Everyone benefits from an educated population. Everyone. Every single person. That's why everyone should pay for it. Just because your kids go to school doesn't change that one iota.
No it didn't. The Earth was known to be round before the notion of peer review even existed. Please try to keep up. Your thinking is thousands of years old. You are conflating news stories about science with the science themselves. No wonder you are so confused about the world around you.
Evidence is not "piling up" that AGW is not a valid theory - quite the opposite. But seeing as you are arguing against the scientific method and don't see a problem with that, nothing on this planet will change your view. The rest of your post is just lunatic nonsense. You poor, poor thing. You call the "eco-nuts" clueless, when it appears you know even less.
When people say healthcare is free, they mean the cost of being sick vs. the cost of not being sick is precisely 0. $0, â0, £0, whatever - 0. That means you don't have to think about whether you get sick and how that affects your bank balance, or whether you'll still have your house in 6 months. Yes, the actual costs are part of your taxes, but as they never change, illness won't affect your money. The fact everyone pays in means that prescriptions can be flat-rate, with a fixed price set by the government (of a few dollars/euros/pounds). That's the benefit of a single payer - they can dictate the price to ensure gouging doesn't happen, while spending enough to keep the pharmaceutical companies in business. But no - evil socialism, I'm sure. It's muuuch better in the US. Hint: In civilised countries personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses don't happen.
Viruses don't want to "take you out" - they want you to be perfectly normal. That's their whole thing. If a virus kills you, it didn't do it on purpose.
That's why people should take the medicine when the fever is dangerously hot, not simply because it's uncomfortable. Reducing a fever is going to help the infection. Reducing a not-dangerous fever is entirely counter-productive. Your point?
I know what you mean, but these people are arguing against the efficacy of the scientific method itself. They are arguing against findings and methodologies they simply do not understand, that have been demonstrated to be useful by the very logical framework that enables them to do their internet-based complaining. If they were honestly picking apart the theories/hypotheses/methods/models/data, then you'd be right. But they're not. They're regurgitating oft-repeated attacks they've heard from other sources, which have been shown to be either factually incorrect, or outdated. If people get confused between regional winter temperatures and the global temperature, then they are in no position to doubt the scientific findings, and their opinion on the matter is literally worthless. If they had a point, all it would take is a few scientists and a research paper showing how it's wrong, and they'd win a Nobel prize and all the glory the scientific world had to offer. It's not as if they couldn't get funding for it, either - the coffers of big oil are big too. If it's so blindingly obviously wrong, or if the gaps are so incredibly large, then where are the papers decrying it? This is the sort of opportunity scientists dream of - to overturn a generally-accepted theory.
So if China was using Ford cars to run people over in the streets, you'd expect Ford to keep selling them, as other people use Fords too?? Your logic is bizarre. The US is practising a behaviour not seen, and indeed illegal, in the EU. The EU doesn't want to encourage this behaviour, so it stop selling the drugs to the US. What happens after that is the US's problem - they decide to kill (possibly innocent) people, so the blood is on their hands.
So you want to kill people because you don't want to make your prisons less escape-proof? Even though inmates not sentenced to death, who still might have committed horrific acts, are escaping? It sounds like that's just an excuse, as anyone seriously concerned with their safety from escapees would be making the prisons less open, rather than merely killing a tiny subset of the inmates within. Your logic is not hiding your bloodlust.
And here's the problem. What if your brother had just run into that guy's kitchen and shot *his* brother in the head, and then ran away? The guy who shot your brother was merely exacting the same revenge you call for. Would his brother then be allowed to run into your house and shoot you? And if that's OK, can your surviving brother run into his house and shoot his surviving brother? Clearly some break in the cycle has to happen, otherwise entire families would disappear in bloody murders, which given the nature of families, would mean countless families would be slaughtered. Is that what you had in mind?
So it's smugness to point out that the US is doing barbaric things on purpose, and refuses to stop doing them? Things which you yourself admit are monstrous? Eh? It sounds like you just really don't like to be criticized by Europeans, which makes you seem really really insecure, as if you deep-down know that the US is a backwards country, and secretly wish you were one of those Europeans. Telling. Yes, a world in which no-one kills anyone else is indeed the best solution, and a great way to achieve that is to stop unnecessary killing, e.g. executions, which are by their very definition entirely avoidable.
Let me try: If you kill someone for killing someone else, do you expect to be killed? If no, then you are a hypocrite, and if yes, then there will be no-one left alive. Society punishes murderers because society strives to be better than murderers. Killing murderers makes the state a murderer, especially when you consider that over 300 people would have been killed had DNA not exonerated them. The whole thing is completely messed up and incredibly barbaric.
But they weren't cancelled because they were espousing the non-conforming viewpoint, but because they were shoddy as a journal regardless of the topic. Your sense of humour is broken, it seems.
London is thousands of years old, with ancient streets, and the oldest subway system in the world. Of course it's not going to be great. Still, they manage to have 40-60 trains per hour in the central tube stations, and buses all over the place. Europe has some stunning public transport, which you have clearly not experienced and assume does not exist. Where I live, there are trams and buses everywhere, and even regional trams travel right through the city centre. You can jump on a tram and go to the next city, or to small villages up in the mountains, really easily. They're not overcrowded, and they're not late. They're clean, frequent, value for money, and incredibly useful. I can get a tram outside my house to the train station (takes 6 minutes) and then jump on a high-speed train to most European capital in a matter of hours, in a comfortable, quiet electric train, at hundreds of miles per hour. I can wake up and go over the border to Paris for lunch with no prior thought, without having to touch a car. You can make yourself feel happy with your "distinct impression", while we're living with great public transport and little need for cars. You are confusing your opinion with fact, which is often done when hubris clouds one's vision.
"Some things aren't as good as they sound, so don't do anything at all, in fact be as wasteful as you want, and to hell with the consequences." Gotcha. Brilliant.
You take "great pride" in attending a school you did not choose, and that you had no hand in designing, building, or maintaining? Do you also feel full after someone else eats a meal? How peculiar.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone benefits from an educated population. Everyone. Every single person. That's why everyone should pay for it. Just because your kids go to school doesn't change that one iota.
No it didn't. The Earth was known to be round before the notion of peer review even existed. Please try to keep up. Your thinking is thousands of years old. You are conflating news stories about science with the science themselves. No wonder you are so confused about the world around you.
Evidence is not "piling up" that AGW is not a valid theory - quite the opposite. But seeing as you are arguing against the scientific method and don't see a problem with that, nothing on this planet will change your view. The rest of your post is just lunatic nonsense. You poor, poor thing. You call the "eco-nuts" clueless, when it appears you know even less.
"Birds"? I know it's satellite parlance, but really? Most birds fly, and satellites are constantly falling. Why not just call them satellites?
90% of prescriptions in the UK are dispensed for free, for example.
When people say healthcare is free, they mean the cost of being sick vs. the cost of not being sick is precisely 0. $0, â0, £0, whatever - 0. That means you don't have to think about whether you get sick and how that affects your bank balance, or whether you'll still have your house in 6 months. Yes, the actual costs are part of your taxes, but as they never change, illness won't affect your money. The fact everyone pays in means that prescriptions can be flat-rate, with a fixed price set by the government (of a few dollars/euros/pounds). That's the benefit of a single payer - they can dictate the price to ensure gouging doesn't happen, while spending enough to keep the pharmaceutical companies in business. But no - evil socialism, I'm sure. It's muuuch better in the US. Hint: In civilised countries personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses don't happen.
Viruses don't want to "take you out" - they want you to be perfectly normal. That's their whole thing. If a virus kills you, it didn't do it on purpose.
That's why people should take the medicine when the fever is dangerously hot, not simply because it's uncomfortable. Reducing a fever is going to help the infection. Reducing a not-dangerous fever is entirely counter-productive. Your point?
FTFY
I know what you mean, but these people are arguing against the efficacy of the scientific method itself. They are arguing against findings and methodologies they simply do not understand, that have been demonstrated to be useful by the very logical framework that enables them to do their internet-based complaining. If they were honestly picking apart the theories/hypotheses/methods/models/data, then you'd be right. But they're not. They're regurgitating oft-repeated attacks they've heard from other sources, which have been shown to be either factually incorrect, or outdated. If people get confused between regional winter temperatures and the global temperature, then they are in no position to doubt the scientific findings, and their opinion on the matter is literally worthless. If they had a point, all it would take is a few scientists and a research paper showing how it's wrong, and they'd win a Nobel prize and all the glory the scientific world had to offer. It's not as if they couldn't get funding for it, either - the coffers of big oil are big too. If it's so blindingly obviously wrong, or if the gaps are so incredibly large, then where are the papers decrying it? This is the sort of opportunity scientists dream of - to overturn a generally-accepted theory.
Countries with single payer don't need websites to check for eligibility. Either you have a SS number or you don't. That's the whole point.
So if China was using Ford cars to run people over in the streets, you'd expect Ford to keep selling them, as other people use Fords too?? Your logic is bizarre. The US is practising a behaviour not seen, and indeed illegal, in the EU. The EU doesn't want to encourage this behaviour, so it stop selling the drugs to the US. What happens after that is the US's problem - they decide to kill (possibly innocent) people, so the blood is on their hands.
So you want to kill people because you don't want to make your prisons less escape-proof? Even though inmates not sentenced to death, who still might have committed horrific acts, are escaping? It sounds like that's just an excuse, as anyone seriously concerned with their safety from escapees would be making the prisons less open, rather than merely killing a tiny subset of the inmates within. Your logic is not hiding your bloodlust.
And here's the problem. What if your brother had just run into that guy's kitchen and shot *his* brother in the head, and then ran away? The guy who shot your brother was merely exacting the same revenge you call for. Would his brother then be allowed to run into your house and shoot you? And if that's OK, can your surviving brother run into his house and shoot his surviving brother? Clearly some break in the cycle has to happen, otherwise entire families would disappear in bloody murders, which given the nature of families, would mean countless families would be slaughtered. Is that what you had in mind?
So it's smugness to point out that the US is doing barbaric things on purpose, and refuses to stop doing them? Things which you yourself admit are monstrous? Eh? It sounds like you just really don't like to be criticized by Europeans, which makes you seem really really insecure, as if you deep-down know that the US is a backwards country, and secretly wish you were one of those Europeans. Telling. Yes, a world in which no-one kills anyone else is indeed the best solution, and a great way to achieve that is to stop unnecessary killing, e.g. executions, which are by their very definition entirely avoidable.
Let me try: If you kill someone for killing someone else, do you expect to be killed? If no, then you are a hypocrite, and if yes, then there will be no-one left alive. Society punishes murderers because society strives to be better than murderers. Killing murderers makes the state a murderer, especially when you consider that over 300 people would have been killed had DNA not exonerated them. The whole thing is completely messed up and incredibly barbaric.
But they weren't cancelled because they were espousing the non-conforming viewpoint, but because they were shoddy as a journal regardless of the topic. Your sense of humour is broken, it seems.
London is thousands of years old, with ancient streets, and the oldest subway system in the world. Of course it's not going to be great. Still, they manage to have 40-60 trains per hour in the central tube stations, and buses all over the place. Europe has some stunning public transport, which you have clearly not experienced and assume does not exist. Where I live, there are trams and buses everywhere, and even regional trams travel right through the city centre. You can jump on a tram and go to the next city, or to small villages up in the mountains, really easily. They're not overcrowded, and they're not late. They're clean, frequent, value for money, and incredibly useful. I can get a tram outside my house to the train station (takes 6 minutes) and then jump on a high-speed train to most European capital in a matter of hours, in a comfortable, quiet electric train, at hundreds of miles per hour. I can wake up and go over the border to Paris for lunch with no prior thought, without having to touch a car. You can make yourself feel happy with your "distinct impression", while we're living with great public transport and little need for cars. You are confusing your opinion with fact, which is often done when hubris clouds one's vision.
Yes...I mean affirmative.
And that changes what, exactly?
Shh. Grown-ups are talking.
"Some things aren't as good as they sound, so don't do anything at all, in fact be as wasteful as you want, and to hell with the consequences." Gotcha. Brilliant.
Your maths sucks. Try $19.27.
No. Welcome to the tragedy.
You take "great pride" in attending a school you did not choose, and that you had no hand in designing, building, or maintaining? Do you also feel full after someone else eats a meal? How peculiar.