Studies have pretty convincingly shown that people who work with children with autistic spectrum disorders (such as my wife) are about 95% accurate at diagnosing the disease based upon video of their 1st birthday parties. In other words, they where showing symptoms before the vaccines in question were given. Parent may not recognize the symptoms until their child hit 30 months, but the symptoms where there all along. Parents often will deny the diagnosis (and get mad at the diagnosing physician) after it is made. It's understandable why they do so. It's also understandable why the need to find someone or something apart from their own genome to blame for the disease.
One study is at this site. It is by no means the only one, but just the first one that showed up in a Google search.
You are probably more on target with that statement than you think. At this point, the U.S. is stretched too thin, both militarily and financially, to win a conventional war against Iran. That seriously limits the U.S. ability to make even limited strikes in Iran. Part of the reason for this system is to make Iran think that they could not retaliate against a U.S. military strike, conventional or otherwise. I think Iran has been aware for some time that the system doesn't work, and couldn't prevent a strike, even with a single missile.
Actually the technologies for weaponizing anthrax are very good for turning bacillus thuringiensis into a means of pest control that can be sprayed on crops. And vice versa, unfortunately. So maybe that wasn't the best example.
The only real question is whether or not protecting our cities from madmen in Tehran or Pyongyang is a worthwhile investment. I tend to think that it is. Do you really want to live in a world where the United States is held hostage to nuclear blackmail and our only choice if they murder millions of our citizens is to respond in kind?
The problem that you aren't considering is that a non-functional or unreliable system is worse than no system at all, because it increases the likelihood that an attack will be launched and will be successful. It emboldens our leaders to make rash decisions that will anger potential enemies while assuming that the ABM system will protect our cities. It convinces potential enemies that a strike with large numbers of missiles is necessary to ensure success.
They are going to rename the iPhone OS to "Wings." And the three different memory sizes will be "Light," "Min," and "Max". I'm going out on day one to buy a Max iPad with Wings.
What is more likely -- that T-rexes went extinct or that their offspring are our common birds? I say they went extinct. You say they became birds.
Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Setting up straw men is, apparently. Nobody has ever said birds evolved from T-rex. What we are saying is that birds evolved from a species of therapod dinosaur. T-rex was a therapod dinosaur that was not an ancestor of birds. But the last common anscestor of T-rex and birds was, with very high probability, a therapod dinosaur.
On the other hand, you were claiming that T-rex stored unprocessed collagen from the feathers of birds it ate in its bones. That would be an amazing digestive system and a collagen storage technique of a type never before seen in any organism. Which says to me you are very wrong.
That's exactly why I favor a repeal of the income tax and it's replacement with a wealth based tax. People think what they make is the important thing to tax. I disagree, how much you have is what should be taxed. If all your income goes to living expenses and you are unable to build an asset base you should pay no taxes. Bill Gates, on the other hand, should pay taxes whether he has income or not. In addition, your stake in the country, how much you have to lose if it's not protected, is proportional to your wealth.
I'm guessing you wouldn't be too keen on a system like that, would you?
Probably not. I know 10,000 people who have said they would die for this country. I know very few who have said they would give up all of there possessions for it. I guess that shows which we value more, life or wealth.
You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
Actually I believe that the EFF is a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization, and as such it has given up many rights to free speech in exchange for privileged tax status. You are correct about the NRA and ACLU, though. But even if the EFF were permitted to fund pollitical ads, I'm sure that the EFF's budget is somewhat more constrained than the RIAA, MPAA, SPA, and the colluding corporations they represent. Ditto, the ACLU. The NRA is different because they have a separate lobbying arm (the NRA-ILA), and because the gun manufacturers, importers and exporters will bankroll whatever ads they need.
Well he's also just plain wrong, too. It's still an undecided question whether treaty obligations superceed the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that a treaty provision was invalid because it contravened the Constitution. For the current court that decision would be based upon whether it's good for large corporations or not.
It is always better in discussions such at this to express things as "evolved from" or "descended from" rather than "evolved into". That's both because it is more correct and because people who don't understand evolution take "evolved into" and turn it into "turned into". Then they get confused because something can only turn into one other thing. Also "evolved into" invokes direction or worse, volition. "descended from" does not.
For example, "birds descended from therapod dinosaurs" is in all probability a true statement. "Therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds" is not as good, because not all therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds. In fact, only one species of therapod led to all extant birds. It is very unlikely that birds have a tyrannosaurid dinosaur as an ancestor, even though tyrannosaurids are therapods.
For the same reason, when talking with the scientifically disadvantaged, its much better to say "birds evolved from dinosaurs" rather than "dinosaurs evolved into birds." Now back to our previously scheduled argument with creationists.
What an interesting universe you think you live in. Full of strawmen and brightly colored collagen filled bones.
In 20 or 50 years you'll still be as wrong as you are today, because your understanding of evolution is somewhere below the third grade level.
And nobody with any understanding of evolution thought people evolved from a chimps. Chimps have gone through as much change in the last few million years as we have. We have a common ancestor with chimps. If it were still around and we put it in front of you, you'd probably think it looked more like a chimp than like a human. A chimp might disagree. But regardless of what it looked like it wouldn't be able to interbreed with either humans or chimps.
But who decides? The decison about whether something is true has to be made by somebody, and if that decision affects who will govern then there are no disinterested parties.
So, why would you invest in a company that has a board of directors you don't trust?
Because there's no such thing as a board of directors that anyone can trust. And, because the same conservative courts have said that corporations can dump pension liabilities any time they want, there is little option for saving for retirement apart from stock ownership. You can get raped by the bank while you own their stock, or you can get raped by the bank where you deposit you cash. If you invest with enough diversity, you might have something left over after the raping is done.
Yes, the guy and his wife (individuals) should be able to run those ads. They should not be allowed to use corporate assets to pay for them, nor should the corporation be held responsible for what they say. They need to be personally responsible and liable for their own speech. If they say their opponent rapes babies and buries them in his back yard, they themselves need to be held responsible if it's not true.
Why should they get the benefit of a liability shield in front of their speech?
Not to mention that you've set up a straw man here. Most corporations may be small, but corporate campaign financing primarily comes from large ones.
When truth can be proven there is truth. When falsehood can be proven there is falsehood. Advocacy doesn't enter into it. Black is not white. Obama is a U.S. citizen. Hillary Clinton hasn't murdered anyone. Rush Limbaugh has used illegal drugs. Both Obama and G.W. Bush used illegal drugs before they were President. Those are all objectively true, regardless of advocacy. If you say the opposite, it's a lie regardless of advocacy.
"The health care bill will raise the budget deficit" is a statement that can be defended as at least being in the realm of the possible. "The heath care bill creates death panels that will decide to kill your grandma" is not. If demonstrably false statements are coming from a program claiming to be delivering the news, it's not news, and they should at least be liable for false advertising and at most for libel.
The current bar for political speech is so high that you can make any baseless accusation against anyone in public office with absolutely no repercussions. That's too high.
Actually your having helped earn the profits is irrelevant, the profits are not yours... The profits belong to the stockholders(or owners in a non-public company) and the corporation represents their interests NOT your interests.
Does anyone who has seen corporate executive pay structures truly believe this? The "corporation" represents the interests of the executives and the board. The laws governing corporations are set up to minimize the effect shareholders have on the makeup of the board or its decisions.
When financial services corporations are paying their executives 50% of revenues (that right, revenues, not profits) it's hard to believe that the interests of shareholders enter into the picture anywhere, other than as another creditor to dump when you declare bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
Studies have pretty convincingly shown that people who work with children with autistic spectrum disorders (such as my wife) are about 95% accurate at diagnosing the disease based upon video of their 1st birthday parties. In other words, they where showing symptoms before the vaccines in question were given. Parent may not recognize the symptoms until their child hit 30 months, but the symptoms where there all along. Parents often will deny the diagnosis (and get mad at the diagnosing physician) after it is made. It's understandable why they do so. It's also understandable why the need to find someone or something apart from their own genome to blame for the disease.
One study is at this site. It is by no means the only one, but just the first one that showed up in a Google search.
You are probably more on target with that statement than you think. At this point, the U.S. is stretched too thin, both militarily and financially, to win a conventional war against Iran. That seriously limits the U.S. ability to make even limited strikes in Iran. Part of the reason for this system is to make Iran think that they could not retaliate against a U.S. military strike, conventional or otherwise. I think Iran has been aware for some time that the system doesn't work, and couldn't prevent a strike, even with a single missile.
Not to mention that the entire system could be disabled by detonating a nuke at apogee ten minutes or so before your attack missile comes over.
Actually the technologies for weaponizing anthrax are very good for turning bacillus thuringiensis into a means of pest control that can be sprayed on crops. And vice versa, unfortunately. So maybe that wasn't the best example.
The only real question is whether or not protecting our cities from madmen in Tehran or Pyongyang is a worthwhile investment. I tend to think that it is. Do you really want to live in a world where the United States is held hostage to nuclear blackmail and our only choice if they murder millions of our citizens is to respond in kind?
The problem that you aren't considering is that a non-functional or unreliable system is worse than no system at all, because it increases the likelihood that an attack will be launched and will be successful. It emboldens our leaders to make rash decisions that will anger potential enemies while assuming that the ABM system will protect our cities. It convinces potential enemies that a strike with large numbers of missiles is necessary to ensure success.
Wish I had some points for you.
Yeah, only techies would want to listen to music and surf the web at the same time.
They are going to rename the iPhone OS to "Wings." And the three different memory sizes will be "Light," "Min," and "Max". I'm going out on day one to buy a Max iPad with Wings.
What is more likely -- that T-rexes went extinct or that their offspring are our common birds? I say they went extinct. You say they became birds.
Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Setting up straw men is, apparently. Nobody has ever said birds evolved from T-rex. What we are saying is that birds evolved from a species of therapod dinosaur. T-rex was a therapod dinosaur that was not an ancestor of birds. But the last common anscestor of T-rex and birds was, with very high probability, a therapod dinosaur.
On the other hand, you were claiming that T-rex stored unprocessed collagen from the feathers of birds it ate in its bones. That would be an amazing digestive system and a collagen storage technique of a type never before seen in any organism. Which says to me you are very wrong.
That's exactly why I favor a repeal of the income tax and it's replacement with a wealth based tax. People think what they make is the important thing to tax. I disagree, how much you have is what should be taxed. If all your income goes to living expenses and you are unable to build an asset base you should pay no taxes. Bill Gates, on the other hand, should pay taxes whether he has income or not. In addition, your stake in the country, how much you have to lose if it's not protected, is proportional to your wealth.
I'm guessing you wouldn't be too keen on a system like that, would you?
Probably not. I know 10,000 people who have said they would die for this country. I know very few who have said they would give up all of there possessions for it. I guess that shows which we value more, life or wealth.
You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
Actually I believe that the EFF is a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization, and as such it has given up many rights to free speech in exchange for privileged tax status. You are correct about the NRA and ACLU, though. But even if the EFF were permitted to fund pollitical ads, I'm sure that the EFF's budget is somewhat more constrained than the RIAA, MPAA, SPA, and the colluding corporations they represent. Ditto, the ACLU. The NRA is different because they have a separate lobbying arm (the NRA-ILA), and because the gun manufacturers, importers and exporters will bankroll whatever ads they need.
Well he's also just plain wrong, too. It's still an undecided question whether treaty obligations superceed the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that a treaty provision was invalid because it contravened the Constitution. For the current court that decision would be based upon whether it's good for large corporations or not.
Triple fail! (as of 1873. Maybe you're not up on recent news.)
Triple Fail (as of 1873)!
He has no teeth, just baleen like structures protruding from the jaws. I always assumed he was a filter feeder.
It is always better in discussions such at this to express things as "evolved from" or "descended from" rather than "evolved into". That's both because it is more correct and because people who don't understand evolution take "evolved into" and turn it into "turned into". Then they get confused because something can only turn into one other thing. Also "evolved into" invokes direction or worse, volition. "descended from" does not.
For example, "birds descended from therapod dinosaurs" is in all probability a true statement. "Therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds" is not as good, because not all therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds. In fact, only one species of therapod led to all extant birds. It is very unlikely that birds have a tyrannosaurid dinosaur as an ancestor, even though tyrannosaurids are therapods.
For the same reason, when talking with the scientifically disadvantaged, its much better to say "birds evolved from dinosaurs" rather than "dinosaurs evolved into birds." Now back to our previously scheduled argument with creationists.
'Yea' is a word.
Yea, verily.
cwide to úre módor
What an interesting universe you think you live in. Full of strawmen and brightly colored collagen filled bones.
In 20 or 50 years you'll still be as wrong as you are today, because your understanding of evolution is somewhere below the third grade level.
And nobody with any understanding of evolution thought people evolved from a chimps. Chimps have gone through as much change in the last few million years as we have. We have a common ancestor with chimps. If it were still around and we put it in front of you, you'd probably think it looked more like a chimp than like a human. A chimp might disagree. But regardless of what it looked like it wouldn't be able to interbreed with either humans or chimps.
But who decides? The decison about whether something is true has to be made by somebody, and if that decision affects who will govern then there are no disinterested parties.
Isn't that what we have juries and judges for?
So, why would you invest in a company that has a board of directors you don't trust?
Because there's no such thing as a board of directors that anyone can trust. And, because the same conservative courts have said that corporations can dump pension liabilities any time they want, there is little option for saving for retirement apart from stock ownership. You can get raped by the bank while you own their stock, or you can get raped by the bank where you deposit you cash. If you invest with enough diversity, you might have something left over after the raping is done.
Yes, the guy and his wife (individuals) should be able to run those ads. They should not be allowed to use corporate assets to pay for them, nor should the corporation be held responsible for what they say. They need to be personally responsible and liable for their own speech. If they say their opponent rapes babies and buries them in his back yard, they themselves need to be held responsible if it's not true.
Why should they get the benefit of a liability shield in front of their speech?
Not to mention that you've set up a straw man here. Most corporations may be small, but corporate campaign financing primarily comes from large ones.
Do you also have a problem with the Chinese government advertising things like the Olympics?
There's a difference between advertising the Olympics and an attempt by a foreign government to subvert the political process to their benefit.
When truth can be proven there is truth. When falsehood can be proven there is falsehood. Advocacy doesn't enter into it. Black is not white. Obama is a U.S. citizen. Hillary Clinton hasn't murdered anyone. Rush Limbaugh has used illegal drugs. Both Obama and G.W. Bush used illegal drugs before they were President. Those are all objectively true, regardless of advocacy. If you say the opposite, it's a lie regardless of advocacy.
"The health care bill will raise the budget deficit" is a statement that can be defended as at least being in the realm of the possible. "The heath care bill creates death panels that will decide to kill your grandma" is not. If demonstrably false statements are coming from a program claiming to be delivering the news, it's not news, and they should at least be liable for false advertising and at most for libel.
The current bar for political speech is so high that you can make any baseless accusation against anyone in public office with absolutely no repercussions. That's too high.
Because of their Corporate structure, are you arguing that Congress could make laws regulating their news reporting or election coverage?
Not only could, but should. Spreading lies as news, especially political lies, should subject them to penalties.
Actually your having helped earn the profits is irrelevant, the profits are not yours... The profits belong to the stockholders(or owners in a non-public company) and the corporation represents their interests NOT your interests.
Does anyone who has seen corporate executive pay structures truly believe this? The "corporation" represents the interests of the executives and the board. The laws governing corporations are set up to minimize the effect shareholders have on the makeup of the board or its decisions.
When financial services corporations are paying their executives 50% of revenues (that right, revenues, not profits) it's hard to believe that the interests of shareholders enter into the picture anywhere, other than as another creditor to dump when you declare bankruptcy.