies in Britain. There's a worm that you can fish for that used be considered a common man food, but overfishing has made it so hard to get that the prices for it are so high that it's now a rich man's food
Wait... wouldn't it bet better for intelligent discourse if they read the linked article instead of just the summary? If they read the article, then we wouldn't be wasting time talking about a typo.
This question makes no sense. The Native Americans for argument's sake are the government. The funded themselves...
Tribal Leader - "Life here isn't getting better, what's over that mountain? Everyone grab your stuff and we're going to find a better place to live." Eventually that led to migration into the Americas.
Or $629 if you bothered to read...
Also to add, if the moon is too far from the planet, seasonal temperatures might swing too much. And if it's too close, it would be tidally locked to the planet. Add to that if the planet possess a strong magnetic sphere it'd wreak havoc on the moon's. By and large, it'd be unlikely to find a Pandora around any of these planets.
Unless the moon’s mass exceeds 23 percent of Earth’s mass, plate tectonics and a strong magnetic field are impossible (both considered necessities for stable life). For such necessities to last for a few billion years requires a mass and a density virtually equivalent to Earth’s. The largest moons around our Gas giants do not exceed past 3%.
I don't see it pushing up Drake's equation though. We're also eliminating those same planets as being possible for life. All those super earths we found that had potential for life were knocked out of the second variable in the equation.
I'm just going to point out that various denominations do not hold that the only credible body of evidence is the Bible. Sola scriptura is heretical in the Catholic Church.
There's a lot to gripe at here, but I'll stick with the most relevant to the point. People seem to keep forgetting that the modern scientifiic method was (at least in part) pioneered and established by religious monks who used it for various purposes. From researching astronomy and biology, to yes, theology. Robert Grosseteste was a Bishop! Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk! Very early Christian theologians argued that science was a means of more accurately understanding the Bible. And they urged people to view Greek wisdom (one of the earliest bases for scientific thought and methodology) as the "handmaidens of theology."
Theologians are philosophers. Scientists are merely philosophers who use the scientific method.
Source: Lemme make up something up.
The Air Force doesn't have HUDs in the new helmets so you don't take your eyes off the "road." I'm going to ignore that there are no roads for an aircraft. But a combat pilot is constantly moving their head about the cabin, looking as much around the plane as they can. The HUD is there so that certain information is always there while they cast their gaze about the plane and they don't have to keep looking back to a fixed point on the their console for that information.
Try reading the article genius.
Scratch that, the paper is dealing with man made aircraft
The Air Force's revelation was based off of previous research into this in real birds in 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3879
Except you know here's something that certainly came out when they were alive.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3879
HEY HEY GUYS!!! I just discovered this great thing, when an apple falls from a tree and lands on the ground there must be some sort of force doing it! I think I'll call it fallivity. Yeah! And if you notice everything pulled down by fallivity falls at the same speed! 9.81 m/s^2 by my calculations!
I'm not saying they didn't do well. In fact I'm kind of stating the opposite, they did better. The problem was, most of their advances and efforts weren't about increasing production and efficiency and by that token economic growth. France stagnated economically during the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a result. It's a common question in European history classes, why Britain and not France for the industrial revolution? And pretty much every answer boils down to, their priorities were elsewhere.
He's not retired now is he?
I'm was out of shape and not the best at basketball in college, yet I routinely was able to join in pick up games at the athletic center. Quite often playing with/against those that were on the school's basketball team. That's a roughly equivalent example to yours.
Maybe you should have gone with, why don't you head down to your closest NBA team and try to get on that professional team.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In providing for the common defence you may need to establish R&D operations to find better versions of guns and other arms. In promoting the general welfare the government may need establish R&D to operations to find better cures for diseases, find better ways to facilitate transportation of goods and materials.
I guess you're also against the Louisiana Purchase.
I'm confused, is this supposed to mean that it's easy or hard? I feel like it's the former, but the latter makes more sense. Because haggus is pretty good.
Retirement is between 62-67 in the US and 55-70 worldwide. Society has already decided it's probably best to throw in the towel at that point. So it's not a huge deal if my brain decides to. By then my kids would probably be grown up, I won't be having anymore, entertainment activities will probably start to diminish at that point as well. Most everything past 60 is gravy in my mind, heck if I die at 60, my kids will get more of my retirement. Not saying I'd kill myself or advocate for someone killing me when I retire, or to go out and do that to others. Let's be honest after retirement you're just chilling in the waiting room while you wait for death to call your number.
Yeah that hurts if 100% of your population is living together. But if the population is segmented into 10-20% semi-isolated groups, that would help mitigate the effects of a pandemic wouldn't it?
The black plague killed something like 30-60% of Europe's population. But the world only lost an estimated 15-25% of the population. If early man had not explorer for new land and places to live the world population might've looked closer to Europe's loss wouldn't it?
Proof of point. Pre-industrial France to pre-industrial Britain. France was technologically superior, but they used that technology for artistic ventures like marionettes. Britain used it to increase its production.