my aviation canicraposcope has three pooping dogs mounted at right angles, unlike gyroscopic horizon it needs no electrical power supply, only Purina and prune juice.
you are the ignorant one, water vapor is too hard to model and the admission of that is readily available. nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world. by the way, I've studied geophysics, have you?
we've just learned that there are huge reservoirs of unfrozen water under greenland ice sheet, and for the second year antarctic sea ice has reached a record high to the befuddlement of climate modelers (and a ship full of them is stuck in ice), and yet you make absurd statement as if we had completely accurate ice inventory.
The models are failing, they didn't even account for the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, which is water and which is far too complicated to model with current technology. And linking to the stupid assertion #18 on RealClimate.org about water vapor, based on a single event in the 90s, is not going to prove anything other than that only pseudo-scientific arguments from the "climatologists" exist on the subject.
but this is article about the USA. the manufacturing by robots for consumer products largely won't be done here. but making robot weapons, yes, that will be done here
the primary purpose and largest market for robotics will be for weapons. It will thus of course be mostly a closed-source system. You're either on the gravy train of the military-industrial complex or you're ballast under the tracks
Nuns and priests are forbidden from doing either one.
Pro-tip: don't work for a religious organization and practice opposing views.
I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but no religious organization has to fund things against their beliefs. I'll even go so far as to assert religious organziations don't have to hire someone of particular gender or race if its against their beliefs. For example, a Hindu organization that helps Indian people doesn't have to hire non-Indians if they don't wish to do so.
Get another religion, work for someone else, if you have such a problem with your religious employer.
this is about religious organizations with employees with the same religious values. here's a pro-tip, don't work for a religious organization if you don't hold their beliefs. Here we have a ruling for nuns.....let me tell you something, if you're a nun and you need an abortion, the Roman Catholic Church is going to cause you many other problems than just not funding your abortion. you won't be a nun anymore.
actually, our current models have both faster than light travel and perpetual motion. most of the universe is receding from us faster than light (outside the observable universe which is believed to be less than 1E-23 of the whole), but we can have no communication with it ever.
it is believed the final state of the universe will be mostly photons and leptons, in motion.
Oh really? what fraction of scientific beliefs that were "true" 150 years ago are "true" now? Science certainly seeks to understand and categorize the nature of reality, but makes no claim to absolute "truth". Most "laws" of science are (useful) approximations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking that IT provides more than half the jobs of every place that I've worked in the last 30+ years. IT *makes* the middle class.
the statsi will do raids, and actions against private citizens, and anyone else who is a threat the the State and to the Order.
other countries have gone down this same path
that has been the false claim which new evidence is destroying
You have insulted my councilman's honor, I challenge you to a death duel!
my aviation canicraposcope has three pooping dogs mounted at right angles, unlike gyroscopic horizon it needs no electrical power supply, only Purina and prune juice.
you are the ignorant one, water vapor is too hard to model and the admission of that is readily available. nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world. by the way, I've studied geophysics, have you?
we've just learned that there are huge reservoirs of unfrozen water under greenland ice sheet, and for the second year antarctic sea ice has reached a record high to the befuddlement of climate modelers (and a ship full of them is stuck in ice), and yet you make absurd statement as if we had completely accurate ice inventory.
The models are failing, they didn't even account for the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, which is water and which is far too complicated to model with current technology. And linking to the stupid assertion #18 on RealClimate.org about water vapor, based on a single event in the 90s, is not going to prove anything other than that only pseudo-scientific arguments from the "climatologists" exist on the subject.
wrong, a feather may fly upward due to thermal or wind, and may land somewhere off the ground. The science is not settled on that either
yes, really
industrial robot market is dominated by asia:
http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/
but this is article about the USA. the manufacturing by robots for consumer products largely won't be done here. but making robot weapons, yes, that will be done here
the primary purpose and largest market for robotics will be for weapons. It will thus of course be mostly a closed-source system. You're either on the gravy train of the military-industrial complex or you're ballast under the tracks
that particular bug you link was fixed a week before it was found to be security vulnerability (at the time was known to cause crash)
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=117404837006368&w=2
nonsense, they only need rename the planet to something less suggestive, perhaps Urbanghole
you'd still be paying income tax.
unless you have taken a vow of poverty, you should look up the qualifications for that. I don't think you're tough enough for such a life
Contraceptives are technology. ACA can only be implemented with technology. This is policy about technology.
Nuns and priests are forbidden from doing either one.
Pro-tip: don't work for a religious organization and practice opposing views.
I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but no religious organization has to fund things against their beliefs. I'll even go so far as to assert religious organziations don't have to hire someone of particular gender or race if its against their beliefs. For example, a Hindu organization that helps Indian people doesn't have to hire non-Indians if they don't wish to do so.
Get another religion, work for someone else, if you have such a problem with your religious employer.
wrong.
this is about religious organizations with employees with the same religious values. here's a pro-tip, don't work for a religious organization if you don't hold their beliefs. Here we have a ruling for nuns.....let me tell you something, if you're a nun and you need an abortion, the Roman Catholic Church is going to cause you many other problems than just not funding your abortion. you won't be a nun anymore.
so you support censorship, what a wonderful point of view. maybe you should join your local Nazi party.
actually, our current models have both faster than light travel and perpetual motion. most of the universe is receding from us faster than light (outside the observable universe which is believed to be less than 1E-23 of the whole), but we can have no communication with it ever.
it is believed the final state of the universe will be mostly photons and leptons, in motion.
The Tumbuka god Chiuta is self-created, though i haven't heard of story involving making own mother.
all 84% have that problem you mention, they would those all deserve ridicule then
I actually submitted a story about your "hands down winner" but strangely enough the editors did not pass it:
http://slashdot.org/submission/3217581/how-not-to-design-a-ui-slashdot-beta-site-is-a-train-wreck
84 percent of humans have a "faith", some non-rational belief in deities or supernatural forces.
So I'm having a hard time seeing a reason to mock the 30% of a nations in this study; most humans hold irrational religious beliefs.
No such circular reasoning in many religions, they either have origin stories for their creators or a creator that always existed.
Oh really? what fraction of scientific beliefs that were "true" 150 years ago are "true" now? Science certainly seeks to understand and categorize the nature of reality, but makes no claim to absolute "truth". Most "laws" of science are (useful) approximations.