This is clear evidence that smoking can cause cancer.
But no proof in a lab, as you require for evolution.
What's more, it has nothing to do with your argument for evolution - its a straw man to prove evolution by dispelling any myths about smoking and cancer. I see no relation between the two.
It has to do with the standard of proof you require for evolution. Proof "in a lab", which hasn't been done for smoking, which you believe in, and hasn't been done for evolution, which you don't believe in.
Your standards of "proof" differ based on your opinion. That makes the entire discussion illogical. I can make arguments for either, but your appeal to logic, then rejection of it is what I'm calling you out on.
I'll tell you what I believe but it matters not for your case of evolution because neither of us have proof either way. Which was my original point.
So your position is "I believe there is no proof, so anything you were to present as proof, I will dismiss without evaluating it." If you were more upfront that you believe Evolution to be false, rather than claiming a false belief that there's a lack of proof for it, it would be easier to ignore you in the first place.
we can't have a conversation because you apparently believe smoking does not cause cancer
You are wrong on that point, as you apparently are for every belief you hold. It was the first thing that popped into my mind that has *never* been proven in a proper scientific study to be true, while nearly all people believe it to be.
I don't believe smoking causes cancer, I know it does. So your argument doesn't make any sense the way its stated.
Yes, I realize now, no argument makes sense to a True Believer. You don't think that smoking is bad. You have no proof that it's bad. You have a few anecdotes, and a religious devotion to an idea that it's bad. You don't have, or need proof. And that's proof that you single out evolution for a double standard.
That, and evolution has been "proven" in a lab, where new traits have been developed based on environmental pressures. That you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't change it. Since I haven't bothered to ask, I'll ask just to see your contortions to refuse to answer a direct question,:
Since you don't believe in Evolution, what do you believe is the origin of the species?
At any rate, you're straw-manning about smoking. I'm guessing you haven't had a close family member die of cancer caused by smoking because you'd understand the realities of it.
Just my aunt, and a few friends, and my father eventually died "early" because he was a smoker, though he didn't die of lung cancer like his sister.
So your answer is that you don't need "proof" for smoking, because you believe in it. But you need a higher standard of proof for evolution because you don't believe in it.
You talk about "proof" but it's all a lie. There is no "proof" that would satisfy you anyway. You are a Believer, not a rational person.
I think you struggle with this (evolution) as your belief but are happy to attack others who have a different belief because you think you have all the facts.
I never stated what I believe. I just called you out on your double standard. You should learn to read what people write, not make up stories in your head.
So CO made CO's problem. They are banning local people from catching water because they want to sell water for a profit, not because of CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, NE, or OK.
It's not a sexual term. That you are an uneducated troll (or is that redundant) doesn't change the meaning. Next, you'll argue that my cupboard isn't a cub-board because it holds plates. Your lack of knowledge isn't a strong foundation for an argument against others.
But I'll answer your question anyway since your level of mental understanding is so low. Smoking does cause harm, it has been proven. I can't seem to relay this concept to you in a way that you understand so I chose to skip it before.
It has never been proven "in a lab" that it does (in humans). So you hold one standard for smoking, and a different higher standard for evolution. Why? That's the question that I've been asking. I don't care about the smoking one, and haven't asked you the question you answered. Why do you hold one to a different standard?
But I won't digress to calling you a hypocrite or other names.
You believe smoking causes harm. You don't believe in evolution. Yet smoking harm has never met the standard you require for evolution. I asked why, and when you dodged the question in a course of mental masturbation around a bush, I pointed out this discrepency. I apologize if you can't take an honest criticism of your argument. I see now that honesty and truth offend. You've not given any, and you've wretched when any is presented to you.
Encryption won't keep them from wiping it and using it for something else, or giving it away to the first person who asks. Again, can't tell if I'm talking about cloud storage.
Where I live now, catching rainwater is required by law. But in areas of the US, catching the rainwater that falls on your roof is illegal. Colorado river basin being one such area, at least for those in Colorado. I haven't followed all the laws in the area I don't live. But some are pretty wacky.
Unless you pump the excise brine directly back into the ocean and kill all the life around the pump outlet.
You just dilute it. Pump in raw seawater/brine at a 10:1 ratio. The 10% brine solution will not be nearly as bad as the people who assume a single pipe outlet will be pumping out pure brine. You also pump it out in a long pipe with small adjustable vents along the length, with smaller amounts from each vent.
The total impact on the environment is negligible. As in, outside a sensor in the brine outlet, you won't be able to reliably detect it.
There's no overall effect on the ocean. The "pure" water removed will make it back shortly as rain or runoff. And if you like, you can process a portion the brine into salt. In a desert like CA, the process shouldn't take too long. And will reduce the total salinity of the ocean to offset any increase by the brine.
Bad idea. Storing spinning media in a car is a bad idea. The vibration can wear mechanical parts (yes, even if off and parked and all that). A bug SD card taped to the bottom of the ashtray would be untouched by thieves if the car were ever stolen and stripped, and would be unaffected by the vibrations. Just crack a window so you don't end up with 150+ temps in the car. I've seen CDs left on the dash melt in cars. Should be fine under the ashtray, but better safe.
Encrypt, and put it on 3 64G+ SD cards. Tiny things you can tape to the bottom of your desk at work (or a better hiding place), one in your fire safe, and one in the car. It doesn't matter whether they are lost, if you trust the encryption. And you'll always have a copy if your main is lost.
Media is cheap. Make extra copies if it's that important. Then scatter them (in places you can easily recover them from, of course).
Pumping back into the aquifer would be unusual. I hadn't heard of anywhere that did. But once the groundwater is surface water, it's re-used in almost all cases.
Most of the water they are drinking already was toilet to tap. From the people upstream.
But the ocean-discharge water is fine for agricultural use, and some industrial use. A separate water system using non-potable water for some uses would make more sense than using potable water for all uses.
I'v even seen indications that you could use osmosis as a power source for reverse osmosis, so that you could desalinate seawater from the power of the salinization of the wastewater.
Doesn't necessarily fix the problem. The Rio Grande river ran dry in early 2000s. The users that used it, then dumped used water back in didn't put enough back in for the river to make it to the ocean. It was 100% used and re-used, and didn't provide enough.
Are they really not recycling water now? I don't know of any location that doesn't recycle their water where there are other users and a shortage. The ones I know that don't are places like in Alaska where there is enough fresh water available in most places that re-use at cheap rates is still more expensive than just diverting another mountain spring and treating it. Almost nowhere is "upstream" or "downstream" of somewhere else, and most habitable locations are built on a water source much greater than demand.
But in places like Texas, the water taken from the Rio Grande by towns is generally treated and put back in, where it's used downstream. Re-use is common and used universally.
I don't believe that CA isn't practicing it on a municipality scale. And re-use within a home won't have much effect. If every home in CA used 0 water, the use would still exceed available water. Re-use in a home makes a small savings within a house. But the sink water in CA is (presumably) used by someone else, so pumping your sink water through a filter and into your toilet/yard won't reduce the total water demands on CA.
Yeah, that's why about 3 years ago the skilled migration program was ended, to help reduce migration. Open to the EU isn't open to the world. And anyone not in the EU is finding it harder to get into the UK. It's easier for me to migrate to Spain, wait 5 years, and get EU citizenship then migrate the UK than to get in to he UK directly. And those rules changed about 3 years ago.
Sometimes the history determines the.meaning, especially when taking the words directly from other languages, but the current usage wins, when talking about the current definition. Even more so when the history is under dispute.
All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion,
And if you read what was written about the EP, I never claimed that the EP freed a single slave, so your comment that the implication that it freed them all was a non sequitur. The EP talked about freeing slaves (whether it did, or which ones, if any, is irrelevant, thus wasn't mentioned), but the EP didn't mention making the slaves new citizens. That was the point. You were so focused on correcting an inference on your part that you missed what was said.
Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Much like the people who claim "no governemnt interference in our health care - repeal ACA" are the first to demand the government prevent a woman get a procedure from her doctor without permission from a man. And (a smaller subset of) those most opposed to gun registration are for the registration of sex offenders.
People are inconsistent and hypocritical.
to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.
To mean "Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free." The reference of the EP was a cite for a place where "freedom" was mentioned without any mention of making them new citizens; it was meant as an example, not an exhaustive list. Note in the wording, the "people" set the slaves free, not the EP.
Yes, because anyone who can logically prove the conservatives are wrong and hypocritical must be a Democrat. Nope, the US is a single party. It just has two arms to confuse the dumb voters like you into voting for evil in the assumption that it's the lesser. It's not lesser, it's the same.
The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to cause slave revolts in the South. The South couldn't win a civil war while fighting their own. It was an acceptable war strategy, so it was supported by the right and left at the time (the right wanted to win the war, the left wanted abolition). Then, after the war, even the right supported abolition, as they saw the evilness of using the slaves as a war-pawn, only to put them back in their cages when the war ends.
Read again. You are re-hashing an argument you've had with others. I never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. I never said it freed any slaves. I just mentioned that when people talked about ending slavery, there was no talk about making the non-citizen slaves into free citizens. The acts (be they proclamations, amendments, or otherwise) merely made them free. Citizenship was assumed.
They did not have full rights as citizens, however, until the passage of the 13th and other Amendments, as decisions such as Dred Scott established.
They had full rights, but those rights were enforced unequally (and, by some accounts, still are, so long as the "dead black man by the hands of the cops" number greatly exceeds the "dead white guy by the hands of the cops" number).
Hence, immigration is a good thing, but only to a point - not as an unlimited influx.
That's a better argument for not having closed the borders in the first place. The rush is from pent-up demand. Then when the borders are opened, by joining the EU (the only immigration you could be referring to, as all other immigration has been reduced), the flood of undesirables comes in. If you had always allowed them in, then there could never have been a flood.
Slashdot Mirror
This is clear evidence that smoking can cause cancer.
But no proof in a lab, as you require for evolution.
What's more, it has nothing to do with your argument for evolution - its a straw man to prove evolution by dispelling any myths about smoking and cancer. I see no relation between the two.
It has to do with the standard of proof you require for evolution. Proof "in a lab", which hasn't been done for smoking, which you believe in, and hasn't been done for evolution, which you don't believe in.
Your standards of "proof" differ based on your opinion. That makes the entire discussion illogical. I can make arguments for either, but your appeal to logic, then rejection of it is what I'm calling you out on.
I'll tell you what I believe but it matters not for your case of evolution because neither of us have proof either way. Which was my original point.
So your position is "I believe there is no proof, so anything you were to present as proof, I will dismiss without evaluating it." If you were more upfront that you believe Evolution to be false, rather than claiming a false belief that there's a lack of proof for it, it would be easier to ignore you in the first place.
Yes. Wealth is generated by the poor and redistributed to the rich. Distribution/redistribution is the same thing.
we can't have a conversation because you apparently believe smoking does not cause cancer
You are wrong on that point, as you apparently are for every belief you hold. It was the first thing that popped into my mind that has *never* been proven in a proper scientific study to be true, while nearly all people believe it to be.
I don't believe smoking causes cancer, I know it does. So your argument doesn't make any sense the way its stated.
Yes, I realize now, no argument makes sense to a True Believer. You don't think that smoking is bad. You have no proof that it's bad. You have a few anecdotes, and a religious devotion to an idea that it's bad. You don't have, or need proof. And that's proof that you single out evolution for a double standard.
That, and evolution has been "proven" in a lab, where new traits have been developed based on environmental pressures. That you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't change it. Since I haven't bothered to ask, I'll ask just to see your contortions to refuse to answer a direct question,:
Since you don't believe in Evolution, what do you believe is the origin of the species?
At any rate, you're straw-manning about smoking. I'm guessing you haven't had a close family member die of cancer caused by smoking because you'd understand the realities of it.
Just my aunt, and a few friends, and my father eventually died "early" because he was a smoker, though he didn't die of lung cancer like his sister.
So your answer is that you don't need "proof" for smoking, because you believe in it. But you need a higher standard of proof for evolution because you don't believe in it.
You talk about "proof" but it's all a lie. There is no "proof" that would satisfy you anyway. You are a Believer, not a rational person.
I think you struggle with this (evolution) as your belief but are happy to attack others who have a different belief because you think you have all the facts.
I never stated what I believe. I just called you out on your double standard. You should learn to read what people write, not make up stories in your head.
It's CO law in CO that made the rule, not federal law. So blaming others for your local politicians is a bit silly. http://water.state.co.us/DWRIP... (warning PDF, and all that) http://www.denverwater.org/Abo...
So CO made CO's problem. They are banning local people from catching water because they want to sell water for a profit, not because of CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, NE, or OK.
It's not a sexual term. That you are an uneducated troll (or is that redundant) doesn't change the meaning. Next, you'll argue that my cupboard isn't a cub-board because it holds plates. Your lack of knowledge isn't a strong foundation for an argument against others.
But I'll answer your question anyway since your level of mental understanding is so low. Smoking does cause harm, it has been proven. I can't seem to relay this concept to you in a way that you understand so I chose to skip it before.
It has never been proven "in a lab" that it does (in humans). So you hold one standard for smoking, and a different higher standard for evolution. Why? That's the question that I've been asking. I don't care about the smoking one, and haven't asked you the question you answered. Why do you hold one to a different standard?
But I won't digress to calling you a hypocrite or other names.
You believe smoking causes harm. You don't believe in evolution. Yet smoking harm has never met the standard you require for evolution. I asked why, and when you dodged the question in a course of mental masturbation around a bush, I pointed out this discrepency. I apologize if you can't take an honest criticism of your argument. I see now that honesty and truth offend. You've not given any, and you've wretched when any is presented to you.
Encryption won't keep them from wiping it and using it for something else, or giving it away to the first person who asks. Again, can't tell if I'm talking about cloud storage.
Where I live now, catching rainwater is required by law. But in areas of the US, catching the rainwater that falls on your roof is illegal. Colorado river basin being one such area, at least for those in Colorado. I haven't followed all the laws in the area I don't live. But some are pretty wacky.
Yes. It's actually hard to run a plant as bad for the environment as the environmentalists are calling for. It's almost all strawmen.
Unless you pump the excise brine directly back into the ocean and kill all the life around the pump outlet.
You just dilute it. Pump in raw seawater/brine at a 10:1 ratio. The 10% brine solution will not be nearly as bad as the people who assume a single pipe outlet will be pumping out pure brine. You also pump it out in a long pipe with small adjustable vents along the length, with smaller amounts from each vent.
The total impact on the environment is negligible. As in, outside a sensor in the brine outlet, you won't be able to reliably detect it.
There's no overall effect on the ocean. The "pure" water removed will make it back shortly as rain or runoff. And if you like, you can process a portion the brine into salt. In a desert like CA, the process shouldn't take too long. And will reduce the total salinity of the ocean to offset any increase by the brine.
Population's fine. Wealth distribution and population growth aren't.
Bad idea. Storing spinning media in a car is a bad idea. The vibration can wear mechanical parts (yes, even if off and parked and all that). A bug SD card taped to the bottom of the ashtray would be untouched by thieves if the car were ever stolen and stripped, and would be unaffected by the vibrations. Just crack a window so you don't end up with 150+ temps in the car. I've seen CDs left on the dash melt in cars. Should be fine under the ashtray, but better safe.
Encrypt, and put it on 3 64G+ SD cards. Tiny things you can tape to the bottom of your desk at work (or a better hiding place), one in your fire safe, and one in the car. It doesn't matter whether they are lost, if you trust the encryption. And you'll always have a copy if your main is lost.
Media is cheap. Make extra copies if it's that important. Then scatter them (in places you can easily recover them from, of course).
Pumping back into the aquifer would be unusual. I hadn't heard of anywhere that did. But once the groundwater is surface water, it's re-used in almost all cases.
Most of the water they are drinking already was toilet to tap. From the people upstream.
But the ocean-discharge water is fine for agricultural use, and some industrial use. A separate water system using non-potable water for some uses would make more sense than using potable water for all uses.
I'v even seen indications that you could use osmosis as a power source for reverse osmosis, so that you could desalinate seawater from the power of the salinization of the wastewater.
Doesn't necessarily fix the problem. The Rio Grande river ran dry in early 2000s. The users that used it, then dumped used water back in didn't put enough back in for the river to make it to the ocean. It was 100% used and re-used, and didn't provide enough.
Are they really not recycling water now? I don't know of any location that doesn't recycle their water where there are other users and a shortage. The ones I know that don't are places like in Alaska where there is enough fresh water available in most places that re-use at cheap rates is still more expensive than just diverting another mountain spring and treating it. Almost nowhere is "upstream" or "downstream" of somewhere else, and most habitable locations are built on a water source much greater than demand.
But in places like Texas, the water taken from the Rio Grande by towns is generally treated and put back in, where it's used downstream. Re-use is common and used universally.
I don't believe that CA isn't practicing it on a municipality scale. And re-use within a home won't have much effect. If every home in CA used 0 water, the use would still exceed available water. Re-use in a home makes a small savings within a house. But the sink water in CA is (presumably) used by someone else, so pumping your sink water through a filter and into your toilet/yard won't reduce the total water demands on CA.
Then answer the question: when did they become citizens?
Yeah, that's why about 3 years ago the skilled migration program was ended, to help reduce migration. Open to the EU isn't open to the world. And anyone not in the EU is finding it harder to get into the UK. It's easier for me to migrate to Spain, wait 5 years, and get EU citizenship then migrate the UK than to get in to he UK directly. And those rules changed about 3 years ago.
Sometimes the history determines the .meaning, especially when taking the words directly from other languages, but the current usage wins, when talking about the current definition. Even more so when the history is under dispute.
All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion,
And if you read what was written about the EP, I never claimed that the EP freed a single slave, so your comment that the implication that it freed them all was a non sequitur. The EP talked about freeing slaves (whether it did, or which ones, if any, is irrelevant, thus wasn't mentioned), but the EP didn't mention making the slaves new citizens. That was the point. You were so focused on correcting an inference on your part that you missed what was said.
Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Much like the people who claim "no governemnt interference in our health care - repeal ACA" are the first to demand the government prevent a woman get a procedure from her doctor without permission from a man. And (a smaller subset of) those most opposed to gun registration are for the registration of sex offenders.
People are inconsistent and hypocritical.
to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.
To mean "Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free." The reference of the EP was a cite for a place where "freedom" was mentioned without any mention of making them new citizens; it was meant as an example, not an exhaustive list. Note in the wording, the "people" set the slaves free, not the EP.
Yes, because anyone who can logically prove the conservatives are wrong and hypocritical must be a Democrat. Nope, the US is a single party. It just has two arms to confuse the dumb voters like you into voting for evil in the assumption that it's the lesser. It's not lesser, it's the same.
The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to cause slave revolts in the South. The South couldn't win a civil war while fighting their own. It was an acceptable war strategy, so it was supported by the right and left at the time (the right wanted to win the war, the left wanted abolition). Then, after the war, even the right supported abolition, as they saw the evilness of using the slaves as a war-pawn, only to put them back in their cages when the war ends.
They did not have full rights as citizens, however, until the passage of the 13th and other Amendments, as decisions such as Dred Scott established.
They had full rights, but those rights were enforced unequally (and, by some accounts, still are, so long as the "dead black man by the hands of the cops" number greatly exceeds the "dead white guy by the hands of the cops" number).
Hence, immigration is a good thing, but only to a point - not as an unlimited influx.
That's a better argument for not having closed the borders in the first place. The rush is from pent-up demand. Then when the borders are opened, by joining the EU (the only immigration you could be referring to, as all other immigration has been reduced), the flood of undesirables comes in. If you had always allowed them in, then there could never have been a flood.