It is possible that it is caused by something that we DO know about, but the scientist that have invested themselves in this CO2 boondoggle don't want to admit. Reference the link in my sig for a very eye-opening treatment of the "scientific community".
Except that the clear, objective data show the temperature rise LEADING the CO2 level increases.
There are other explanations that more clearly fit the data. Unfortunately, they lead to conclusions that do not give credence to increased governmental controls.
It's not just individuals. Same story goes for businesses.
A lot of the people on facebook are there trying to promote some business or other. The sad part is, if you add up all the time invested, you see that the return is ALWAYS negative.
Not true. At all. My wife has doubled her personal training business through Facebook. It is a way to be social, and acquiring/retaining personal training clients in an exercise in one-on-one social skills. Of course, most businesses are trying to use the one-on-one social network medium as a broadcast medium...and that don't work.
It's a very limited example. The exception that proves the rule, really.
Wealthiest guy I know barely got through a fundamentalist Christian high-school. He had me type up a term paper for him that read like, "Cars. Cars are fast. I like cars. Some cars are red." He asked me to increase the font to 20points so that it would fill three pages. I wept. He got an apprenticeship as an electrician, and then went on to get a contractor's license. The jerk (he is a jerk actually) is rolling in money.
One, even though it wasn't a college degree or education he still received training, that is what apprenticeships are about. They are useful in other fields too, carpentry and plumbing for instance, but many positions are needed? One for every one hundred people? I doubt it. Construction can pay very well but when the economy depends on it things aren't good.
WHAT? How many software engineers are needed? How many managers? How many people with doctorates in History? "How many positions are needed?", is a ridiculous question, because it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary. The point is that there are a LOT of ways to make money that don't derive from a college degree. My own profession required a degree, and I got one, but it is simple snobbery to imply that everyone needs one.
Granted. Now, my hyperbole aside, what you've described is a process. A clearly demonstrable process. A useful-to-understand process.
What I described was an event. One that is BELIEVED to have occurred millions of years ago.
One can find evidence that supports the theory that man and apes had common ancestors. One can even find enough evidence to be convinced that is what happened. Short of a time machine, one cannot find PROOF that man and apes have a common ancestor. The best you can do is say that you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened.
Evolution is falsifiable. The origins of man is not (with currently available technology).
Not anymore. This comes straight from my manager's mouth. The manager will do NOTHING but refer someone calling for a reference to HR. They won't say ANYTHING other than "Person X did work here from Y to Z." Anything else is grounds for a dismissal. They are serious about it.
Used to be that managers would "kill with faint praise." They won't even do that now.
Of course, my experience is limited to the companies I've worked for. Others may have a different policy.
The disdain Republicans hold is for the silly notion that you're promoting here.
Nobody HATES science. Republicans (purport to) hate socialist ideas that attempt to increase and centralize government. Republicans do hate the snotty attitude coming from academics who have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, but what do you expect the reaction to be to a bunch of sneering elitist that can't hold a real job. Your own statement )"overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace"), belies your hubris and refusal to consider anything outside of your educational sounding box. Britain is moving away from their socialized medicine model due to cost. Reports of inconsistencies in costing models between the US and other countries are buried. The evidence may be overwhelming to you, but the people that don't want to live in a nanny state have a lot of questions that never seem to get answered with anything more than a sneering "We KNOW better than you, because WE'RE smarter."
There is a lot of disdain in conservative circles. It is not for science.
So, what we get is politicians who want to look like they care about balancing the budget and "shrinking government" nibbling around the edges while overseeing massive expansions in the government in the form of bullshit like TSA.
I thought it was the funniest thing as I watched Fox News Sunday. I believe Paul Ryan was the Representative that was being interviewed. Chris Wallace kept asking him about cutting entitlement spending, even pointing out the obviousness that something had to be done and that there was an obvious cat-and-mouse game going on with who would admit the obvious first. The best Wallace could get out of Ryan was something to the effect of, "The President is supposed to be a leader and should propose the Soc. Sec. cuts first."
For 20 years, I've watched the Dems demagogue the Reps at every elections with "They want to cut your Soc. Sec. They're MEAN!", and get elected on little more than that. The Reps have been burned enough to the point that they aren't about to stick their hands in it again. It would just be nice to hear one of them say, "Honestly people, ya'll beat the snot out of me last time. Ain't no way I'm going to take those arrows again."
As opposed to the Democrats that want to create more bureaucracies to beat the hell out of businesses and force them to seek shelter overseas, destroying jobs and forcing "the little guy" to be dependent on government for even the basic necessities of life. Just consider the Dept of Education. It has done nothing but hamstring local school systems with extra layers of bureaucracy, while standardized test scores have consistently gone down. There is a clear inverse relationship between the money spent on the DOE and test scores, and yet all the Democrats call for is spending more money on this ridiculous failure.
Personally, getting fed up with the Dems blatant anti-education stance. Its clear they want the general public to remain clueless, helpless, pushovers.
Clinton did leave us a surplus. He left us a "projected" surplus.
What's the difference? I had learned the difference by the time I got my second paycheck on my first job. You shouldn't spend money you THINK you're going to get. Unfortunately, like Black Parrot said above, that mode of thinking doesn't buy many votes.
It's like the acquaintance I had the misfortune of knowing. He was a personal trainer who, by his own words, only wanted to train clients that were motivated and in shape.
If the clients are motivated and in shape, WHAT THE HELL DO THEY NEED *YOU* FOR, you nimrod!!
He was (is?) a basket case that is worthless as a personal trainer, and this nimrod is worthless as a teacher.
Just because it has become the fashion in this country to mortgage oneself to the grave with huge McMansions and car loans, does not mean there is no safety net. If you are fired without cause, there is unemployment insurance in nearly every state of this Union. Even better, you still have your skills. If they were worthless, why were you getting a salary to start with.
Your boss, if he has a clue, will call you into her office one day and say, "Your services are no longer needed.", hand you your final check, and escort or have you escorted from the premises.
There is no requirement to state why you are being let go. His punishment will be that his unemployment insurance rates go up (and they go up fast!).
Try to get a recommendation from a former company or manager. All they will say is, "I can confirm that Joe Smith worked at the Acme company from date X to date Y." You won't get a single bit more if the HR department has anything to do with it. The reason is that telling the truth can get you sued.
So, the answer is No, companies can't say whatever they please about employees.
You do know that you have the right to seek employment at another place of business, or to even create your own business? Heavens to Betsy, no. You prefer to bleat the sheep's mantra. You're an employee, not a slave.
You have right to freedom of speech. You don't have a guarantee of a job. It never ceases to amaze me that people have warped "freedom of speech" into "I'll get to say whatever I want without consequences."
Wealthiest guy I know barely got through a fundamentalist Christian high-school. He had me type up a term paper for him that read like, "Cars. Cars are fast. I like cars. Some cars are red." He asked me to increase the font to 20points so that it would fill three pages. I wept. He got an apprenticeship as an electrician, and then went on to get a contractor's license. The jerk (he is a jerk actually) is rolling in money.
There are two ways to make money in this world. Do things other people can't, or do things other people won't. The first category usually requires a college degree. The second category usually doesn't.
Government has no business legislating what scientific theories are correct and incorrect, strong or weak or what science is to be taught or not taught.
Since the government owns and controls all aspects of what occurs in the schools, who IS to decide what is to be taught or not taught? This has been a fundamental issue since stare run schools first came into existence. Who gets to decide what is taught.
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible that it is caused by something that we DO know about, but the scientist that have invested themselves in this CO2 boondoggle don't want to admit. Reference the link in my sig for a very eye-opening treatment of the "scientific community".
Except that the clear, objective data show the temperature rise LEADING the CO2 level increases.
There are other explanations that more clearly fit the data. Unfortunately, they lead to conclusions that do not give credence to increased governmental controls.
Reference the link in my signature.
It's not just individuals. Same story goes for businesses.
A lot of the people on facebook are there trying to promote some business or other. The sad part is, if you add up all the time invested, you see that the return is ALWAYS negative.
Not true. At all. My wife has doubled her personal training business through Facebook. It is a way to be social, and acquiring/retaining personal training clients in an exercise in one-on-one social skills. Of course, most businesses are trying to use the one-on-one social network medium as a broadcast medium...and that don't work.
It's a very limited example. The exception that proves the rule, really.
Good question. To answer ask, "How many people wear their 'friend count' as a badge of honor? A sort of social status?".
That's NOTHING!
I can get the stains out of my underwear.
Wealthiest guy I know barely got through a fundamentalist Christian high-school. He had me type up a term paper for him that read like, "Cars. Cars are fast. I like cars. Some cars are red." He asked me to increase the font to 20points so that it would fill three pages. I wept. He got an apprenticeship as an electrician, and then went on to get a contractor's license. The jerk (he is a jerk actually) is rolling in money.
One, even though it wasn't a college degree or education he still received training, that is what apprenticeships are about. They are useful in other fields too, carpentry and plumbing for instance, but many positions are needed? One for every one hundred people? I doubt it. Construction can pay very well but when the economy depends on it things aren't good.
WHAT? How many software engineers are needed? How many managers? How many people with doctorates in History? "How many positions are needed?", is a ridiculous question, because it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary. The point is that there are a LOT of ways to make money that don't derive from a college degree. My own profession required a degree, and I got one, but it is simple snobbery to imply that everyone needs one.
Granted. Now, my hyperbole aside, what you've described is a process. A clearly demonstrable process. A useful-to-understand process.
What I described was an event. One that is BELIEVED to have occurred millions of years ago.
One can find evidence that supports the theory that man and apes had common ancestors. One can even find enough evidence to be convinced that is what happened. Short of a time machine, one cannot find PROOF that man and apes have a common ancestor. The best you can do is say that you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened.
Evolution is falsifiable. The origins of man is not (with currently available technology).
Not anymore. This comes straight from my manager's mouth. The manager will do NOTHING but refer someone calling for a reference to HR. They won't say ANYTHING other than "Person X did work here from Y to Z." Anything else is grounds for a dismissal. They are serious about it.
Used to be that managers would "kill with faint praise." They won't even do that now.
Of course, my experience is limited to the companies I've worked for. Others may have a different policy.
The disdain Republicans hold is for the silly notion that you're promoting here.
Nobody HATES science. Republicans (purport to) hate socialist ideas that attempt to increase and centralize government. Republicans do hate the snotty attitude coming from academics who have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, but what do you expect the reaction to be to a bunch of sneering elitist that can't hold a real job. Your own statement )"overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace"), belies your hubris and refusal to consider anything outside of your educational sounding box. Britain is moving away from their socialized medicine model due to cost. Reports of inconsistencies in costing models between the US and other countries are buried. The evidence may be overwhelming to you, but the people that don't want to live in a nanny state have a lot of questions that never seem to get answered with anything more than a sneering "We KNOW better than you, because WE'RE smarter."
There is a lot of disdain in conservative circles. It is not for science.
So, what we get is politicians who want to look like they care about balancing the budget and "shrinking government" nibbling around the edges while overseeing massive expansions in the government in the form of bullshit like TSA.
I thought it was the funniest thing as I watched Fox News Sunday. I believe Paul Ryan was the Representative that was being interviewed. Chris Wallace kept asking him about cutting entitlement spending, even pointing out the obviousness that something had to be done and that there was an obvious cat-and-mouse game going on with who would admit the obvious first. The best Wallace could get out of Ryan was something to the effect of, "The President is supposed to be a leader and should propose the Soc. Sec. cuts first."
For 20 years, I've watched the Dems demagogue the Reps at every elections with "They want to cut your Soc. Sec. They're MEAN!", and get elected on little more than that. The Reps have been burned enough to the point that they aren't about to stick their hands in it again. It would just be nice to hear one of them say, "Honestly people, ya'll beat the snot out of me last time. Ain't no way I'm going to take those arrows again."
As opposed to the Democrats that want to create more bureaucracies to beat the hell out of businesses and force them to seek shelter overseas, destroying jobs and forcing "the little guy" to be dependent on government for even the basic necessities of life. Just consider the Dept of Education. It has done nothing but hamstring local school systems with extra layers of bureaucracy, while standardized test scores have consistently gone down. There is a clear inverse relationship between the money spent on the DOE and test scores, and yet all the Democrats call for is spending more money on this ridiculous failure.
Personally, getting fed up with the Dems blatant anti-education stance. Its clear they want the general public to remain clueless, helpless, pushovers.
See, you bought into it, too.
Clinton did leave us a surplus. He left us a "projected" surplus.
What's the difference? I had learned the difference by the time I got my second paycheck on my first job. You shouldn't spend money you THINK you're going to get. Unfortunately, like Black Parrot said above, that mode of thinking doesn't buy many votes.
It's like the acquaintance I had the misfortune of knowing. He was a personal trainer who, by his own words, only wanted to train clients that were motivated and in shape.
If the clients are motivated and in shape, WHAT THE HELL DO THEY NEED *YOU* FOR, you nimrod!!
He was (is?) a basket case that is worthless as a personal trainer, and this nimrod is worthless as a teacher.
Just because it has become the fashion in this country to mortgage oneself to the grave with huge McMansions and car loans, does not mean there is no safety net. If you are fired without cause, there is unemployment insurance in nearly every state of this Union. Even better, you still have your skills. If they were worthless, why were you getting a salary to start with.
You're not asking for freedom of speech. You're asking for freedom from consequences. They are not the same.
Your boss, if he has a clue, will call you into her office one day and say, "Your services are no longer needed.", hand you your final check, and escort or have you escorted from the premises.
There is no requirement to state why you are being let go. His punishment will be that his unemployment insurance rates go up (and they go up fast!).
Try to get a recommendation from a former company or manager. All they will say is, "I can confirm that Joe Smith worked at the Acme company from date X to date Y." You won't get a single bit more if the HR department has anything to do with it. The reason is that telling the truth can get you sued.
So, the answer is No, companies can't say whatever they please about employees.
I find that incredibly uncomfortable.
Hell, I find getting up in the morning to head into the office uncomfortable. Think I can get the courts to lift that burdern, too?
"one-way power relationships"?
You do know that you have the right to seek employment at another place of business, or to even create your own business? Heavens to Betsy, no. You prefer to bleat the sheep's mantra. You're an employee, not a slave.
You have right to freedom of speech. You don't have a guarantee of a job. It never ceases to amaze me that people have warped "freedom of speech" into "I'll get to say whatever I want without consequences."
Maybe Microsoft should spend a little of that slaving to build an OS that doesn't need 3 AV packages.
Nah! That wouldn't work. I remember using OS/2 and the one of biggest objections was that there weren't any commercially available disk defragmenters.
Wealthiest guy I know barely got through a fundamentalist Christian high-school. He had me type up a term paper for him that read like, "Cars. Cars are fast. I like cars. Some cars are red." He asked me to increase the font to 20points so that it would fill three pages. I wept. He got an apprenticeship as an electrician, and then went on to get a contractor's license. The jerk (he is a jerk actually) is rolling in money.
There are two ways to make money in this world. Do things other people can't, or do things other people won't. The first category usually requires a college degree. The second category usually doesn't.
How can you falsify the idea that some monkeys had sex a few million years ago and gave birth to a human?
Government has no business legislating what scientific theories are correct and incorrect, strong or weak or what science is to be taught or not taught.
Since the government owns and controls all aspects of what occurs in the schools, who IS to decide what is to be taught or not taught?
This has been a fundamental issue since stare run schools first came into existence. Who gets to decide what is taught.
You've established that species evolve. You have NOT established the origins of species.