What makes you think you can get out of court ordered fines by declaring bankruptcy? Taxes, student loans, child support, alimony, and debts arising from "wilful and malicious actions" are not wiped out.
Previously...
Just as soon as Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama stops all the wars. Hint--if you're left of center, you tend to win prizes from left of center organizations.
Obama is a hard right winger in Sweden, so your theory fails.
Sounds like you might have actually read the article and noticed that the civilian use is transport in the Canadian north where global climate change is making many ice roads and bridges either unsafe, not last long enough to bring up a years supplies, or just not exist.
Previously...
anarchy breeds tyranny.
It's hard to have tyranny without the police there to enforce it...
Somalia has lots of tyranny and no police at all.
If your local police suck you should look into these things: how much are they paid? Low paying jobs get lower quality people. How much training do they get before starting and ongoing? Can't expect someone to do a complex job like policing with only 4 weeks training. Is there physiological screening? Good screening is important when dealing with a job so ripe for abuse. Low pay also generally leads to corruption as the police try to "top up" their pay.
As voters you DO have the power to make sure you have well trained, professional police in your community, but you will get what you pay for.
c has a few features that are rarely used, for example bit fields and unions. Masking with the bitwise operators is generally faster than bit fields, and I've used unions exactly twice in over 30 years of programming in c.
There are actually more than two types of people in the world. You can't neatly divide everyone into "liberal" and "conservative". Also note that the meaning of these words can change drastically depending on where you live.
We ARE going to run out of oil, just not any time soon. Cheap oil will run out in the near future, but tar sands and oil shale will become economically viable as the price of oil rises. Environmentalists are already protesting Canadian tar sand oil production. Environmental regulations don't stop production, it just makes it more expensive or shifts it to places without such regulations. It is only rational to plan ahead for a big change you know is coming. Oil is going to get a lot more expensive, then become too expensive to burn as fuel.
Public transit is seen as a good idea in most of the world as it moves people a LOT cheaper than cars using a lot LESS energy. Public transit is not a liberal plot. Properly implemented public transit works great for moving large numbers of people in fairly densely populated areas.
Increasing the supply of something generally lowers the price. Plus, it is still pretty expensive to get a factory into space. It would not make anywhere near that amount of money.
Fahrenheit is a scale based on human comfort levels
Is simply false. Fahrenheit scale was picked because it was simple to inscribe on an instrument using bisection, and the reference temperatures were found using frigorific mixtures and normal human body temperature.
Can't speak for the other fellow, but I live in a place that places human life quite a bit above property. I would never consider killing someone who was stealing my possessions. Only if the bad guy was threatening to harm an innocent person would I even consider using lethal force. Where I live, and it isn't a bubble, looters are trying to steal your stuff, not hurt anyone. If the situation is dangerous enough to need an evacuation it is too dangerous for me to hang around to shoot looters any ways.
I just can't imagine living in a society that thinks a firearm is a useful tool in an emergency. Yes, we have bad guys, but we don't have this wild west world view that makes shooting people who are only stealing ok. Only protecting people warrants using lethal force. Our bad guys are very unlikely to try to kill us to get our stuff. We just call the police. I don't know anyone who's moral beliefs support killing to protect property.
We had some bad wild fires last year, and there was a big evacuation. There was some theft, but no one died. The police did a pretty good job protecting the town.
I don't know if I'm smarter than you, but I'm certainly better educated. Try reading one of those books, you will learn something about evolution. Even if you can't accept evolution at least you will understand it better.
If you read the article regarding "polystrate" fossils you should have already read what mainstream science says about it, and obviously rejected it.
Oil and gas? Did you read any articles on it? The biological material did not fall on the ground, it fell into deep water where it accumulated in cold anaerobic conditions that inhibit normal decay.
I'm pretty sure you have made your mind up and no amount of actual evidence will change your mind about your current beliefs.
But we DO know things. We know so much that you were able to post your message on Slashdot using technology developed with SCIENCE.
Why do religious people want 100% certainty when dealing with science, but are happy with faith when it comes to religion? Science cannot prove anything 100%, but it can have so much evidence, so many correct predictions, so many passed tests that it can say that it knows something with a VERY high degree of certainty. At the same time science has found no evidence of god. None, not one shred of evidence. Yet, science does not says this proves there is no god, just that it very, very, very, unlikely there is a god. There could be an invisible pink unicorn in my kitchen, and this statement has as much evidence to support it as the existence of god.
Obama has done a lot to fix the huge errors in judgement the bush ii admin made. As an outside observer I would have to say that bush ii was the biggest disaster the usa has ever had. He started an unnecessary war, lied about the reason for starting it, and did many other things, including various less than insightful statements, that made the usa a laughingstock in the eyes of much of the world. Freedom Fries. Right. Statesmen don't respond to valid criticism, and honest advice with schoolboy tantrums.
Obama is winding down the wars. He tried to shut Gitmo, but was thwarted by republican cowards. Yes, cowards that stated they are afraid to have terrorists in jails on usa soil, unlike the French they like to bash.
The Libyan government responded to peaceful mass protests with guns. Shooting unarmed protesters puts you in the evil camp. The NATA resolution was not just a no fly zone. The actual language was extremely broad:
Key points
The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:
demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
I wonder if NATA will turn its attention to Syria after Libya winds down.
If carpet bombing kills 100 people, and a targeted strike kills 10 then the targeted strike saves 90 lives.
Starting wars is bad. If you can reduce collateral damage that is less bad. Not starting the war in the first place saves more lives, but the Libyan rebels did not start the war, the Libyan government did.
Religious experiences are caused by unusual brain states, not communing with God. You can very reliably induce the same state of mind many claim to associate with "feeling god" by various drugs, and oxygen deprivation.
Religions don't answer "why". They pretend to answer this question, but given the vast number of answers various religions give to the "why" questions, and the lack of evidence that any of their proposed answers is correct I would say it is still an open question.
Maybe there is no answer. We won't know until we apply some reason to the question. Science is the best method to apply reason to a question.
This guy is a bit bombastic, but his question: Can science answer the big questions, why we are here, why does the universe exist, what is the meaning of life, is a valid question.
Many scientists do currently believe that some of these "big" question are outside the domain of science, and there are good reasons to think this especially if you narrowly define science. I believe that science is going to be able to answer many of these question in the future. For example morality and ethics has long been the regarded as a subject that is properly looked at by philosophy and theology. Now there are scientists looking at applying the scientific method to morality. I expect more and more of these big questions to be examined by science as we expand our understanding of the human brain and science in general.
Your link regarding "polystrate" fossils contains the answer. I don't see anything complicated about it taking different amount of times to collect sediment compared to turning that sediment into rock. There is NO evidence of a world wide flood.
Your paragraph regarding evolution shows such a complete ignorance of how evolution works, and biology in general, that I can only recommend you visit your local library. Mount Improbable or the Blind Watchmaker are both good books that give the basics of evolution.
As the judge ruled that the teacher could not be sued because teachers need to be able to say controversial things without worrying about being sued, and there is no record or law that might have given "fair warning" to the teacher that his particular statements "crossed the line". The judges ARE leaving open that some statements could cross the line. I would expect that statements with a lot of evidence supporting them, for example, creationism is not science, but only religious dogma that has no place in science would be protected, but something with no evidence, for example, all people of a certain skin tone are evil, would be more open to getting sued.
This is an important question. Where do you draw the line? Is the line different in a science class and a history class? I would not want creationism in a science class, but would have no problem having it taught in a theology class. I would not want a history teacher to teach that even a whiff of socialism is evil, but could tolerate a teacher that was obviously in favour of "right wing" systems as long as they taught the pros and cons of left and right systems.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think you can get out of court ordered fines by declaring bankruptcy? Taxes, student loans, child support, alimony, and debts arising from "wilful and malicious actions" are not wiped out.
Previously...
Just as soon as Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama stops all the wars. Hint--if you're left of center, you tend to win prizes from left of center organizations.
Obama is a hard right winger in Sweden, so your theory fails.
Sounds like you might have actually read the article and noticed that the civilian use is transport in the Canadian north where global climate change is making many ice roads and bridges either unsafe, not last long enough to bring up a years supplies, or just not exist.
Previously...
anarchy breeds tyranny.
It's hard to have tyranny without the police there to enforce it...
Somalia has lots of tyranny and no police at all.
If your local police suck you should look into these things: how much are they paid? Low paying jobs get lower quality people. How much training do they get before starting and ongoing? Can't expect someone to do a complex job like policing with only 4 weeks training. Is there physiological screening? Good screening is important when dealing with a job so ripe for abuse. Low pay also generally leads to corruption as the police try to "top up" their pay.
As voters you DO have the power to make sure you have well trained, professional police in your community, but you will get what you pay for.
c has a few features that are rarely used, for example bit fields and unions. Masking with the bitwise operators is generally faster than bit fields, and I've used unions exactly twice in over 30 years of programming in c.
So are you going to work towards ending the approximately $5 billion in subsidies the USA oil industry receives each year?
We also jump on the big oil paid mouthpiece.
Out of thousands of climate scientists world wide only a handful question global climate change exists, and human produced CO2 is a big part of it.
There are actually more than two types of people in the world. You can't neatly divide everyone into "liberal" and "conservative". Also note that the meaning of these words can change drastically depending on where you live.
We ARE going to run out of oil, just not any time soon. Cheap oil will run out in the near future, but tar sands and oil shale will become economically viable as the price of oil rises. Environmentalists are already protesting Canadian tar sand oil production. Environmental regulations don't stop production, it just makes it more expensive or shifts it to places without such regulations. It is only rational to plan ahead for a big change you know is coming. Oil is going to get a lot more expensive, then become too expensive to burn as fuel.
Public transit is seen as a good idea in most of the world as it moves people a LOT cheaper than cars using a lot LESS energy. Public transit is not a liberal plot. Properly implemented public transit works great for moving large numbers of people in fairly densely populated areas.
Can't we do both? Fix this rock and find another nice rock?
Increasing the supply of something generally lowers the price. Plus, it is still pretty expensive to get a factory into space. It would not make anywhere near that amount of money.
Fahrenheit is a scale based on human comfort levels
Is simply false. Fahrenheit scale was picked because it was simple to inscribe on an instrument using bisection, and the reference temperatures were found using frigorific mixtures and normal human body temperature.
Can't speak for the other fellow, but I live in a place that places human life quite a bit above property. I would never consider killing someone who was stealing my possessions. Only if the bad guy was threatening to harm an innocent person would I even consider using lethal force. Where I live, and it isn't a bubble, looters are trying to steal your stuff, not hurt anyone. If the situation is dangerous enough to need an evacuation it is too dangerous for me to hang around to shoot looters any ways.
I just can't imagine living in a society that thinks a firearm is a useful tool in an emergency. Yes, we have bad guys, but we don't have this wild west world view that makes shooting people who are only stealing ok. Only protecting people warrants using lethal force. Our bad guys are very unlikely to try to kill us to get our stuff. We just call the police. I don't know anyone who's moral beliefs support killing to protect property.
We had some bad wild fires last year, and there was a big evacuation. There was some theft, but no one died. The police did a pretty good job protecting the town.
I don't know if I'm smarter than you, but I'm certainly better educated. Try reading one of those books, you will learn something about evolution. Even if you can't accept evolution at least you will understand it better.
If you read the article regarding "polystrate" fossils you should have already read what mainstream science says about it, and obviously rejected it.
Oil and gas? Did you read any articles on it? The biological material did not fall on the ground, it fell into deep water where it accumulated in cold anaerobic conditions that inhibit normal decay.
I'm pretty sure you have made your mind up and no amount of actual evidence will change your mind about your current beliefs.
Secular community support groups should replace religion. All the benefits of belonging to a group without giving up reason.
But we DO know things. We know so much that you were able to post your message on Slashdot using technology developed with SCIENCE.
Why do religious people want 100% certainty when dealing with science, but are happy with faith when it comes to religion? Science cannot prove anything 100%, but it can have so much evidence, so many correct predictions, so many passed tests that it can say that it knows something with a VERY high degree of certainty. At the same time science has found no evidence of god. None, not one shred of evidence. Yet, science does not says this proves there is no god, just that it very, very, very, unlikely there is a god. There could be an invisible pink unicorn in my kitchen, and this statement has as much evidence to support it as the existence of god.
Obama has done a lot to fix the huge errors in judgement the bush ii admin made. As an outside observer I would have to say that bush ii was the biggest disaster the usa has ever had. He started an unnecessary war, lied about the reason for starting it, and did many other things, including various less than insightful statements, that made the usa a laughingstock in the eyes of much of the world. Freedom Fries. Right. Statesmen don't respond to valid criticism, and honest advice with schoolboy tantrums.
Obama is winding down the wars. He tried to shut Gitmo, but was thwarted by republican cowards. Yes, cowards that stated they are afraid to have terrorists in jails on usa soil, unlike the French they like to bash.
Obama has been a statesman. Bush II was a cowboy.
The Libyan government responded to peaceful mass protests with guns. Shooting unarmed protesters puts you in the evil camp. The NATA resolution was not just a no fly zone. The actual language was extremely broad:
Key points The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter: demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians; imposes a no-fly zone over Libya; authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force"; strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes; imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights; imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people; extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities; establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
I wonder if NATA will turn its attention to Syria after Libya winds down.
If carpet bombing kills 100 people, and a targeted strike kills 10 then the targeted strike saves 90 lives.
Starting wars is bad. If you can reduce collateral damage that is less bad. Not starting the war in the first place saves more lives, but the Libyan rebels did not start the war, the Libyan government did.
"Obviously false"?
Religious experiences are caused by unusual brain states, not communing with God. You can very reliably induce the same state of mind many claim to associate with "feeling god" by various drugs, and oxygen deprivation.
Religions don't answer "why". They pretend to answer this question, but given the vast number of answers various religions give to the "why" questions, and the lack of evidence that any of their proposed answers is correct I would say it is still an open question.
Maybe there is no answer. We won't know until we apply some reason to the question. Science is the best method to apply reason to a question.
This guy is a bit bombastic, but his question: Can science answer the big questions, why we are here, why does the universe exist, what is the meaning of life, is a valid question.
Many scientists do currently believe that some of these "big" question are outside the domain of science, and there are good reasons to think this especially if you narrowly define science. I believe that science is going to be able to answer many of these question in the future. For example morality and ethics has long been the regarded as a subject that is properly looked at by philosophy and theology. Now there are scientists looking at applying the scientific method to morality. I expect more and more of these big questions to be examined by science as we expand our understanding of the human brain and science in general.
Your link regarding "polystrate" fossils contains the answer. I don't see anything complicated about it taking different amount of times to collect sediment compared to turning that sediment into rock. There is NO evidence of a world wide flood.
Your paragraph regarding evolution shows such a complete ignorance of how evolution works, and biology in general, that I can only recommend you visit your local library. Mount Improbable or the Blind Watchmaker are both good books that give the basics of evolution.
How do you explain your God's callous disregard for the well being of innocents?
You don't mind worshipping a god of the gaps? You don't mind god's domain shrinking as science explains more?
As the judge ruled that the teacher could not be sued because teachers need to be able to say controversial things without worrying about being sued, and there is no record or law that might have given "fair warning" to the teacher that his particular statements "crossed the line". The judges ARE leaving open that some statements could cross the line. I would expect that statements with a lot of evidence supporting them, for example, creationism is not science, but only religious dogma that has no place in science would be protected, but something with no evidence, for example, all people of a certain skin tone are evil, would be more open to getting sued.
This is an important question. Where do you draw the line? Is the line different in a science class and a history class? I would not want creationism in a science class, but would have no problem having it taught in a theology class. I would not want a history teacher to teach that even a whiff of socialism is evil, but could tolerate a teacher that was obviously in favour of "right wing" systems as long as they taught the pros and cons of left and right systems.