Well, if time is cyclical and the telescope is seeing things from far enough back in time, maybe it could catch some dimension of spacetime that contains echos of the end of the universe, complete with restaurant.
What card carrying geek doesn't know that?
The vast majority of internet users are idiots, since while the mean intelligence of internet users is likely slightly higher than the general population, such a large majority of people are idiots that I doubt the minority of intelligent people constitute anywhere near a majority of internet users.
Nobody is asking every user to understand the details of how the TCP/IP protocol works, just basic common sense on par with the level of knowledge they have to have to do things like drive a motor vehicle. You surely wouldn't find it acceptable if the person who crashed into you after running a red light didn't have the time, energy, or will to learn that red means stop. And you surely wouldn't find it acceptable if your children didn't have the time, energy, or will to understand that they shouldn't take candy from strangers.
To put it in terms of politics, people are not idiots if they aren't experts on political analysis... however they are idiots if they don't know the three branches of government and generally what each one does, who the president is, etc. That's on par with the intelligence required to know not to click obnoxious links and open any attachment you get.
It's REALLY simple knowledge and common sense, and there's absolutely no reason people should not be reasonably expected to possess it to use a computer and be derided as idiots when they lack it. Being undereducated is NOT an exemption from being an idiot, if anything it's equivalent to being an idiot. And lacking common sense, or turning that part of the brain off when in front of a computer and many people seem to do, is also being an idiot.
Newer versions of Windows require very little rebooting; the remainiing things that require a reboot aren't routine tasks for the vast majority of users. Only MAJOR applications, in general, require a reboot. WindowsUpdate patches and such virtually never require a restart. My current uptime (XP) is just over 28 days, and I've installed and uninstalled lots of things in that time. No crashes in months and months and months either, and I frequently use VS6, Access/Excel, Photoshop, and a few other large apps that used to eventually destabilize the system after a couple days from normal use (or cause a outright crash). While obviously not perfect, especially with the strict uptime requirements of the enterprise level, Windows is making fantastic progress in reboot frequencies.
Well let's start with Fried et. al., who concluded that ongoing heavy use of marijuana has a signficant negative impact on IQ.
And then we can in fact see the short term memory impairment,
Heyser, C.J.; Hampson, R.E.; and Deadwyler, S.A. Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on delayed match to sample performance in rats: Alterations in short-term memory associated with changes in task-specific firing of hippocampal cells. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 264(1):294-307, 1993.
And let's not pretend that smoking marijuana isn't going to have a negative effects on the lungs,
Tashkin, D.P. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990., and
Sarafian, T.A.; Magallanes, J.A.; Shau, H.; Tashkin, D.; and Roth, M.D. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 20(6):1286-1293, 1999.
Or the immune system
Srivastava, M.D.; Srivastava, B.I.; and Brouhard, B. Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alter cytokine production by human immune cells. Immunopharmacology 40(3):179-185, 1998.
Marijuana capable of producing psychotic symptoms? Yes.
Fergusson, David M., John Horwood & Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic Symptoms," Addiction, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2005, p. 363.
The original poster was talking about chronic use, implying ongoing, so let's also examine the effects of current intoxication: Learning and memory are in fact impaired by cannabis:
Grant, Igor, et al.,(2003) "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Cambridge University Press, 9, p. 685.
Long term permanent damage? Absolutely, but only to the lungs.
Negative impacts on the brain during ongoing use? Absolutely.
Maybe you ought to be familiar with the research yourself before attacking other people? This is just a tiny fraction of all the research conducted. A simple 5 second google search would have turned up all you needed to know to not look like the jackass you do now.
#3 could not be more wrong. Alot of people on Slashdot seem to like to believe that there is no link, but most research indicates otherwise. Exposure to violent video games increases agressive behavior (r=.18), agressive cognition (r=.27), and agressive affect (r=.18). And this is not a single study, this is from a meta analysis on a large body of research that has been conducted in the area. Both correlation studies (non-directional) AND experimental (CAN infer causality) support the link. If someone can cite a few articles not showing the link, I'd love to read them, the overall juvenile crime rate is not a remotely good justiification.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359
more heroin & coke addicts -> higher health care costs -> higher taxes.
Actually, this is not the case. The case for a massive rise in use without prohibition has weak support, and the little existing studies of places where use is not policed, actually shows usage rates to be lower. The drug war has been scientifically demonstrated to not reduce the use or availability of drugs. Most of the violence comes from prohibition, not user crimes. The problems associated with the high cost of addiction come from prohibition. The spread of disease is largely caused by prohibtion preventing availability and affordability of clean syringes for IV users, around 40% of AIDS cases are from needle sharing. Studies have shown the cost of treatment to reduce cocaine use by a specific percent is lower than the cost of acheiving the same decrease through law enforcement. All in all, the economics are prohibition greatly exacerbate the cost to the rest of society in terms of deaths, diseases, and violent crimes, and the associated costs of these activities.
Regarding seatbelts and everything else, would you really want to live in a society where the government oversees every aspect of your life and forbids you from doing anything that might make you more likely to need expensive healthcare?
Essentially, it ammounts to doing whatever you want to without harming other people.
Except for all the chemicals the government has rather arbitrarily decided you aren't allowed to put into your own body. And you can't break encryption to watch media you bought on other platforms. And you can't download stuff that's no longer available to purchase. And you can't drive without wearing your seatbelt. And... you get the point. And the current religious right in power is moving towards placing even more restrictions on what consenting adults can and cannot do.
Which is exactly what she wanted and tried to do. She purposely did not apply for a permit to protest and purposely sat down in front of the White House, knowing, and being told, she had to move along. Her entire goal in the protests was to get arrested to attract media attention. She was absolutely thrilled and smiling when she finally got arrested. Anybody who thinks this is an act of government oppression rather than a publicity stunt is just as dangerously biased to the left as the government is to the right and so wrapped up in their anti-Bush administration views they've lost touch with reality just as much as the religious right that's attacking the Constitution.
Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's clearly racism, your incredibly narrow view and failure to consider other cultures history makes you sound like one of those government anti-drug propaganda people, whose flimsy arguments against drugs embarass them everytime they debate people who've bothered to study the topic with a neutral, open mind.
I don't know what kind of scientific conferences you go to, but I suspect they were before longitudinal studies on marijuana's effects on IQ were published. For example, Fried et. al. concluded in a peer reviewed article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (166, p. 887) that marijuana use does have an effect on IQ; a negative impact for heavy use, and a positive effect (and more positive than not smoking even) for light use; it also showed there was no deficit for former users who had not smoked for more than 3 months.
"Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."
Ok I'm just sick of stereotypes like this. Alcohol causes far more violent crime than drugs, even when comparing per capita to account for the discrepency in use. And,
"Twenty-one percent of violent felons in state prisons committed their crimes while under the influence of alcohol alone. Only 3% were high on crack or powder cocaine alone and only 1% were using heroin alone." Califano, Joseph, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population, Forward by Joseph Califano, NCASA at Columbia University (1998).
And since 49% of inmates were violent offenders, that amounts to about 950,000 such offenders (BJS, 2001), and since only 4% of those were addicted to "hard" drugs (see above, no reason to doubt approximate validity over time given incarceration trends), that amounts to only 38,000 violent drug offenders in a population of the ~6 million current drug users of "hard" drugs (stimulants/narcotics) (NHSDA, 2003), it can be roughly estimated that only 0.6% of drug addicts commit violent crimes, which is likely a high estimate. Furthermore, with 950,000/295000000, the violent crime rate in the general population is 0.32%, drug addicts are only twice as likely to be violent criminals than the general population, and I say only because of things like African Americans, who respresent about 50% of all violent criminals (BJS), but only 12.8% of the population, so therefore are nearly 4 times more likely to be violent criminals.
12.9 million of the general population are current heavy drinkers (NHSDA, 2001), and alcohol related violent crime being at 21% (200000), that's 1.55% of heavy drinkers being violent criminals, or 258x more likely to be violent offenders than current users of hard drugs.
Bottom line is, get a better grip on reality and stop perpetuating the myth that most drug addicts are violent psychopaths. They make up a tiny minority of violent criminals. The vast majority of the (tiny percentage) of crimes committed by drug users are non-violent property crimes.
There's evidence that H. sapiens developed a much more sophisticated economic system that included trade and specialization, related to possession of slightly more advanced tools. This would seem to imply a slight edge in mental ability. So while the matter is by no means settled, there's actually very good reason to suggest such a conclusion.
If you're interested, the new research on economic systems appears in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, Shogren et al, 2005.
The laws should not be aligned with the will of the people, and in fact the founding fathers did a decent job of making sure it didn't happen. If laws exactly follow the will of the people, things quickly deteriorate into the minority being oppressed by the majority. Most people don't even know what's best for themselves, let alone what's best for those with different viewpoints than their own, especially when that viewpoint is not a black and white issue. The "people" are idiots, and making laws based on a direct democracy system is even worse than a tight oligarchy; paradoxically "people" support the current Republican one. The "people" want Creationism back in the public schools, (23% believe Creationism is the ONLY thing that should be taught in schools, 55% say evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should all be taught, Harris Poll June 17-21 2005). Downloading within the doctrine of fair use should absolutely be legal, but not simply because the "people" think so.
Actually, there's a strong case for genetic inheritance of criminal traits, particularly agressiveness. Studies find a MUCH higher level of testosterone on average in those convicted of violent crimes, and if you put genetic influences on hormone levels in the same category as phrenology, I seriously doubt you're anything other than somebody who dismisses as junk science anything thats not perfectly politically correct. Wouldn't surprise me if you think genetics are so completely irrelevant that they don't even account for color differences between races, and then why exactly is it such a leap to conclude genetics might also influence brain structure, which just might somehow be related to behavior? We're long past the days of underestimating the genetic component of behavior. Get with the times.
You messed up one thing too. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, it happened, we can prove it happened via things such as genetic markers and the fossil record. It's not really a theory. The mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, are theories. It's like gravity. The fact there's gravity is a law of the universe; Einstein's relativity describing gravity is a theory. Don't confuse the effect with what caused the effect.
Be sure to e-mail 2001-2002 and let them know not to put "Microsoft(R) Pocket PC" on iPaqs' About screen. It's clearly an alternate title for CE 3.0, used by Microsoft.
Could have something to do with all the war, death, hatred, bigotry, persecution, etc that has resulted from all the major organized religions for a couple millennia now.
Software goes from dump servers to IRC, and I'd suspect thats the main source for what gets on P2P, as stuff typically appears there days before it hits P2P. FXP distribution across compromised servers also occurs immediately after appearing on the dump, and is likely a source for both IRC and P2P. I once had the privilege of access to a hub server for a week, it was absolutely unbelievable, thousands of apps and games and a really fat pipe.
The UCC only applies to transactions conducted between a business and another business, not a business and an individual. Even if it applied, the transaction is under $500, and would not fall under the UCC due to that. But it is indeed a good faith transaction and the receiver of the book cannot be held liable to return.
Perhaps you ought to do a little research on your own into the projects being done at the Safar Center. They've been using techniques such as this on dogs for quite a while now, so its quite likely theyve collected enough evidence of efficacy to move on to human trials of the technique. The journal articles are there for all their research projects in this area, in Nature, Anesthesiology, and others. Mod parent -1 Troll.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the worlds largest charitable foundation, giving out more than $1 billion every year; Gates personally gives billions of his own money to the foundation. While your criticism of his business tactics are well founded, your implication that he's not a very generous humanitarian are completely off base.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because I stopped listening as soon as they said their expert witnesses testifying included the CEOs of both the MPAA and RIAA. :)
Here's a video of the hearings, nearly 2 hours long (show your love of the committee by slashdotting it!) (only available in real video): Oversight Hearing on Content Protection in the Digital Age
They talk about the broadcast flag as well, but is from Thursday and about plugging the analog hole.
From http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=202
Well, if time is cyclical and the telescope is seeing things from far enough back in time, maybe it could catch some dimension of spacetime that contains echos of the end of the universe, complete with restaurant.
What card carrying geek doesn't know that?
The vast majority of internet users are idiots, since while the mean intelligence of internet users is likely slightly higher than the general population, such a large majority of people are idiots that I doubt the minority of intelligent people constitute anywhere near a majority of internet users.
Nobody is asking every user to understand the details of how the TCP/IP protocol works, just basic common sense on par with the level of knowledge they have to have to do things like drive a motor vehicle. You surely wouldn't find it acceptable if the person who crashed into you after running a red light didn't have the time, energy, or will to learn that red means stop. And you surely wouldn't find it acceptable if your children didn't have the time, energy, or will to understand that they shouldn't take candy from strangers.
To put it in terms of politics, people are not idiots if they aren't experts on political analysis... however they are idiots if they don't know the three branches of government and generally what each one does, who the president is, etc. That's on par with the intelligence required to know not to click obnoxious links and open any attachment you get.
It's REALLY simple knowledge and common sense, and there's absolutely no reason people should not be reasonably expected to possess it to use a computer and be derided as idiots when they lack it. Being undereducated is NOT an exemption from being an idiot, if anything it's equivalent to being an idiot. And lacking common sense, or turning that part of the brain off when in front of a computer and many people seem to do, is also being an idiot.
Newer versions of Windows require very little rebooting; the remainiing things that require a reboot aren't routine tasks for the vast majority of users. Only MAJOR applications, in general, require a reboot. WindowsUpdate patches and such virtually never require a restart. My current uptime (XP) is just over 28 days, and I've installed and uninstalled lots of things in that time. No crashes in months and months and months either, and I frequently use VS6, Access/Excel, Photoshop, and a few other large apps that used to eventually destabilize the system after a couple days from normal use (or cause a outright crash). While obviously not perfect, especially with the strict uptime requirements of the enterprise level, Windows is making fantastic progress in reboot frequencies.
Well let's start with Fried et. al., who concluded that ongoing heavy use of marijuana has a signficant negative impact on IQ.
And then we can in fact see the short term memory impairment,
Heyser, C.J.; Hampson, R.E.; and Deadwyler, S.A. Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on delayed match to sample performance in rats: Alterations in short-term memory associated with changes in task-specific firing of hippocampal cells. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 264(1):294-307, 1993.
And let's not pretend that smoking marijuana isn't going to have a negative effects on the lungs,
Tashkin, D.P. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990., and
Sarafian, T.A.; Magallanes, J.A.; Shau, H.; Tashkin, D.; and Roth, M.D. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 20(6):1286-1293, 1999.
Or the immune system
Srivastava, M.D.; Srivastava, B.I.; and Brouhard, B. Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alter cytokine production by human immune cells. Immunopharmacology 40(3):179-185, 1998.
Marijuana capable of producing psychotic symptoms? Yes.
Fergusson, David M., John Horwood & Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic Symptoms," Addiction, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2005, p. 363.
The original poster was talking about chronic use, implying ongoing, so let's also examine the effects of current intoxication: Learning and memory are in fact impaired by cannabis:
Grant, Igor, et al.,(2003) "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Cambridge University Press, 9, p. 685.
Long term permanent damage? Absolutely, but only to the lungs.
Negative impacts on the brain during ongoing use? Absolutely.
Maybe you ought to be familiar with the research yourself before attacking other people? This is just a tiny fraction of all the research conducted. A simple 5 second google search would have turned up all you needed to know to not look like the jackass you do now.
#3 could not be more wrong. Alot of people on Slashdot seem to like to believe that there is no link, but most research indicates otherwise. Exposure to violent video games increases agressive behavior (r=.18), agressive cognition (r=.27), and agressive affect (r=.18). And this is not a single study, this is from a meta analysis on a large body of research that has been conducted in the area. Both correlation studies (non-directional) AND experimental (CAN infer causality) support the link. If someone can cite a few articles not showing the link, I'd love to read them, the overall juvenile crime rate is not a remotely good justiification.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359
more heroin & coke addicts -> higher health care costs -> higher taxes.
Actually, this is not the case. The case for a massive rise in use without prohibition has weak support, and the little existing studies of places where use is not policed, actually shows usage rates to be lower. The drug war has been scientifically demonstrated to not reduce the use or availability of drugs. Most of the violence comes from prohibition, not user crimes. The problems associated with the high cost of addiction come from prohibition. The spread of disease is largely caused by prohibtion preventing availability and affordability of clean syringes for IV users, around 40% of AIDS cases are from needle sharing. Studies have shown the cost of treatment to reduce cocaine use by a specific percent is lower than the cost of acheiving the same decrease through law enforcement. All in all, the economics are prohibition greatly exacerbate the cost to the rest of society in terms of deaths, diseases, and violent crimes, and the associated costs of these activities.
Regarding seatbelts and everything else, would you really want to live in a society where the government oversees every aspect of your life and forbids you from doing anything that might make you more likely to need expensive healthcare?
Essentially, it ammounts to doing whatever you want to without harming other people.
Except for all the chemicals the government has rather arbitrarily decided you aren't allowed to put into your own body. And you can't break encryption to watch media you bought on other platforms. And you can't download stuff that's no longer available to purchase. And you can't drive without wearing your seatbelt. And... you get the point. And the current religious right in power is moving towards placing even more restrictions on what consenting adults can and cannot do.
Which is exactly what she wanted and tried to do. She purposely did not apply for a permit to protest and purposely sat down in front of the White House, knowing, and being told, she had to move along. Her entire goal in the protests was to get arrested to attract media attention. She was absolutely thrilled and smiling when she finally got arrested. Anybody who thinks this is an act of government oppression rather than a publicity stunt is just as dangerously biased to the left as the government is to the right and so wrapped up in their anti-Bush administration views they've lost touch with reality just as much as the religious right that's attacking the Constitution.
Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's clearly racism, your incredibly narrow view and failure to consider other cultures history makes you sound like one of those government anti-drug propaganda people, whose flimsy arguments against drugs embarass them everytime they debate people who've bothered to study the topic with a neutral, open mind.
I don't know what kind of scientific conferences you go to, but I suspect they were before longitudinal studies on marijuana's effects on IQ were published. For example, Fried et. al. concluded in a peer reviewed article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (166, p. 887) that marijuana use does have an effect on IQ; a negative impact for heavy use, and a positive effect (and more positive than not smoking even) for light use; it also showed there was no deficit for former users who had not smoked for more than 3 months.
"Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."
(drug addicts etc)
Ok I'm just sick of stereotypes like this. Alcohol causes far more violent crime than drugs, even when comparing per capita to account for the discrepency in use. And,
"Twenty-one percent of violent felons in state prisons committed their crimes while under the influence of alcohol alone. Only 3% were high on crack or powder cocaine alone and only 1% were using heroin alone." Califano, Joseph, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population, Forward by Joseph Califano, NCASA at Columbia University (1998).
And since 49% of inmates were violent offenders, that amounts to about 950,000 such offenders (BJS, 2001), and since only 4% of those were addicted to "hard" drugs (see above, no reason to doubt approximate validity over time given incarceration trends), that amounts to only 38,000 violent drug offenders in a population of the ~6 million current drug users of "hard" drugs (stimulants/narcotics) (NHSDA, 2003), it can be roughly estimated that only 0.6% of drug addicts commit violent crimes, which is likely a high estimate. Furthermore, with 950,000/295000000, the violent crime rate in the general population is 0.32%, drug addicts are only twice as likely to be violent criminals than the general population, and I say only because of things like African Americans, who respresent about 50% of all violent criminals (BJS), but only 12.8% of the population, so therefore are nearly 4 times more likely to be violent criminals.
12.9 million of the general population are current heavy drinkers (NHSDA, 2001), and alcohol related violent crime being at 21% (200000), that's 1.55% of heavy drinkers being violent criminals, or 258x more likely to be violent offenders than current users of hard drugs. Bottom line is, get a better grip on reality and stop perpetuating the myth that most drug addicts are violent psychopaths. They make up a tiny minority of violent criminals. The vast majority of the (tiny percentage) of crimes committed by drug users are non-violent property crimes.
BJS = Bureau Of Justice Statistics-Prisons, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
NHSDA = National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/
There's evidence that H. sapiens developed a much more sophisticated economic system that included trade and specialization, related to possession of slightly more advanced tools. This would seem to imply a slight edge in mental ability. So while the matter is by no means settled, there's actually very good reason to suggest such a conclusion.
If you're interested, the new research on economic systems appears in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, Shogren et al, 2005.
The laws should not be aligned with the will of the people, and in fact the founding fathers did a decent job of making sure it didn't happen. If laws exactly follow the will of the people, things quickly deteriorate into the minority being oppressed by the majority. Most people don't even know what's best for themselves, let alone what's best for those with different viewpoints than their own, especially when that viewpoint is not a black and white issue. The "people" are idiots, and making laws based on a direct democracy system is even worse than a tight oligarchy; paradoxically "people" support the current Republican one. The "people" want Creationism back in the public schools, (23% believe Creationism is the ONLY thing that should be taught in schools, 55% say evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should all be taught, Harris Poll June 17-21 2005). Downloading within the doctrine of fair use should absolutely be legal, but not simply because the "people" think so.
Actually, there's a strong case for genetic inheritance of criminal traits, particularly agressiveness. Studies find a MUCH higher level of testosterone on average in those convicted of violent crimes, and if you put genetic influences on hormone levels in the same category as phrenology, I seriously doubt you're anything other than somebody who dismisses as junk science anything thats not perfectly politically correct. Wouldn't surprise me if you think genetics are so completely irrelevant that they don't even account for color differences between races, and then why exactly is it such a leap to conclude genetics might also influence brain structure, which just might somehow be related to behavior? We're long past the days of underestimating the genetic component of behavior. Get with the times.
Well, maybe if they didn't have to spend all their time downloading porn, they could be out working to pay the neccessities.
Nope, it's a fact, study up on evolutionary biology. In addition to genetic markers showing branching, we have in fact observed speciation in fish.
You messed up one thing too. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, it happened, we can prove it happened via things such as genetic markers and the fossil record. It's not really a theory. The mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, are theories. It's like gravity. The fact there's gravity is a law of the universe; Einstein's relativity describing gravity is a theory. Don't confuse the effect with what caused the effect.
Be sure to e-mail 2001-2002 and let them know not to put "Microsoft(R) Pocket PC" on iPaqs' About screen. It's clearly an alternate title for CE 3.0, used by Microsoft.
Could have something to do with all the war, death, hatred, bigotry, persecution, etc that has resulted from all the major organized religions for a couple millennia now.
Software goes from dump servers to IRC, and I'd suspect thats the main source for what gets on P2P, as stuff typically appears there days before it hits P2P. FXP distribution across compromised servers also occurs immediately after appearing on the dump, and is likely a source for both IRC and P2P. I once had the privilege of access to a hub server for a week, it was absolutely unbelievable, thousands of apps and games and a really fat pipe.
The UCC only applies to transactions conducted between a business and another business, not a business and an individual. Even if it applied, the transaction is under $500, and would not fall under the UCC due to that. But it is indeed a good faith transaction and the receiver of the book cannot be held liable to return.
Perhaps you ought to do a little research on your own into the projects being done at the Safar Center. They've been using techniques such as this on dogs for quite a while now, so its quite likely theyve collected enough evidence of efficacy to move on to human trials of the technique. The journal articles are there for all their research projects in this area, in Nature, Anesthesiology, and others. Mod parent -1 Troll.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the worlds largest charitable foundation, giving out more than $1 billion every year; Gates personally gives billions of his own money to the foundation. While your criticism of his business tactics are well founded, your implication that he's not a very generous humanitarian are completely off base.