solar and tidal are great, to be sure, but they just don't provide ENOUGH energy. They're just not efficient enough, and they take up TONS of space. TONS. Not practical.
Well that's a little extreme. Seriously, saying that Yucca Mountain will pollute all of Nevada is a lot of FUD.
Just because many people are unafraid of nuclear power doesn't mean they need to move into a reactor core to prove it. If you prefer oil dependence, why don't you prove it by moving your family to an offshore oil rig? Or into a pumping station in Iraq? Please.
There are risks involved, to be sure. That goes for anything. You don't fear propane stations do you? They're everywhere, and if they blew up in your neighborhood, you'd know it. But I'm not going to ask you to build a shack with a giant propane cannister in the middle to prove it.
There are plenty of safe ways to operate nuclear stations. Most of Europe has proven this. And America is supposed to be better, right?
Is it artificial scarcity? No. Remember, since the user connects to the servers, there is a resource issue. Right now, Blizz is struggling to support 600,000 users. That is not artificial -- that's real.
Once they upgrade and add new hardware, they will open the bottleneck and then they will release more copies. Which will sell.
It's not a matter of "how soon we forget" its a matter of "look how little most people care about the bnetd issue"
600,000 is all they made for now. They've stopped because the servers are so crunched right now. They're having a 16 hour downtime on thursday so that they can upgrade their equipment to, hopefully, handle the load.
Or, maybe, it IS a genetic thing, and has nothing to do with rebellion. They are not unable to reproduce, that factor is unchanged. It's not always an either/or thing, it's a continuum. hetero, bi, homo, somewhere in between, its a grey thing, not black and white.
Given the evidence, it sure seems to me that its more likely a genetic thing than some sort of rebellious subconscious decision. Though the image of a James Dean Penguin is rather amusing.
well, keep poking through the thread and have your doubts put to rest, it happens. pair-bonded, for life, homosexual animal couples. Ducks. Penguins. Others too.
Absence of proof, true, is not proof of absence. however, you still have no proof but circumstantial correlation. correlation does not equal causation. many people have believed and investigated this theory that you so believe, but none have ever found anything concrete. So truly, this is something you believe but you cannot prove.
But because people have tried to prove it, and because evidence that should be findable has never turned up, most will be inclined to not believe in your theory.
Anti-Homosexualityite: Show me one other animal that has homosexuality as normal behavior! Normal Person: OK, here. (shows evidence) A-H Person: Oh! er, um, I mean, Just because animals do it, we should too?
Yeah....both sides of the fence there....poor argumentative strategy.
"introduction of homosexuality" -- huh? Newsflash, it's been around a long, long time, longer than Islam and African cultures. It's a human thing, and you can find it in every culture at every time, and it's always been there before the culture that denounces it arose. There is no introducing of homosexuality -- its already there. There is however, introducing of cultural negatives based on some other agenda - and they are often very damaging. The Culture is not always beneficial. Female circumcision -- not beneficial. Demeaning of women or those of a darker skin color -- not beneficial.
Sorry you can't handle elevated conversation. You tried to place me in a logical trap -- and it was a good effort. That's part of debate -- trapping the opponent. Good effort. I feel I successfully evaded it.
Will a parent ever be able to screen for homosexuality? If it's genetic, yes. So yes, I think so. Will it be soon? I don't know, depends on how complex the mutations are.
Certainly not, as it is no more detrimental to the person than double jointedness or hazel eyes, curly hair or lack of facial hair. Just because a disease and a trait operate on similar mechanisms, does not mean they are all bad.
Nice attempt to trap though, but still weak. All things that operate from the genes are genetic traits. Diseases are a subset, and they are those traits that are detrimental or dangerous to the subject. (Down's, CF, etc)
Many doubters cannot understand the complex nature of genetic interaction with behavior, and persistence of behavior independent of reproduction. Ignore them. Just because a gene cannot be directly passed down, is not directly passed down, doesn't mean it can't exist or have normal, non-harmful mutations.
Is homosexuality genetic? I believe so. Is it inheritable? I don't know.
except that youre completely wrong -- homosexuality has been documented in many primates as well as many other animals.
I believe homosexuality is genetic. It's simply a random mutation, occurring about 10-20% of the time. And it's independent from heterosexuality -- hence, bisexuality. It hasn't been weeded out because its probably a mutation on a gene thats related to other, necessary functions in a complex, though not direct way -- in other words, its related to reproductive gene-work, but it doesnt interfere with those genes, its off to the side, so to speak. I'm simplifying the hell out of it, of course, but thats how it seems to work, as far as I can see. By your logic, people would never have genetic abnormalities like CF or Down's Syndrome because they'd have been weeded out by now. That's simply not true, becuase the genetic reasons for those diseases are complex and they occur on necessary parts of the genetic framework that cannot be weeded out.
Slashdot Mirror
solar and tidal are great, to be sure, but they just don't provide ENOUGH energy. They're just not efficient enough, and they take up TONS of space. TONS. Not practical.
Peak fuel efficiency is reached somewhere around 55-60mph, on average. So, I suggest raising all speed limits to 55mph.
fantastic idea.
Hemp. The answer is Hemp. The answer is always hemp. Weren't you paying attention?
Well that's a little extreme. Seriously, saying that Yucca Mountain will pollute all of Nevada is a lot of FUD.
Just because many people are unafraid of nuclear power doesn't mean they need to move into a reactor core to prove it. If you prefer oil dependence, why don't you prove it by moving your family to an offshore oil rig? Or into a pumping station in Iraq? Please.
There are risks involved, to be sure. That goes for anything. You don't fear propane stations do you? They're everywhere, and if they blew up in your neighborhood, you'd know it. But I'm not going to ask you to build a shack with a giant propane cannister in the middle to prove it.
There are plenty of safe ways to operate nuclear stations. Most of Europe has proven this. And America is supposed to be better, right?
Anyone who thinks it was hard to keep up with the main plotline in Morrowind didn't play Daggerfall.
no, but now that you've told me where to get pirated music, you could be fined.
If you're in norway.
Oh man that's hilarious. Someone at TakeTwo just sat down feeling sick to their stomach...all that money....someone mod the parent up, fantastic.
Speaking of the education system these days, you DO know there's more than just 2 gas giants right?
Or is your grammar education a bit lacking?
OMG file that under the classic Fun With URLs folder!!
Yeah, see here the problem is that 62% of people don't understand statistics.
Is it artificial scarcity? No. Remember, since the user connects to the servers, there is a resource issue. Right now, Blizz is struggling to support 600,000 users. That is not artificial -- that's real.
Once they upgrade and add new hardware, they will open the bottleneck and then they will release more copies. Which will sell.
It's not a matter of "how soon we forget" its a matter of "look how little most people care about the bnetd issue"
0.
600,000 is all they made for now. They've stopped because the servers are so crunched right now. They're having a 16 hour downtime on thursday so that they can upgrade their equipment to, hopefully, handle the load.
Well, WoW sold out 600,000 copies anyway. Big surprise, no justice in the world, right?
so in otherwords, never.
Or, maybe, it IS a genetic thing, and has nothing to do with rebellion. They are not unable to reproduce, that factor is unchanged. It's not always an either/or thing, it's a continuum. hetero, bi, homo, somewhere in between, its a grey thing, not black and white.
Given the evidence, it sure seems to me that its more likely a genetic thing than some sort of rebellious subconscious decision. Though the image of a James Dean Penguin is rather amusing.
"confused" implies a conscious choice. Which is like saying having brown eyes or dark skin at birth is a conscious choice...
well, keep poking through the thread and have your doubts put to rest, it happens. pair-bonded, for life, homosexual animal couples. Ducks. Penguins. Others too.
Did you read the percentages? for the class youre questioning, the rate of homosexuality was far, far lower than the other, related-person categories.
So no, its further strengthening the genetic connection.
related? more likely.
not related? less likely.
hehe seeing two guys kiss just bores me. its not hurting me, and there's nothing of interest there for me.
Absence of proof, true, is not proof of absence. however, you still have no proof but circumstantial correlation. correlation does not equal causation. many people have believed and investigated this theory that you so believe, but none have ever found anything concrete. So truly, this is something you believe but you cannot prove.
But because people have tried to prove it, and because evidence that should be findable has never turned up, most will be inclined to not believe in your theory.
That side of the argument goes like this:
Anti-Homosexualityite: Show me one other animal that has homosexuality as normal behavior!
Normal Person: OK, here. (shows evidence)
A-H Person: Oh! er, um, I mean, Just because animals do it, we should too?
Yeah....both sides of the fence there....poor argumentative strategy.
"introduction of homosexuality" -- huh? Newsflash, it's been around a long, long time, longer than Islam and African cultures. It's a human thing, and you can find it in every culture at every time, and it's always been there before the culture that denounces it arose. There is no introducing of homosexuality -- its already there. There is however, introducing of cultural negatives based on some other agenda - and they are often very damaging. The Culture is not always beneficial. Female circumcision -- not beneficial. Demeaning of women or those of a darker skin color -- not beneficial.
Sorry you can't handle elevated conversation. You tried to place me in a logical trap -- and it was a good effort. That's part of debate -- trapping the opponent. Good effort. I feel I successfully evaded it.
Will a parent ever be able to screen for homosexuality? If it's genetic, yes. So yes, I think so. Will it be soon? I don't know, depends on how complex the mutations are.
Certainly not, as it is no more detrimental to the person than double jointedness or hazel eyes, curly hair or lack of facial hair. Just because a disease and a trait operate on similar mechanisms, does not mean they are all bad.
Nice attempt to trap though, but still weak. All things that operate from the genes are genetic traits. Diseases are a subset, and they are those traits that are detrimental or dangerous to the subject. (Down's, CF, etc)
Many doubters cannot understand the complex nature of genetic interaction with behavior, and persistence of behavior independent of reproduction. Ignore them. Just because a gene cannot be directly passed down, is not directly passed down, doesn't mean it can't exist or have normal, non-harmful mutations.
Is homosexuality genetic? I believe so. Is it inheritable? I don't know.
except that youre completely wrong -- homosexuality has been documented in many primates as well as many other animals.
I believe homosexuality is genetic. It's simply a random mutation, occurring about 10-20% of the time. And it's independent from heterosexuality -- hence, bisexuality. It hasn't been weeded out because its probably a mutation on a gene thats related to other, necessary functions in a complex, though not direct way -- in other words, its related to reproductive gene-work, but it doesnt interfere with those genes, its off to the side, so to speak. I'm simplifying the hell out of it, of course, but thats how it seems to work, as far as I can see. By your logic, people would never have genetic abnormalities like CF or Down's Syndrome because they'd have been weeded out by now. That's simply not true, becuase the genetic reasons for those diseases are complex and they occur on necessary parts of the genetic framework that cannot be weeded out.