It's part of how we think - we tend to take things more seriously if we can attach a face... or at least a name... to it.
That's why a smart whistle blower will stay annonymous and enlist someone else to independently verify the source and play the role of "lightning rod". That "someone" used to be the NYT or similar, nowadays it's Wikileaks or similar. Often verifying material from an annonymous source is as simple as watching the reaction of the "victim", for example; it's obvious to most people that the "diplomatic cables" and the "war diaries" are genuine simply because of the way governments around the world have reacted to them.
The idea of enlisting child welfare organisations it good but people complain about the strangest things. For exampe, when I was about 10 (circa 1970) my favorite book was A Wrinkle in Time, a science fantasy that managed to make maths interesting and relevant. Recently I found it at #32 on a list of most frequently banned books (which I can't find right now). Why did people want it banned? - Because the fictional beings that imparted scientific and mathematical knowledge called themselves witches.
Make anyone who contributes liable for their content
Liable to whom, and by what subjective standard? - The parents who tried to ban my favorite childhood book? The Jesus camp parents who firmly believe Harry potter is not a work of fiction but rather a work of Satan?
Because the technical definition of "inflation" is expansion of the money supply
You mean like when the Spanish looted S.America's gold they doubled the gold reserves of Europe.
A "standard" is not a tangible commodity. Gold is. Government-issued notes backed by government-issued promises is not.
Money always has, and will always be, founded on an intangible commodity called "trust". If you trust gold more than bank notes then nobody is stopping you from converting you paper money to gold, sea shells, or whatever it is you personally trust as a token of exchange. Sure, that might be a good decision if the apocalypse happens tomorrow or next week, but in the meantime you will have enourmous difficulties getting a supermarket cashier to trust your gold enough to swap it for groceries.
Sigh - The universe expanded from a singularity, a singularity is not nothing. However that major misconception is the least of the problems in your post.
The Taliban money comes from protection rackets, they hate drugs and alcohol and wiped out the Afgan poppy fields when they were in control. Apparently OBL smoked the occasional joint, but he funded his activities from personal wealth.
and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs
Isn't that what they're having trouble enforcing now?
Letting the market choose a tangible commodity for a currency seems far more sound than having the gov't inflate an unbacked money supply at its own discretion.
Why do so many people think inflation was non-existant under the gold standard?
From observing swimming pool spiders myself I've noticed a lot of them carry a bubble of air when they are underwater. It seems to be a general behaviour amoungst spiders for breathing but it could be that the bubbles are just randomly trapped in their hair.
The combined prison population for ALL crimes in 27 EU nations (including the UK) is 600,000 out of a population of 500M
The prison population for DRUG crime alone in the US is 500,000 out of a population of 300M
Measure it at a bunch of different places all over the surface, take the average, weighted by surface area around each measurement, and you get a pretty good measure of the energy in the atmosphere.
The problem is that the data from those measurements has not passed the 95% certainty hurdle and won't do so for another decade or so. There is an trend in the existing data that you can draw conclusions from, just not strong conclusions. Of course physics tells us increased temp causes increased turbulence, so it's a safe bet they will find the confidence level they are looking for eventually.
Global climate change has ALWAYS been happening thus the name change from global warming so they can prey on the gullible by screaming the sky is falling send me money or give me control.
When are people going to stop flogging that dead horse? You do realize what the "CC" stands for in the 20yo IPCC, right? The obvious fact is that the climate scientists who coined the terms are fully aware the two phrases are NOT synonyms of each other, they are aware of this because they wrote the definitions. If anyone tried to conflate the terms "so they could prey on the gullible" it was Frank Luntz.
So the question is - Are you just gullible wrt AGW politics, or are you anti-science in general?.
Hm, each one of those majority positions has a chance of being wrong. I wouldn't be too sure not one of them turns out to be.
Established theories are well tested models of how certain bits of the universe work and by definition models are imperfect. However, established theories (eg:Evolution, AGW, Heliocentricity, Germ Theory, Politically sensitive theory X) are very unlikely to be flat out wrong
There are three good reasons for them to keep the copyright.
1. They can prevent people from modifying the originals (eg: for political propoganda).
2. They can still make a few bucks from people who want to order the hard copies for whatever reason.
3. Attracts people to their website.
Besides, even though technically you can't copy them I very much doubt they care if you do so in good faith.
News in Oz is ABC or SBS, if they banned payola and propoganda from shows like TT then those shows would have nothing left to....hmmmm....maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
Sigh, the name and number of continents depends on where you were educated. If you think America is a continent then you must have been eductaed in a countriy that uses one of the more obscure continental naming conventions. Most people on the planet understand "America" is an abbreviation of "The United Sates of America" and will argue there is no such continent as America since it is not in the two most commonly taught naming convention.
I doubt it, resturants want you to have your steak bloody because cooking it properly takes 20-30min and they want you occuping the table for as short a time as possible.
Most (if not all) germs in raw milk don't come from inside the cow, they colonise the milk in the chain between cow and human. Also it's well known that milk can trigger asthma in some people, it has nothing to do with "heated animal protiens" or the immune system of cows, it's simply an allergic reaction to milk.
Slashdot Mirror
The NYT is not part of Rupert's empire, perhaps you're thinking of the WSJ?
It's part of how we think - we tend to take things more seriously if we can attach a face ... or at least a name ... to it.
That's why a smart whistle blower will stay annonymous and enlist someone else to independently verify the source and play the role of "lightning rod". That "someone" used to be the NYT or similar, nowadays it's Wikileaks or similar. Often verifying material from an annonymous source is as simple as watching the reaction of the "victim", for example; it's obvious to most people that the "diplomatic cables" and the "war diaries" are genuine simply because of the way governments around the world have reacted to them.
I imagine that you would have a very difficult time getting defensively-useful power levels
Electric fish/rays/eels can pack quite a punch.
one dimensional Republican
So you're saying he has (or is) a point?
Yes, it's on the top of his head.
Make anyone who contributes liable for their content
Liable to whom, and by what subjective standard? - The parents who tried to ban my favorite childhood book? The Jesus camp parents who firmly believe Harry potter is not a work of fiction but rather a work of Satan?
Because the technical definition of "inflation" is expansion of the money supply
You mean like when the Spanish looted S.America's gold they doubled the gold reserves of Europe.
A "standard" is not a tangible commodity. Gold is. Government-issued notes backed by government-issued promises is not.
Money always has, and will always be, founded on an intangible commodity called "trust". If you trust gold more than bank notes then nobody is stopping you from converting you paper money to gold, sea shells, or whatever it is you personally trust as a token of exchange. Sure, that might be a good decision if the apocalypse happens tomorrow or next week, but in the meantime you will have enourmous difficulties getting a supermarket cashier to trust your gold enough to swap it for groceries.
So where did the singularity come from?
In science it's ok to say "we don't know", that answer may be unsatisfying but at least it's honest.
Yeah right, the vast majority of scientists are doing it wrong.
giant explosion out of nothing
Sigh - The universe expanded from a singularity, a singularity is not nothing. However that major misconception is the least of the problems in your post.
Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs.
The Taliban money comes from protection rackets, they hate drugs and alcohol and wiped out the Afgan poppy fields when they were in control. Apparently OBL smoked the occasional joint, but he funded his activities from personal wealth.
and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs
Isn't that what they're having trouble enforcing now?
Letting the market choose a tangible commodity for a currency seems far more sound than having the gov't inflate an unbacked money supply at its own discretion.
Why do so many people think inflation was non-existant under the gold standard?
From observing swimming pool spiders myself I've noticed a lot of them carry a bubble of air when they are underwater. It seems to be a general behaviour amoungst spiders for breathing but it could be that the bubbles are just randomly trapped in their hair.
Heard an interesting statistic the other day...
The combined prison population for ALL crimes in 27 EU nations (including the UK) is 600,000 out of a population of 500M
The prison population for DRUG crime alone in the US is 500,000 out of a population of 300M
Measure it at a bunch of different places all over the surface, take the average, weighted by surface area around each measurement, and you get a pretty good measure of the energy in the atmosphere.
The problem is that the data from those measurements has not passed the 95% certainty hurdle and won't do so for another decade or so. There is an trend in the existing data that you can draw conclusions from, just not strong conclusions. Of course physics tells us increased temp causes increased turbulence, so it's a safe bet they will find the confidence level they are looking for eventually.
Global climate change has ALWAYS been happening thus the name change from global warming so they can prey on the gullible by screaming the sky is falling send me money or give me control.
When are people going to stop flogging that dead horse? You do realize what the "CC" stands for in the 20yo IPCC, right? The obvious fact is that the climate scientists who coined the terms are fully aware the two phrases are NOT synonyms of each other, they are aware of this because they wrote the definitions. If anyone tried to conflate the terms "so they could prey on the gullible" it was Frank Luntz.
So the question is - Are you just gullible wrt AGW politics, or are you anti-science in general?.
there is no degree that transforms a non-geek in to a geek
Agreed and let's hope they don't find one! However, for pre-existing geeks there are plenty of degrees that can turn their geeky hobby into a career.
Hm, each one of those majority positions has a chance of being wrong. I wouldn't be too sure not one of them turns out to be.
Established theories are well tested models of how certain bits of the universe work and by definition models are imperfect. However, established theories (eg:Evolution, AGW, Heliocentricity, Germ Theory, Politically sensitive theory X) are very unlikely to be flat out wrong
Read your own sig, Winston doesn't see anything that needs fixing.
The link you provided does not agree with you at all.
What? I think you should re-read both my link and my comment and indicate where you imagine they contradict.
In none of these models is America not the name of a continent or a set of two continents joined by an isthmus.
North and South America are collectively called the "Americas" in those models.
There are three good reasons for them to keep the copyright.
1. They can prevent people from modifying the originals (eg: for political propoganda).
2. They can still make a few bucks from people who want to order the hard copies for whatever reason.
3. Attracts people to their website.
Besides, even though technically you can't copy them I very much doubt they care if you do so in good faith.
but where is the line drawn at?
News in Oz is ABC or SBS, if they banned payola and propoganda from shows like TT then those shows would have nothing left to....hmmmm....maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
Sigh, the name and number of continents depends on where you were educated. If you think America is a continent then you must have been eductaed in a countriy that uses one of the more obscure continental naming conventions. Most people on the planet understand "America" is an abbreviation of "The United Sates of America" and will argue there is no such continent as America since it is not in the two most commonly taught naming convention.
Breakfast shows aren't news.
I doubt it, resturants want you to have your steak bloody because cooking it properly takes 20-30min and they want you occuping the table for as short a time as possible.
Most (if not all) germs in raw milk don't come from inside the cow, they colonise the milk in the chain between cow and human. Also it's well known that milk can trigger asthma in some people, it has nothing to do with "heated animal protiens" or the immune system of cows, it's simply an allergic reaction to milk.