the pattern is the insight. I told you I wouldnt call it insight though.
But the pattern only exists in your head with the malice applied. You are imposing it because of your worldviews. If you did not do so, everything can easily be explained away by ignorance and a desire to aid the countries safety. Seriously, what does the administration have to gain by the TSP other then securing the safety of the country? You can't point to any other agenda then that.
Yes the republicans have 1000x the balls of the democrats because their base is 1000x stronger.
And that is why the republicans lost both houses and the administration seat in the last few elections? Wake up man.
Occam's razor is arbitrary. It doesn't take into account corruption and has us presuppose that power hungry people actually in power are just innocent. If you really want some folk wisdom how about "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...try applying THAT to this situation.
You still haven't addressed Hanlon's Razor nor have you show a benefit of the corruption. Simply saying the accumulation of power doesn't fit because the administration peacefully gave their power up in January. As for absolute power corrupts absolutely, when did the administration ever have absolute power?
You seem to have invented this "i need more power" reasoning to justify your positions then are attempting to apply a principle that history has shown wrong on several occasions as if they already have the power in order to justify your positions leading to the justification of the previous position. The problem is that neither position held to support your worldview is complete without you assuming many things that only exist in your head. When you can arrive at a solid conclusion without attaching some made up attribute, then your point of view would have more legitimacy. But as it stands, you claim more power was the motivation when he gave the power up, you then claim absolute power corrupts when attempting to assert the acquisition of more power as a motivator.
You are confusing reason with facts or empirical evidence. A person with faith very much reasons and reconciles their faith just as an atheist does. There is no constructional difference between the process or mechanics of the process. If you didn't know and didn't care, it would be a different story and no faith would exist. However, considering that neither theist or atheist beliefs are rooted in provable or testable evidence, then asserting either over the other becomes an act of faith.
Wow, you really have no concept at all of why they didn't prosecute. You live in a fantasy world where lack of prosecution implies innocence.
No, lack of prosecution implies legitimacy. It's two entirely different concepts. You should learn about them.
To deny that the right would totally go ape-shit over the left trying to prosecute the bush admin on this is insane.
Who really cares, and yes, there was quite a few republicans claiming the programs were illegal too. Again, you are acting like something in your head is fact when it isn't.
And yes the the DoJ COULD try to do it on their own but Obama would get blamed, and the same situation would ensue.
Nice how you neglected the fact that the program was known and thought to of been illegal but the "vote for me" crowd for at least 5 years during the Bush administration.
Obama wants to move on so that the right can't keep lambasting him on these issues, so he just drops them because its politically better to drop them than to be a martyr.
So tell me, which is better, and administration that appears to have broken a law or an administration who does nothing about it because it is politically advantageous?
eah you're right national security claims allow wholesale tapping! / please. Yoo doesn't want to tap suspects but EVERYONE....thats some national interest claim.
Umm.. look up the cases yourself. National security allows a lot of things otherwise bared. Searches at the borders are one, the very first congress of the US, one that was comprised of many of the founding fathers, implemented border searches without warrants and the courts backed them up completely. And no, it wasn't everyone, it was international calls and information- crossing the borders. Anything other then those claims is more of your imagination at work. But seriously, don't take my word for it, educate your sorry self and look the shit up yourself.
Hahah so everyone else collectively looks at Yoo's opinions and calls them insane but he had no malicious intent. It's just a big coincidence? Occam's razor is bullshit and exactly the principle behind plausible deniability. without it then plausible deniability doesnt work. The obvious pattern which YOU cant see is that this administration was corrupt beyond belief.
No idiot. One more time, because his opinions were called insane, it does not indicate malice. Get it straight this time. You have no proof of anything outside of your imagination and until there is proof, it is only your opinion. Occam's razor is only bullshit because you need it to be in order to perpetuate your myth.
No one prosecuted because congress wanted to get reelected and feared that the right would lambast the shit out of them, like they already do. what is politically pheasible is often short of what is right.
If they had a clear right, then they would have done it. The republicans attempted to do it years before, Clinton was impeached. Are you saying that the republicans have more balls then the democrats?
Glad you have to resort to name calling and insults.
I'm not sure what recourse you have left me. You admitted this is only in your head, that you have no special insight or proof and yet you still refuse to acknowledge that this is your opinion and not fact.
Actually, I don't believe in either, but I believe in the possibility of either but have nothing to convince me of their existence.
go ahead and criticize me no matter which response I give. Be careful because I don't think I answered that in the way you wanted me to. When you don't believe in a god and exclude their possibility, you are practicing faith in the same mechanical way as a believer is sure that Jesus is his lord and savior. Not being convinced in something is agnostic, not being convinced and attempting to claim it's false is an act of faith when no proof or testable evidence for your position exists.
In your earlier post, you did not give enough information to use my "google finger". What google terms do you derive from "In science, a 2 year old can be dated 14 million years old."? You said nothing about snails. It has been known for some time that radiocarbon dating of snails is unreliable because they ingest limestone and incorporate it into their shells. Tamers (1970) citing a 1963 study observed "The use of terrestrial shells for radiocarbon dating is generally regarded as giving unreliable results". Of course, your original assertion that "a 2 year old [snail] can be dated to 14 million years" is false, I notice you amended that to "thousands of year (sic) old" in your later post, which is in the right order of magnitude.
You can use your brain if you want to. There is more to it then just snails, that why I pointed to your google finger. Coal test wrong, oceanic fossils on mountain ranges test differently as the elevation goes up and so on. There is also the problem of people on here thinking that carbon dating goes back to prove a time line of the dinosaurs which is impossible.
The link you provided mentions nothing about your original assertions. It is a collection of quotes on the methods used for fossil dating.
I will probably find my link to the fossils not lining up or running through several periods of time like trees extending through several thousand years of sediment or diamond necklaces found in coal mines embedded in coal supposedly dating back to millions of years before man has been around.
I know your time is very valuable (for example, it takes an immense amount of time to learn the difference between waist and waste) but would it really take that long to back up your statements? You make outlandish claims, then when asked for evidence say "you are in charge of proving my claims" and "It's a widely believed fact!".
Actually, you made a false asertion so you show where the bible says only adam and eve was here. Everyone I know who has actually read a bible knows the bible says nothing of the sort. Either pony up or shut up about it. The only way I could disprove your so called widely believe fact is to paste the entire bible here. You know that's impossible so show your evidence.
Actually, no. Atheism is faith in that the unknown is not true. This is completely different from the known like playing tennis as a sport as in you have no proof or testable evidence to the truth or not of a God.
In fact, the same mechanism for believe in a god is present in the rejection of the belief. This is evident because you made a conscious decision about it.
If you would have read the article, you would have discovered that it happened not because of the politicians involvement with religion but because of a constitutional clause in the Irish constitution that makes it so.
I'm a nerd, not a salesman. You're still talking about selling products, I'm talking about the general good. IBM's profits don't help society; the only segment of society IBM cares abdout is IBM's stockholders.
The reasons for your misconceptions do not make them right. IBM's concern is to the society in which it sells and has to reconcile that with the stock holders. IF IBM were to forget about the society in general, or at least their market segment, they would go out of business because there is enough competition to over take them when society turns against them. Now, you do no need to be a business major to see that going out of business is not in the interest of the stockholders.
Your argument doesn't stand up in the face of the poison peanut butter last year, or all the other poison food sold (I'm talking salmonella and e-coli, not WMDs)
Silly boy, don't confuse results with intent and don't confuse the actions of one with many. First of all, neither company knew it was poisoning people with it's food. They were completely oblivious until after the fact and they all stop selling the contaminated products. Second, you are not even considering the outcome, tomatoes were banned for a while, so was spinach. What possible benefit to the share holders could no being able to sell a perishable product bring about? What possible benefit to the share holders can the massive lawsuits over the even have to the shareholders. If you look, you will find that the peanut butter issue was because of a roof leak that supposedly was not noticed until after the contamination and that company is completely out of business now. What possible benefit to the share holder did that bring? The benefit would have been to avoid the contamination in the first place and profitable sell safe food instead of going out of business or losing an entire crop.
or the poison dog and cat food the year before
And I believe that the chinese responsible for it faced a death penalty because of how wrong it was, their sales have dropped, they were forced to do a product recall and import restrictions around the world were placed on the company. How is that in the interests of the stock holders?
fire in the Georgia chicken processing plant in the eighties that killed 25 people who couldn't get out because management chained the doors shut.
You mean the Hamlet chicken processing plant fire that resulted in the forever closing of the plant, the owner serving 20 years in prison and the highest fines ever levied at that time? How was that any good for investors? Clealy they lost more then any occasion theft through fire exist would have been stopped due to the chaining of the doors.
It doesn't explain why Jack in the Box is still open for business, despite the fact that its poisoning outbreak ten or so years ago killed children.
You mean the lettuce contamination from a single store who instead of purchasing from a company's authorized supplier ended up buying from a local farmer? Why should the entire chain be shut down because of the actions of an Isolated store that was taken completely outside of their approved procurement processes? Also, they sales dropped, they almost did go out of business nation wide and can you tell me how that was good for the share holders? If I remember correctly, they didn't even save money buying the produce fresh, they were just attempting to help out someone a manager knew.
It doesn't explain Enron - that was an example of BAD regulation. Enron (and the California blackouts/brownouts) happened after d
Great strawman. I have never met a scientist that claimed "science is complete". Science, by nature, is always incomplete. Even if you come up with a theory that can explain and predict some aspect of physical reality (say, universal gravitation) someone can still come along and prove you wrong with their own theory (like relativity). The very basis of science is experimentation and reproducibility - the very antithesis of faith.
What part of "as it is expressed around here" do you not understand? As I said, I was not arguing against science, I'm pointing out the similarities between science and religion as it's expresses around here. Whether people want to admit it or not, the science isn't complete and there are a lot of gaps that require a certain level of faith.
Did you notice how I said people and not scientist?
As for your citation, shells of live snails have been tested using carbon dating and tested to thousands of year old even though scientist have watched them grow and they were still alive today. As you are able to type a reply, I assume your google finger is not broken and you can find your own citations.
As for the other citation you need, you should easily be able to find articles on that too with your google finger. I'm not sure if your being intellectually lazy or just attempting to waist my time. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/dating/dating.htm is one dealing with the stratification anomalies, there are plenty of pay articles you can select from. I was under the assumption that this knowledge was widely known and supported by the science community so I'm currious given your stand to why you need citations.
Is it your position that Adam and Eve were not the only people on the earth at the time of the Garden of Eden? Because the bible specifically states that they were. If one believes all the other myths in the bible why not believe in that one as well?
It most certainly does not say that Adam and Eve were the only people on earth during the time of the garden of Eden. You cannot find any passage making that claim in any legitimate bible either. The bible only talks about them and about them in the garden of Eden but makes no mention outside of that or limiting it to that. And as we know from later in the bible, Lucifer created man too which caused the riff between him and God and angels were porking man which ended up with halfbreed man and caused God to do the flood of Noah which destroyed them.
Lol.. s troll mod. I must have hit a nerve with someone by pointing out the flaws in their argument. Oh well, what do you expect when science becomes people's religion.
Which rule of acquisition is that one, Quark? A company's profits has little to nothing to do with the good of society.
Perhaps you should go back to business school. If no one is buying your products, you have no profit. If you alienate a certain portion of the population, you make less profits. It's in your best interest that the population or society at large is not only willing but capable of buying your products. They are intertwined more then it seems you can fathom.
Good regulations don't.
No, all regulation does. It places requirements and costs that wouldn't have already been there. It's entirely possible that the rise in the bar for entry and cost doesn't substantially limit competition in some cases, but it always raises the bar for entry and places a burden on smaller businesses.
Since you accused me of "misleading" my anger level suddenly shot up. So prepare yourself.
Don't get angry, misleading can be done unintentional as well as intentionally. I never attempted to assign malice to the act, I only wanted to show the differences within what was stated and what is reality. And the confusion you pointed out below is your fault for using vague terminology in a setting with normal consumer alternatives leading to the natural assumption of a water heater. You should have been more specific if you wished to differentiate between the two.
If you go back and READ what I wrote, I was Not discussing the water heater which operates normally. I was discussing the central heating, which uses a heat pump to boost a ~400 gallon tank to ~180 degrees during the night, and then remains completely turned-off from 7am to 5pm. Daytime heat comes from the stored water. The advantage is that my power company gave me cheaper nightly rates to use this system.
That's perfectly reasonable as stated there. However, your original statement was about a heater and a tank of water which is classically associated with a water heater as I expanded on. The single addition of the word pump instead of just heater as in "heat pump" instead of "heater" would have cleared that up before it ever became an issue to either of us. Communications is only effective if we convey a complete though in a way that others will understand the intent as well as the meaning of the communications.
And now they've discontinued the cheap night rates, such that it makes no difference when you operate your heat pump.
I attempted to touch on reasons to why that is in my previous post. However, now that I realize I was wrong in my initial interpretation, I think I may be able to offer a few suggestions that could help a little. I built a solar heater a while back for my hog house which I later modified to a solar water heater. It was pretty simple and cheap if you own your own home. Anyways, you could possibly adapt something like that to your water storage tank. I used an old DC feed pump and a solar cell/battery combo designed to operate an electric gate to circulate the water for a few minutes once the panel water reached a certain temp (about 145-160 degrees). I was only attempting to radiate some heat through the building while keeping the watering lines from freezing. hogs don't need to be super hot but they have a hard time near freezing and below. I also used a recycled 75 gallon hot water heater tank to store heat over night and switched a valve to turn off the solar heater circuit of the water feed after dark so I didn't just radiate it back outside. This kept the pad the hogs stay on close to about 40 degrees during the night (even at 20 below zero) and stopped the water hydrants from freezing. That's pretty remarkable considering one side of the barn is completely open with no doors whatsoever. I did have to buffer the pad with bales of straw to block some wind.
Anyways, perhaps that might be helpful in recapturing some of your lost savings. Without the costs of automating it, I had roughly $150 in total in it before I attempted to automate it. It costs me another $75-100 to put extra temp sensors in, solar cell and battery, digital timer and control circuit and solenoids to operate the loop valves to close off the heater at night as well as notify me of a problem should it stop working or the temps get dangerously low. I'm sure it could be done better and cheaper. You can find ideas of it on the web or I can tell you what I did. My way will probably be screwed and less efficient because I initially build it as something else and modified it later.
No, the definition is not under natural conditions. That is a preposterous condition invented by the needs of evangelical atheist to prove macro-evolution true in the face of evidence and the lack of being pointed out to them. This is how preposterous it is, People in AU that would never leave would thereby be a different species then people in Europe or America who would never leave their country or continent. It's so preposterous that under that definition, two Golden retrievers, one in England and one in the US would be separate species because they couldn't procreate and produce viable offspring due to an ocean separating them.
Also the Eastern Rosella is a different breed, not a new species. The fact that they don't mate which I believe was because the males drove the competing male birds away and not because they weren't recognized as a mate, does not make them a new species- it makes them different within the same species. This is called a different breed of a species.
If the definition was "can't not won't" then Sally and her Donkey would be the same species! j/k
Actually, it would be can't as in cannot and that does not make them the same species, it by default makes them separate species- joking or not.
Man, you are working hard convoluting that to get what you want it to mean out.
You are even assigning attributes that aren't always there in order to do it. How proud you must be. Here is a hint, you don't need to be blindly obedient to be patriotic. You don't need to blindly trust or accept anything the country is doing to be patriotic. Only in your imaginary world is that true.
Actually, that isn't speciation as the traditional context of species is concerned. You have either been tricked into believing something from an agenda driven site or are just that ignorant and want to make the leap.
All of the supposed speciation is backwards compatible in that breeding out the differences to produce a separate so called species can be breed back with only existing anomalies within the same new species. This indicates that speciation did not actually occur but the plant species or insect species was just taken to one extreme or another. You simply do not have a new species if you can create the old species with nothing but breeding techniques/decisions of the new species.
The problem for creationists and their ilk is given a rather sharp point by observations of this kind: granted the undoubted fact of micro-evolution, which has been observed in detail in the wild for decades, how can you possibly prevent speciation and macro-evolution from happening?
Actually, the problem is for ilk like you (BTW, your terminology is the only reason I am replying and giving you this spanking).
You act like micro evolution must lead to a macro evolution. This has never- ever- been proven and is nothing but a guess. That presents a problem for you who is asserting that a certain mechanic of a guess is true. In science, it is the person who makes the assertion- job to prove the assertion, not those who disbelieve it. In no other part of science can I say the sky is blue and require you to prove me wrong in order for it not to be true. Yet here we are with you thinking that someone else has to disprove your guess as to the order of things even though you have never witnessed it, have never recreated it, have never been able to test it but you want to assert it over and above anything else. And I'm not just talking of the differences between the current evolutionary theory and the bible, there are scientific theories the preclude speciation too like the Bubble theory of evolution. Yet you demand that your views are right until someone proves you wrong even though you have never proved your views correct.
Do you know what that makes you? That makes you a religious nutcase and no different from the ilk you were attempting to ridicule. You are the pot calling the kettle black. As for preventing speciation from occurring, there is still quit a bit of jumps that need to be made in order to assume it will occur. For instance, we have manipulated breeds of dogs for almost as long as we have had a history with them and yet we haven't come up with a frog-dog or anything. Even farm animals like cows and horses have been through hundreds of generations of changes without creating a new pig-sheep species. Back to the dogs, I often get the asinine comment about a great Dane and a chihuahua. Of course this comes from a lack of knowledge that the current chihuahua breed is as small as it is because of arbitrary rules placed on it by the kennel clubs. They list them as needing to be under 9 pounds to compete in competition but do not have a size limit for the breed. Chihuahuas were originally around 40 lbs dogs that were used to hunt deer and deer like animals. It's entirely possible for a chihuahua and a Great Dane or St Bernard to successfully mate when you know the facts. And it is entirely possible for the smaller "teacup" breeds (not official breeds) to be breed back to the 40lbs or more dogs while remaining pure breeds.
So get off your damn high horse, quit acting like speculation is fact, and present the shit as it actually is, a concept that fits our best explanations to date, not some empirically proven fact.
They can interbreed but don't. This isn't really a true separate species because the definition of species says can't interbreed not doesn't. I know plenty of minorities who will not interbreed and it does not make then a different species, they are human contrary to what some evolutionary biologist attempt to imply if this concept was applied across the board. I find it really irritating when speciation can occur outside the definition of species and have that new definition apply selectively as if we aren't fooling ourselves here.
I don't think he was arguing that he could think his way out of it. I think he was attempting to say that when your statement can't fit within the lines already drawn, draw new lines to make it fit.
Actually, if you read the article, these birds are still the same species by the classic definition of species. They were only labeled as a new species because they don't willingly interbreed. I think your premise is completely off and premature. Perhaps in another 2 or 3 million years, but as of right now, it's just grasping at this point.
First, lets be clear, I'm not arguing against science, I'm pointing out the similarities between science and religion as it's expresses around here. Whether people want to admit it or not, the science isn't complete and there are a lot of gaps that require a certain level of faith. The difference is as subtle as saying "we think it happened this way" verses a "it happened this way" leaving no other way possible.
Yes, the science is better. Because it gives an understanding (logical argument) of what happened over the last few million years and is probably an intelligent predictor of what will happen over the next few million.
If anyone or anything is around to validate it. What's that expression about getting on a train and only seeing sheep that are black?
Your argument against science goes back billions and trillions of years for an exclusion of science as a whole and therefore a repudiation of Natural Selection and evolution. I believe that a higher power allowed us to evolve into a species with a brain and wish that more of this species would use it.
It could be possible that outside forces are among us and the world as we know it is so specifically because of their/his hand. That's sort of the point I'm driving at, nothing is absolute until you can prove it to be and even then, it could be specific to a particular situation. As we have seen with quantum mechanics and quantum physics, the truths we thought to be accurate seem to not align so well at a quantum level. However, someone demanding that X is accurate and the only way deprives out knowledge and understanding beyond that point (right or wrong).
Now, back to a higher power. It is interesting that a date is set in religion as firmly as it is in science but when either find evidence contradicting it, they attempt to explain that away. In science, a 2 year old can be dated 14 million years old. We have witnessed natural events that place the stratification dating process into question and found fossils as well as man made object in layers of sediment thought to of been way to old for it to be possible. We even have fossils that transfer between age groupings of the layers in which we are supposed to believe that exposed tissue survived hundreds and possibly thousands of years in order to get covered and fossilized. But back to the bible, It's clear that the bible's account with Adam and Even was with a specific set of people and not the entire world. It's sort of ridiculous to place an age of the world around the age of the participants of the bible because it doesn't count the people outside which were brought into the stories as they associated with the main characters of the bible. SO to me, it's obvious that we are seeing the working of man wanting to understand something but perhaps getting it wrong to some degree and this isn't limited to just the bible or science. If evolution and the current geological theories are correct, then there is really nothing in the bible discounting them except for the interactions with a set amount of people. Now we are back to thinking we have an understanding and making an absolute declaration.
I'm having a hard time finding where those clauses are too. If you do figure it out, please let me know.
I think that the constitutionality of this will be successfully challenged and that is why it was so important to push sotamyaer or whoever onto the supreme court.
Off peak and peak are actually two sets of costs for the electric company. They want to run their facilities near top performance and either charge you or someone else (selling to another provider) in order to recoup the cost of the facility and make a profit. It makes no sense to build a 5kw station and only run it as 2.5kw 90% of the time.
Now what we have is a base load. This is the average demand between peak and off peak. The law says they electric company needs to provide a base load capable of 5 or 10 percent over the average with the capabilities of scaling up within so many seconds/minutes as needed. So the off peak is the base load minus a little and this can be long term contracted for cheap reliable power. The peak is the expensive on demand capacity that varies quit wildly. In theory, peak energy above base will cost the utility company something like 35% of their total energy costs.
Anyways, when the off peak times become more of a peak time, this has two effects, it raises the base load and lowers the peak costs. If your utility has a lot of on demand generators, it may be forcing them to use those instead (raising costs) of buying more base load from other sources because they won't maximize their profits from the on demand systems. Initially, the tiered pricing was a way to cope with the extra costs of a rising peak but as more and more utilities start providing their own peak, they either lose out on not running their on demand generators or use them more and more to provide a base load which increases their costs. This is why a lot of companies are getting rid of the tiered pricing levels.
Now the GP who thinks his water heater only runs as night would probably be misleading unless he put some sort of shut off switch onto it. Any water tank on line pressure will replace hot water with cold as it is being used. Also water tanks will lose some of their stored heat regardless of how well insulated it is. It's probably more likely that they used little hot water during the day and more during off peak hours giving the appearance. I used to have an electric water heater and AC that had a switch placed in it by the electric company that would switch the units off during peak times but I removed that because we was supposed to get a break on the bills which never appeared and doing a load of laundry and taking a shower would result in a cold shower at the end when the electric company switched the units off. Also, the AC fan would come on and run for hours with no cooling effects making you think something was broken then all the sudden, once it's 90 degrees in the house, it kicks on and runs all night attempting to get it comfortable enough for a decent nights sleep.
These smart appliances will have the same problems. If your not home, you won't notice them. If you are, you will think it is the dumbest thing ever and defeats the entire purpose of having AC or a cloths dryer in the first place. Also, with the fridge, people will start seeing a reduction in food quality. I noticed a reduction of about 2 months or so loss on the shelf life of frozen foods when I purchased a new frost free freezer. Even though the thermometer stated it was always below freezing when I checked it, it seems that the defrost cycle raises the temperature slightly which caused damage to the food. Having one kick on and shut off automatically will have the same effects if not compound them.
Well now. That would seem to be a violation of the GPL to some degree, or could be. If you don't give the source code with the GPLed software when you distribute it, you have to either accompany it with a piece of paper describing how to get it from you or provide it for download yourself in a manner consistent and obvious.
So if the source code isn't provided on the CD, or there isn't some piece of paper saying where to get the source code, putting it on Splashtop's site without some obvious reference to the fact could be a GPL violation.
Slashdot Mirror
But the pattern only exists in your head with the malice applied. You are imposing it because of your worldviews. If you did not do so, everything can easily be explained away by ignorance and a desire to aid the countries safety. Seriously, what does the administration have to gain by the TSP other then securing the safety of the country? You can't point to any other agenda then that.
And that is why the republicans lost both houses and the administration seat in the last few elections? Wake up man.
You still haven't addressed Hanlon's Razor nor have you show a benefit of the corruption. Simply saying the accumulation of power doesn't fit because the administration peacefully gave their power up in January. As for absolute power corrupts absolutely, when did the administration ever have absolute power?
You seem to have invented this "i need more power" reasoning to justify your positions then are attempting to apply a principle that history has shown wrong on several occasions as if they already have the power in order to justify your positions leading to the justification of the previous position. The problem is that neither position held to support your worldview is complete without you assuming many things that only exist in your head. When you can arrive at a solid conclusion without attaching some made up attribute, then your point of view would have more legitimacy. But as it stands, you claim more power was the motivation when he gave the power up, you then claim absolute power corrupts when attempting to assert the acquisition of more power as a motivator.
You are confusing reason with facts or empirical evidence. A person with faith very much reasons and reconciles their faith just as an atheist does. There is no constructional difference between the process or mechanics of the process. If you didn't know and didn't care, it would be a different story and no faith would exist. However, considering that neither theist or atheist beliefs are rooted in provable or testable evidence, then asserting either over the other becomes an act of faith.
No, lack of prosecution implies legitimacy. It's two entirely different concepts. You should learn about them.
Who really cares, and yes, there was quite a few republicans claiming the programs were illegal too. Again, you are acting like something in your head is fact when it isn't.
Nice how you neglected the fact that the program was known and thought to of been illegal but the "vote for me" crowd for at least 5 years during the Bush administration.
So tell me, which is better, and administration that appears to have broken a law or an administration who does nothing about it because it is politically advantageous?
Umm.. look up the cases yourself. National security allows a lot of things otherwise bared. Searches at the borders are one, the very first congress of the US, one that was comprised of many of the founding fathers, implemented border searches without warrants and the courts backed them up completely. And no, it wasn't everyone, it was international calls and information- crossing the borders. Anything other then those claims is more of your imagination at work. But seriously, don't take my word for it, educate your sorry self and look the shit up yourself.
No idiot. One more time, because his opinions were called insane, it does not indicate malice. Get it straight this time. You have no proof of anything outside of your imagination and until there is proof, it is only your opinion. Occam's razor is only bullshit because you need it to be in order to perpetuate your myth.
If they had a clear right, then they would have done it. The republicans attempted to do it years before, Clinton was impeached. Are you saying that the republicans have more balls then the democrats?
I'm not sure what recourse you have left me. You admitted this is only in your head, that you have no special insight or proof and yet you still refuse to acknowledge that this is your opinion and not fact.
Actually, I don't believe in either, but I believe in the possibility of either but have nothing to convince me of their existence.
go ahead and criticize me no matter which response I give. Be careful because I don't think I answered that in the way you wanted me to. When you don't believe in a god and exclude their possibility, you are practicing faith in the same mechanical way as a believer is sure that Jesus is his lord and savior. Not being convinced in something is agnostic, not being convinced and attempting to claim it's false is an act of faith when no proof or testable evidence for your position exists.
You can use your brain if you want to. There is more to it then just snails, that why I pointed to your google finger. Coal test wrong, oceanic fossils on mountain ranges test differently as the elevation goes up and so on. There is also the problem of people on here thinking that carbon dating goes back to prove a time line of the dinosaurs which is impossible.
Your right, I can't find the link I was presenting and don't know why the page is different now. Anyways, here are a few links that shouldn't change.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_firsthuman/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331570.htm
I will probably find my link to the fossils not lining up or running through several periods of time like trees extending through several thousand years of sediment or diamond necklaces found in coal mines embedded in coal supposedly dating back to millions of years before man has been around.
Actually, you made a false asertion so you show where the bible says only adam and eve was here. Everyone I know who has actually read a bible knows the bible says nothing of the sort. Either pony up or shut up about it. The only way I could disprove your so called widely believe fact is to paste the entire bible here. You know that's impossible so show your evidence.
Actually, no. Atheism is faith in that the unknown is not true. This is completely different from the known like playing tennis as a sport as in you have no proof or testable evidence to the truth or not of a God.
In fact, the same mechanism for believe in a god is present in the rejection of the belief. This is evident because you made a conscious decision about it.
If you would have read the article, you would have discovered that it happened not because of the politicians involvement with religion but because of a constitutional clause in the Irish constitution that makes it so.
The ACLU is not operating on anything like this.
The reasons for your misconceptions do not make them right. IBM's concern is to the society in which it sells and has to reconcile that with the stock holders. IF IBM were to forget about the society in general, or at least their market segment, they would go out of business because there is enough competition to over take them when society turns against them. Now, you do no need to be a business major to see that going out of business is not in the interest of the stockholders.
Silly boy, don't confuse results with intent and don't confuse the actions of one with many. First of all, neither company knew it was poisoning people with it's food. They were completely oblivious until after the fact and they all stop selling the contaminated products. Second, you are not even considering the outcome, tomatoes were banned for a while, so was spinach. What possible benefit to the share holders could no being able to sell a perishable product bring about? What possible benefit to the share holders can the massive lawsuits over the even have to the shareholders. If you look, you will find that the peanut butter issue was because of a roof leak that supposedly was not noticed until after the contamination and that company is completely out of business now. What possible benefit to the share holder did that bring? The benefit would have been to avoid the contamination in the first place and profitable sell safe food instead of going out of business or losing an entire crop.
And I believe that the chinese responsible for it faced a death penalty because of how wrong it was, their sales have dropped, they were forced to do a product recall and import restrictions around the world were placed on the company. How is that in the interests of the stock holders?
You mean the Hamlet chicken processing plant fire that resulted in the forever closing of the plant, the owner serving 20 years in prison and the highest fines ever levied at that time? How was that any good for investors? Clealy they lost more then any occasion theft through fire exist would have been stopped due to the chaining of the doors.
You mean the lettuce contamination from a single store who instead of purchasing from a company's authorized supplier ended up buying from a local farmer? Why should the entire chain be shut down because of the actions of an Isolated store that was taken completely outside of their approved procurement processes? Also, they sales dropped, they almost did go out of business nation wide and can you tell me how that was good for the share holders? If I remember correctly, they didn't even save money buying the produce fresh, they were just attempting to help out someone a manager knew.
What part of "as it is expressed around here" do you not understand? As I said, I was not arguing against science, I'm pointing out the similarities between science and religion as it's expresses around here. Whether people want to admit it or not, the science isn't complete and there are a lot of gaps that require a certain level of faith.
Did you notice how I said people and not scientist?
As for your citation, shells of live snails have been tested using carbon dating and tested to thousands of year old even though scientist have watched them grow and they were still alive today. As you are able to type a reply, I assume your google finger is not broken and you can find your own citations.
As for the other citation you need, you should easily be able to find articles on that too with your google finger. I'm not sure if your being intellectually lazy or just attempting to waist my time. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/dating/dating.htm is one dealing with the stratification anomalies, there are plenty of pay articles you can select from. I was under the assumption that this knowledge was widely known and supported by the science community so I'm currious given your stand to why you need citations.
It most certainly does not say that Adam and Eve were the only people on earth during the time of the garden of Eden. You cannot find any passage making that claim in any legitimate bible either. The bible only talks about them and about them in the garden of Eden but makes no mention outside of that or limiting it to that. And as we know from later in the bible, Lucifer created man too which caused the riff between him and God and angels were porking man which ended up with halfbreed man and caused God to do the flood of Noah which destroyed them.
Lol.. s troll mod. I must have hit a nerve with someone by pointing out the flaws in their argument. Oh well, what do you expect when science becomes people's religion.
Perhaps you should go back to business school. If no one is buying your products, you have no profit. If you alienate a certain portion of the population, you make less profits. It's in your best interest that the population or society at large is not only willing but capable of buying your products. They are intertwined more then it seems you can fathom.
No, all regulation does. It places requirements and costs that wouldn't have already been there. It's entirely possible that the rise in the bar for entry and cost doesn't substantially limit competition in some cases, but it always raises the bar for entry and places a burden on smaller businesses.
Don't get angry, misleading can be done unintentional as well as intentionally. I never attempted to assign malice to the act, I only wanted to show the differences within what was stated and what is reality. And the confusion you pointed out below is your fault for using vague terminology in a setting with normal consumer alternatives leading to the natural assumption of a water heater. You should have been more specific if you wished to differentiate between the two.
That's perfectly reasonable as stated there. However, your original statement was about a heater and a tank of water which is classically associated with a water heater as I expanded on. The single addition of the word pump instead of just heater as in "heat pump" instead of "heater" would have cleared that up before it ever became an issue to either of us. Communications is only effective if we convey a complete though in a way that others will understand the intent as well as the meaning of the communications.
I attempted to touch on reasons to why that is in my previous post. However, now that I realize I was wrong in my initial interpretation, I think I may be able to offer a few suggestions that could help a little. I built a solar heater a while back for my hog house which I later modified to a solar water heater. It was pretty simple and cheap if you own your own home. Anyways, you could possibly adapt something like that to your water storage tank. I used an old DC feed pump and a solar cell/battery combo designed to operate an electric gate to circulate the water for a few minutes once the panel water reached a certain temp (about 145-160 degrees). I was only attempting to radiate some heat through the building while keeping the watering lines from freezing. hogs don't need to be super hot but they have a hard time near freezing and below. I also used a recycled 75 gallon hot water heater tank to store heat over night and switched a valve to turn off the solar heater circuit of the water feed after dark so I didn't just radiate it back outside. This kept the pad the hogs stay on close to about 40 degrees during the night (even at 20 below zero) and stopped the water hydrants from freezing. That's pretty remarkable considering one side of the barn is completely open with no doors whatsoever. I did have to buffer the pad with bales of straw to block some wind.
Anyways, perhaps that might be helpful in recapturing some of your lost savings. Without the costs of automating it, I had roughly $150 in total in it before I attempted to automate it. It costs me another $75-100 to put extra temp sensors in, solar cell and battery, digital timer and control circuit and solenoids to operate the loop valves to close off the heater at night as well as notify me of a problem should it stop working or the temps get dangerously low. I'm sure it could be done better and cheaper. You can find ideas of it on the web or I can tell you what I did. My way will probably be screwed and less efficient because I initially build it as something else and modified it later.
No, the definition is not under natural conditions. That is a preposterous condition invented by the needs of evangelical atheist to prove macro-evolution true in the face of evidence and the lack of being pointed out to them. This is how preposterous it is, People in AU that would never leave would thereby be a different species then people in Europe or America who would never leave their country or continent. It's so preposterous that under that definition, two Golden retrievers, one in England and one in the US would be separate species because they couldn't procreate and produce viable offspring due to an ocean separating them.
Also the Eastern Rosella is a different breed, not a new species. The fact that they don't mate which I believe was because the males drove the competing male birds away and not because they weren't recognized as a mate, does not make them a new species- it makes them different within the same species. This is called a different breed of a species.
Actually, it would be can't as in cannot and that does not make them the same species, it by default makes them separate species- joking or not.
Man, you are working hard convoluting that to get what you want it to mean out.
You are even assigning attributes that aren't always there in order to do it. How proud you must be. Here is a hint, you don't need to be blindly obedient to be patriotic. You don't need to blindly trust or accept anything the country is doing to be patriotic. Only in your imaginary world is that true.
Actually, that isn't speciation as the traditional context of species is concerned. You have either been tricked into believing something from an agenda driven site or are just that ignorant and want to make the leap.
All of the supposed speciation is backwards compatible in that breeding out the differences to produce a separate so called species can be breed back with only existing anomalies within the same new species. This indicates that speciation did not actually occur but the plant species or insect species was just taken to one extreme or another. You simply do not have a new species if you can create the old species with nothing but breeding techniques/decisions of the new species.
So then why is this bird population with the same gene difference being considered a speciation even and a new species?
Or does the hundreds or thousands of years, like the American and Aztec Indians before we discovered America, only count when it is convenient?
Actually, the problem is for ilk like you (BTW, your terminology is the only reason I am replying and giving you this spanking).
You act like micro evolution must lead to a macro evolution. This has never- ever- been proven and is nothing but a guess. That presents a problem for you who is asserting that a certain mechanic of a guess is true. In science, it is the person who makes the assertion- job to prove the assertion, not those who disbelieve it. In no other part of science can I say the sky is blue and require you to prove me wrong in order for it not to be true. Yet here we are with you thinking that someone else has to disprove your guess as to the order of things even though you have never witnessed it, have never recreated it, have never been able to test it but you want to assert it over and above anything else. And I'm not just talking of the differences between the current evolutionary theory and the bible, there are scientific theories the preclude speciation too like the Bubble theory of evolution. Yet you demand that your views are right until someone proves you wrong even though you have never proved your views correct.
Do you know what that makes you? That makes you a religious nutcase and no different from the ilk you were attempting to ridicule. You are the pot calling the kettle black. As for preventing speciation from occurring, there is still quit a bit of jumps that need to be made in order to assume it will occur. For instance, we have manipulated breeds of dogs for almost as long as we have had a history with them and yet we haven't come up with a frog-dog or anything. Even farm animals like cows and horses have been through hundreds of generations of changes without creating a new pig-sheep species. Back to the dogs, I often get the asinine comment about a great Dane and a chihuahua. Of course this comes from a lack of knowledge that the current chihuahua breed is as small as it is because of arbitrary rules placed on it by the kennel clubs. They list them as needing to be under 9 pounds to compete in competition but do not have a size limit for the breed. Chihuahuas were originally around 40 lbs dogs that were used to hunt deer and deer like animals. It's entirely possible for a chihuahua and a Great Dane or St Bernard to successfully mate when you know the facts. And it is entirely possible for the smaller "teacup" breeds (not official breeds) to be breed back to the 40lbs or more dogs while remaining pure breeds.
So get off your damn high horse, quit acting like speculation is fact, and present the shit as it actually is, a concept that fits our best explanations to date, not some empirically proven fact.
They can interbreed but don't. This isn't really a true separate species because the definition of species says can't interbreed not doesn't. I know plenty of minorities who will not interbreed and it does not make then a different species, they are human contrary to what some evolutionary biologist attempt to imply if this concept was applied across the board. I find it really irritating when speciation can occur outside the definition of species and have that new definition apply selectively as if we aren't fooling ourselves here.
I don't think he was arguing that he could think his way out of it. I think he was attempting to say that when your statement can't fit within the lines already drawn, draw new lines to make it fit.
Actually, if you read the article, these birds are still the same species by the classic definition of species. They were only labeled as a new species because they don't willingly interbreed. I think your premise is completely off and premature. Perhaps in another 2 or 3 million years, but as of right now, it's just grasping at this point.
First, lets be clear, I'm not arguing against science, I'm pointing out the similarities between science and religion as it's expresses around here. Whether people want to admit it or not, the science isn't complete and there are a lot of gaps that require a certain level of faith. The difference is as subtle as saying "we think it happened this way" verses a "it happened this way" leaving no other way possible.
If anyone or anything is around to validate it. What's that expression about getting on a train and only seeing sheep that are black?
It could be possible that outside forces are among us and the world as we know it is so specifically because of their/his hand. That's sort of the point I'm driving at, nothing is absolute until you can prove it to be and even then, it could be specific to a particular situation. As we have seen with quantum mechanics and quantum physics, the truths we thought to be accurate seem to not align so well at a quantum level. However, someone demanding that X is accurate and the only way deprives out knowledge and understanding beyond that point (right or wrong).
Now, back to a higher power. It is interesting that a date is set in religion as firmly as it is in science but when either find evidence contradicting it, they attempt to explain that away. In science, a 2 year old can be dated 14 million years old. We have witnessed natural events that place the stratification dating process into question and found fossils as well as man made object in layers of sediment thought to of been way to old for it to be possible. We even have fossils that transfer between age groupings of the layers in which we are supposed to believe that exposed tissue survived hundreds and possibly thousands of years in order to get covered and fossilized. But back to the bible, It's clear that the bible's account with Adam and Even was with a specific set of people and not the entire world. It's sort of ridiculous to place an age of the world around the age of the participants of the bible because it doesn't count the people outside which were brought into the stories as they associated with the main characters of the bible. SO to me, it's obvious that we are seeing the working of man wanting to understand something but perhaps getting it wrong to some degree and this isn't limited to just the bible or science. If evolution and the current geological theories are correct, then there is really nothing in the bible discounting them except for the interactions with a set amount of people. Now we are back to thinking we have an understanding and making an absolute declaration.
I'm having a hard time finding where those clauses are too. If you do figure it out, please let me know.
I think that the constitutionality of this will be successfully challenged and that is why it was so important to push sotamyaer or whoever onto the supreme court.
Off peak and peak are actually two sets of costs for the electric company. They want to run their facilities near top performance and either charge you or someone else (selling to another provider) in order to recoup the cost of the facility and make a profit. It makes no sense to build a 5kw station and only run it as 2.5kw 90% of the time.
Now what we have is a base load. This is the average demand between peak and off peak. The law says they electric company needs to provide a base load capable of 5 or 10 percent over the average with the capabilities of scaling up within so many seconds/minutes as needed. So the off peak is the base load minus a little and this can be long term contracted for cheap reliable power. The peak is the expensive on demand capacity that varies quit wildly. In theory, peak energy above base will cost the utility company something like 35% of their total energy costs.
Anyways, when the off peak times become more of a peak time, this has two effects, it raises the base load and lowers the peak costs. If your utility has a lot of on demand generators, it may be forcing them to use those instead (raising costs) of buying more base load from other sources because they won't maximize their profits from the on demand systems. Initially, the tiered pricing was a way to cope with the extra costs of a rising peak but as more and more utilities start providing their own peak, they either lose out on not running their on demand generators or use them more and more to provide a base load which increases their costs. This is why a lot of companies are getting rid of the tiered pricing levels.
Now the GP who thinks his water heater only runs as night would probably be misleading unless he put some sort of shut off switch onto it. Any water tank on line pressure will replace hot water with cold as it is being used. Also water tanks will lose some of their stored heat regardless of how well insulated it is. It's probably more likely that they used little hot water during the day and more during off peak hours giving the appearance. I used to have an electric water heater and AC that had a switch placed in it by the electric company that would switch the units off during peak times but I removed that because we was supposed to get a break on the bills which never appeared and doing a load of laundry and taking a shower would result in a cold shower at the end when the electric company switched the units off. Also, the AC fan would come on and run for hours with no cooling effects making you think something was broken then all the sudden, once it's 90 degrees in the house, it kicks on and runs all night attempting to get it comfortable enough for a decent nights sleep.
These smart appliances will have the same problems. If your not home, you won't notice them. If you are, you will think it is the dumbest thing ever and defeats the entire purpose of having AC or a cloths dryer in the first place. Also, with the fridge, people will start seeing a reduction in food quality. I noticed a reduction of about 2 months or so loss on the shelf life of frozen foods when I purchased a new frost free freezer. Even though the thermometer stated it was always below freezing when I checked it, it seems that the defrost cycle raises the temperature slightly which caused damage to the food. Having one kick on and shut off automatically will have the same effects if not compound them.
Well now. That would seem to be a violation of the GPL to some degree, or could be. If you don't give the source code with the GPLed software when you distribute it, you have to either accompany it with a piece of paper describing how to get it from you or provide it for download yourself in a manner consistent and obvious.
So if the source code isn't provided on the CD, or there isn't some piece of paper saying where to get the source code, putting it on Splashtop's site without some obvious reference to the fact could be a GPL violation.