Is this the way you normally talk to people? If you think he's wrong, you can say why, but do you honestly expect him to come up with sources for you? Especially if you're talking to him like he's a child and you're the teacher or some shit? If people don't respond to you, it not because you've won, it's because you aren't worth it.
The supreme court recently heard arguments that the second amendment only guarantees a collective right to bear arms. To me the obvious question is: what good is a collective right?
No, he did lie to them. But they didn't invest a lot of effort investigating his claims, which is strange since they are supposed to be on opposite teams, politically speaking. In that case, it is appropriate to say they are responsible for their actions in supporting the war.
It turns out flood control is doesn't work if you keep your reservoirs filled to capacity. Who knew? At least it's something that is easy to avoid in the future. Also, I suspect that you are not aware how much yields were actually affected. The answer to your question is that overall yields weren't affected much. We're not going to be starving to death from lack of corn anytime soon.
While I generally agree with your sentiment, this is clearly wrong:
If people listen to your words, then I believe they are at fault
If you take some time to think about the information you use to make decisions (and even the logical process used) you may be surprised just how much you take to be true based solely on the fact someone told it to you.
If someone lies to you, and you have reason to trust them, or you make a reasonable effort to uncover the truth, you really can't be held accountable for believing the lie. The thing that trips people up is sometimes they want to believe the lie so they can do something they couldn't justify otherwise (for example WMD in Iraq and the whole Bush lied thousands died thing).
You can tell the difference in the way people respond to learning they were lied to. If they make excuses like "I'm not responsible because I was lied to" or "I was just following orders" and they shift responsibility, "Bush should be imprisoned" and whatnot, chances are they are culpable for their actions. On the other hand, if they are remorseful, take responsibility, and take action to try to set things right, chances are they actually were deceived.
As the Earth heats, we can expect to find less arable land.
Care to explain this one? More heat = more precipitation, longer growing seasons, and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. That should mean more arable land, right?
The contract between Apple and Sprint is 5 years, we are talking about the end user. ATT and Verizon sell it with a two year contract, so it's pretty silly to think the user is somehow going to be signing on for a 5 year contract.
Health care is not necessary for civilization, because people will usually heal on their own. It's more of an efficiency and quality of life improvement. People say that it's absolutely necessary are deluding themselves. Here is a list of things that are more important for a society:
actually necessary: Nutritious Food Clean Water Breathable Air
more important than health care (in no particular order): Shelter Transportation Infrastructure Education Currency Mineral Resources Communication Infrastructure
I don't know how much I missed, but there's probably a lot more.
I'm not sure that's true. There's not any innovation at all going on in health insurance. For a long time, the innovation was just them looking for new and inventive ways not to pay out. And innovation in health care is limited to developing new drugs and treatments, not streamlining old ones and increasing efficiency. Health care in the US is shockingly poorly managed. You might be surprised what cost pressures will do for the industry, if they ever come to pass.
That said, anything is better than what we have now. Even if it does turn into a single payer system, I'd count it as a win, and I'm an anarchist.
DARE grossly misrepresents the truth about drugs. Kids aren't stupid, and they resent being lied to and condescended. It's not knowing about drugs that gets them into trouble, but knowing that they can't trust what they've been told.
I would say that not educating your children about drugs is a very bad idea. Do you really think it won't come up on it's own? Are you really sure that it wouldn't be better for them to hear about them from you? Because if that's the case, they'll learn about them from some drug dealer.
When would be the appropriate age? Much older and your kid might not listen to you at all.
Age appropriateness in books has more to do with ability to comprehend content. If your kid is picking it up and reading it, that means it's age appropriate for them. It would be different if we we talking abbot movies, but you can't even understand a book unless you already know a lot about what you are reading.
I've read the Bible a couple times, it doesn't say that.
God does command the Israelites to kill certain people (for example the inhabitants of Jericho) based on their practices which it claims are an abomination to God. Whether or not they are believers doesn't enter into it.
Nevertheless, these verses are largely censored in churches. Not so much because preachers want to denigrate them, but because preachers are generally a bunch of spineless cowards who want to avoid difficult conversations that might hurt the profitability of their churches.
I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
That said, there's got to be a better way than just turning the issue over to banks and letting the dollar be worth whatever they say it's worth. That is a really bad idea, and it's an obvious conflict of interest.
We really just need to stop selling ourselves to bankers. I know that people say buying a house, or taking out loans to get a college education is an investment, but in reality you're mortgaging your livelihood in order to buy into a system.
Before you write me off as a nut, hear me out. Very few jobs make use of what you learn in college. Yet college enrollments are higher than ever, and many jobs require degrees, even though they don't actually require degrees. The practical effect is that only people who have sold themselves to banks are allowed to participate in large portions of the economy.
Home buying is much worse. Houses cost much more to buy than they cost to produce. The lending process has encouraged people to pay prices that in the past they wouldn't have felt they were able to afford. As a consequence they've driven up a housing "bubble" much larger than the one that just burst. The government and the banks have been encouraging home-buying for decades now. The whole point (or the practical effect) is that people with a mortgage need to stick with it, and continue working their jobs, or they will be out of the system.
So a big part of the problem is just how we spend out money. We take on mountains of debt that will be repaid with our future labor. And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future). This has the effect of consolidating a lot of power with the people how have a lot of money today. If we didn't do that, they would have about as much power as the rest of us.
Obviously the gold standard is no good, but we do need to move away from an arbitrary standard to free us from market manipulation. Currency should be based on actual value. Tangible, fungible goods that would still be equally valuable were they not used for currency. Things like stored grains, oil, and useful minerals. The quantity of currency would be limited to the actual quantity of resources on hand, and the reserve ratio should be set so that the money multiplier is equal the the the ratio of the quantity of goods available over the lifespan of a person to the quantity held in reserve.
Imagine you've spent three years in law school, two more years clerking, and the last decade trying to make partner — and now here comes a machine that can do much of your $400-per-hour job faster, and for a fraction of the cost. What do you do now?
Part of the concept of the 787 is that it will reduce travel time by offering more direct flights. Hence the plane holds just 250 people but has a range of 8000 miles.
The reason they lost half their market value is because they raised their prices, which they obviously did so they could afford to buy movies this way.
No, comparing the total number of rockets a nation has launched to the number of failures is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. There are many different space launch systems and experimental projects represented in such a figure. When you're talking about reliability, you want to look at the current state of the art, not some older system which is no longer used. And you can't just average all the launches together, because the individual launch systems have nothing to do with each other.
Here is a better look at the reliability picture. You can see the top three are Delta 2, Soyuz U, and STS, all with between 97 to 98 percent.
The shuttle didn't have more problems than any other space launch system. That's saying a lot, because it is much more complicated than it needs to be. You are just being stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the way you normally talk to people? If you think he's wrong, you can say why, but do you honestly expect him to come up with sources for you? Especially if you're talking to him like he's a child and you're the teacher or some shit? If people don't respond to you, it not because you've won, it's because you aren't worth it.
The supreme court recently heard arguments that the second amendment only guarantees a collective right to bear arms. To me the obvious question is: what good is a collective right?
No, he did lie to them. But they didn't invest a lot of effort investigating his claims, which is strange since they are supposed to be on opposite teams, politically speaking. In that case, it is appropriate to say they are responsible for their actions in supporting the war.
It turns out flood control is doesn't work if you keep your reservoirs filled to capacity. Who knew? At least it's something that is easy to avoid in the future. Also, I suspect that you are not aware how much yields were actually affected. The answer to your question is that overall yields weren't affected much. We're not going to be starving to death from lack of corn anytime soon.
While I generally agree with your sentiment, this is clearly wrong:
If you take some time to think about the information you use to make decisions (and even the logical process used) you may be surprised just how much you take to be true based solely on the fact someone told it to you.
If someone lies to you, and you have reason to trust them, or you make a reasonable effort to uncover the truth, you really can't be held accountable for believing the lie. The thing that trips people up is sometimes they want to believe the lie so they can do something they couldn't justify otherwise (for example WMD in Iraq and the whole Bush lied thousands died thing).
You can tell the difference in the way people respond to learning they were lied to. If they make excuses like "I'm not responsible because I was lied to" or "I was just following orders" and they shift responsibility, "Bush should be imprisoned" and whatnot, chances are they are culpable for their actions. On the other hand, if they are remorseful, take responsibility, and take action to try to set things right, chances are they actually were deceived.
Maybe free speech is a collective right, not an individual one.
Care to explain this one? More heat = more precipitation, longer growing seasons, and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. That should mean more arable land, right?
The contract between Apple and Sprint is 5 years, we are talking about the end user. ATT and Verizon sell it with a two year contract, so it's pretty silly to think the user is somehow going to be signing on for a 5 year contract.
I think you misspelled castration.
Health care is not necessary for civilization, because people will usually heal on their own. It's more of an efficiency and quality of life improvement. People say that it's absolutely necessary are deluding themselves. Here is a list of things that are more important for a society:
actually necessary:
Nutritious Food
Clean Water
Breathable Air
more important than health care (in no particular order):
Shelter
Transportation Infrastructure
Education
Currency
Mineral Resources
Communication Infrastructure
I don't know how much I missed, but there's probably a lot more.
I'm not sure that's true. There's not any innovation at all going on in health insurance. For a long time, the innovation was just them looking for new and inventive ways not to pay out. And innovation in health care is limited to developing new drugs and treatments, not streamlining old ones and increasing efficiency. Health care in the US is shockingly poorly managed. You might be surprised what cost pressures will do for the industry, if they ever come to pass.
That said, anything is better than what we have now. Even if it does turn into a single payer system, I'd count it as a win, and I'm an anarchist.
You're the kind of person that teaches their kid to swim by throwing them in the deep end, huh?
DARE grossly misrepresents the truth about drugs. Kids aren't stupid, and they resent being lied to and condescended. It's not knowing about drugs that gets them into trouble, but knowing that they can't trust what they've been told.
I would say that not educating your children about drugs is a very bad idea. Do you really think it won't come up on it's own? Are you really sure that it wouldn't be better for them to hear about them from you? Because if that's the case, they'll learn about them from some drug dealer.
When would be the appropriate age? Much older and your kid might not listen to you at all.
Age appropriateness in books has more to do with ability to comprehend content. If your kid is picking it up and reading it, that means it's age appropriate for them. It would be different if we we talking abbot movies, but you can't even understand a book unless you already know a lot about what you are reading.
I've read the Bible a couple times, it doesn't say that.
God does command the Israelites to kill certain people (for example the inhabitants of Jericho) based on their practices which it claims are an abomination to God. Whether or not they are believers doesn't enter into it.
Nevertheless, these verses are largely censored in churches. Not so much because preachers want to denigrate them, but because preachers are generally a bunch of spineless cowards who want to avoid difficult conversations that might hurt the profitability of their churches.
I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
That said, there's got to be a better way than just turning the issue over to banks and letting the dollar be worth whatever they say it's worth. That is a really bad idea, and it's an obvious conflict of interest.
We really just need to stop selling ourselves to bankers. I know that people say buying a house, or taking out loans to get a college education is an investment, but in reality you're mortgaging your livelihood in order to buy into a system.
Before you write me off as a nut, hear me out. Very few jobs make use of what you learn in college. Yet college enrollments are higher than ever, and many jobs require degrees, even though they don't actually require degrees. The practical effect is that only people who have sold themselves to banks are allowed to participate in large portions of the economy.
Home buying is much worse. Houses cost much more to buy than they cost to produce. The lending process has encouraged people to pay prices that in the past they wouldn't have felt they were able to afford. As a consequence they've driven up a housing "bubble" much larger than the one that just burst. The government and the banks have been encouraging home-buying for decades now. The whole point (or the practical effect) is that people with a mortgage need to stick with it, and continue working their jobs, or they will be out of the system.
So a big part of the problem is just how we spend out money. We take on mountains of debt that will be repaid with our future labor. And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future). This has the effect of consolidating a lot of power with the people how have a lot of money today. If we didn't do that, they would have about as much power as the rest of us.
Obviously the gold standard is no good, but we do need to move away from an arbitrary standard to free us from market manipulation. Currency should be based on actual value. Tangible, fungible goods that would still be equally valuable were they not used for currency. Things like stored grains, oil, and useful minerals. The quantity of currency would be limited to the actual quantity of resources on hand, and the reserve ratio should be set so that the money multiplier is equal the the the ratio of the quantity of goods available over the lifespan of a person to the quantity held in reserve.
Buy one. It's a tool, not a lawyer.
In the 787, the wings and the fuselage are made from composites. In the A380 they are aluminum. That's basically the entire plane.
I'd love to fly on an A380 too, but it's a completely different kind jet.
Part of the concept of the 787 is that it will reduce travel time by offering more direct flights. Hence the plane holds just 250 people but has a range of 8000 miles.
The reason they lost half their market value is because they raised their prices, which they obviously did so they could afford to buy movies this way.
No, comparing the total number of rockets a nation has launched to the number of failures is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. There are many different space launch systems and experimental projects represented in such a figure. When you're talking about reliability, you want to look at the current state of the art, not some older system which is no longer used. And you can't just average all the launches together, because the individual launch systems have nothing to do with each other.
Here is a better look at the reliability picture. You can see the top three are Delta 2, Soyuz U, and STS, all with between 97 to 98 percent.
The shuttle didn't have more problems than any other space launch system. That's saying a lot, because it is much more complicated than it needs to be. You are just being stupid.
Nope, SpaceX clearly wins that one.