If that happened, the response would be more like enforcement provisions within the WIPO treaties and Gatt agreements. The WTO provides protections against foreign countries from taking the patent and copyright materials too.
In the end, the native "other countries" would end up with laws over this too. All it would do if pushed, would be to bring enforcement to other countries.
The problem with points like that is that international trade is negotiated based around the protections of products within the countries. Currently, there are several in effect that penalize certain countries for doing business with others that don't repsect the property laws of one of the country.
What can happen , and I doubt it would over this one implementation, is that the economic advantages actually place pressure on certain countries to isolate the other in trade relations or take an economic hit themselves. This all became possible with the multilateral agreements after WWII and each trade agreement since contained protections against IP violations within the trade group either directly or indirectly. So the laws of other countries do apply to some extent.
I think I asked for links to the actual research which does say "doesn't reproduce" and mot incapable of doing so. Instead, you show links to a site that is designed to push the agenda or opinion over others, that really smart there.
But lets look at your page and what it was to say about speciation with the fruit flies,
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971): sterile males, can't mate period and would not evolve the species at all
Thoday and Gibson (1962): didn't mate from preferential selection, not biological incompatability
Crossley (1974) : again preference and choice, no biological incompatability
Kilias, et al. (1980) : Sterile offspring and preference or choice, no biological incompatability
All the rest is interpreted too. It doesn't say what your wanting it to say on it's own.
If you can't admit the simply truth that the interpretation of evidence is opinion until empirically observed, then this conversation is over due to your own ignorance.
That's interesting. Once those employees made it to the government labs, they would be under congress's domain though. I wonder how this would play out if the requirement was places on only those with access to the labs and the sensitive information within them?
Which species specifically state that the biological make up is so different that reproduction is biologically impossible? And no, don't point to idiots misinterpreting something, point to the actual research. You called it and are insisting something, now show it.
You need to drop the religious zealotry and look at it for what it is. The facts are A, B, and C, specialization claims are nothing more then an interpretation of those facts. The facts by themselves don't say anything about speciation, it allows you to create conclusions or opinions about them in order to signify their meaning. The facts on their own don't say anything close to what your claiming, and evolution, macro-evolution to be precise is not a fact, it's an opinion of facts.
I have read the Wikipedia articles. In fact, it just says the end populations are too distant to breed. It doesn't say biologically incapable of breeding just that they don't breed. It even offers the gulls as an example in which they are perfectly capable of interbreeding but do not because of migration patterns and preferences. This is no a biological restriction to breeding and you calling them a separate species or pointing at is as proof of specialization is nothing but opinion. It's not fact, it's opinion about facts. The evidence or facts themselves don't say what you wanting it to say so you add opinion and interpret it to fit your mold.
That's ok too, That is how science works. But don't deny someone the ability to challenge the opinions or what you think the evidence means because it's all interpreted opinion.
No, I'm arguing the point that your facts don't mean what you think they mean. You can't take facts on their own and present them on their own to the conclusion, you have to interpret them surrounding a bastardized concept that when applied liberally breaks down in an instant as obnoxious and absurd.
I don't think you understand, it's all opinion over observed evidence. You are making jumps to maintain your position and in doing so, you have offered nothing but unterpreted evidence that relies a whole lot on opinion. You have not disproved anything, you have simply stated your opinion and the opinions of other people.
Being an American is being a US citizen. You are talking about naturalization rights here and there is no such thing for a set of continents.
And if continental approximation is what you were intending to refer to, you fail on that too, there are the North and South American continents so you wouldn't be American, you would be North American or South American with the possibility of Central American depending on the school of though concerning the validity of geographical location being continent worthy but you wouldn't ever be just an American unless you are from the only country with America in it's name.
I'm not sure why idiots attempt to claim that but clearly the smallest examination of the situation show how wrong you are. I suspect it's because they secretly love the US so much while despising their own countries that they have to somehow twist reality in a way that gives them the America name. It's amazing when you find what shit hole most of these people come from.
I might accept traffic tickets and bad checks as potential indicators of trustworthiness... but carnal knowledge is listed as a class C offense (with D being the worst), along with sodomy. Carnal knowledge commonly refers to sexual acts in general (knowledge of the flesh). Sodomy commonly refers to anal and oral sex (legal in most states, should be legal in all states (providing there is mutual consent, of course)), and much less commonly bestiality. While I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that either of those things indicate trustworthiness (Many people have carnal knowledge of their spouse on a regular basis, likely including our President, the majority of our armed forces and intelligence agencies, as well as Senate members of intelligence subcommittees... a significant amount of those same people also likely engage in sodomy as well). This is really humorous in light of J Edgar Hoover and his rumored sexual proclivities... especially since this is the sort of thing I could see him creating.
During the cold war, closet homosexuals and married but cheating husbands who stood a lot to loose have turned state secrets over to the Russians surrounding the threat of exposure of those acts. Basically, anything that could publicly humiliate someone or present financial strain is a security risk. We had subs that would attach leaders to Russian telecommunications cables and was listening in on conversations for years, it was exposed to the Russians for 35K when a worker who was dissatisfied with his position and in economic trouble turned over information on it.
Ultimately, I hope we use this situation as an opportunity to modernize and revamp the security clearance process without causing undue security risks. I believe a review of the efficacy of the varied suitability matrix in determining security risk would have been sufficient, but if it has to happen under the auspices of Constitutionality, so be it, as long as it is done in a timely fashion and does not break the process of Government security clearance screening.
Perhaps an ask and tell policy is worth implementing. The issues you raised are only a security problem if they somehow apply pressure to the person. Suppose you don't want your wife to know you were by and tried sex with a sheep once, that could be my leverage to get you to do things you would never otherwise do (even if it's something as simple as dropping infected USB sticks around the facility in hopes that someone will plug it into a computer to see who's it is). Now suppose you fears loosing you job over that information, would you then be willing to do even more? But if you declare the information, that can never happen (assuming they aren't anal about the truth). And if they keep the information private, then instead of fearing the loss of your job, or your wife finding out, then you report it to a JPL liaison officer who gives you fake information while tracking the spy down and taking the entire ring out with hopes of never exposing you. And if you are exposed, the liaison officer simply claims it was part of a cover operation you participated in when we knew someone was poking around looking to steal secrets.
Personally, I would prefer this over just disqualifying someone. Knowing who and why someone is seeking unauthorized information is more powerful then preventing the possibility in the first place. However, discretion needs to be made.
I don't think it matters. California law shouldn't apply here.
If the JPL is on US government property and owned by the US government, the California laws applies only at the whim of Congress. The constitution gives congress the exclusive authority "To exercise exclusive legislation" over Washington DC, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other _needful buildings_. Unless the JPL is a wasteful project and not a "needful building", then California law would only apply by extension of power granted by congress.
Now this is by a presidential directive, the problem is that if congress gave the president that power over this program, then it relies on the same extension or at will as congress extended state law. So the problem here would be to define the intent of congress. If the presidential power came after the extension of state laws, then the will of congress is clear in that it supersedes state law because congress would have known of the effects on previous laws.
I don't think this issue is completed yet. It will most likely hit the Supreme Court simply because the federal government doesn't like to give up powers. That seems to be the case regardless of which party is in power.
Which all goes back to the point of whether or not a corporation should have "patriotism". Either your an American or not.. Either your an American company or not. Where you live and make your income is regardless of that until you as you say, renounce that status.
I see what your saying but patriotism doesn't mean blind support or acceptance for policy. It is completely possible that someone could remain a patriot without supporting a new policy. But the difference between a company and a person has more to do with how they are constituted. A person is born with rights, a company is create because of one of those rights. Disbanding the American entity and reconstituting it elsewhere isn't near as involved as renouncing citizenship.
I don't hold any animosity.. It's just a fact that as long as it's cheaper at Walmart, most Americans could care less where the stuff is made.. and there are job losses because of it.. That being said, there is quite a support industry behind Walmart. Although their store positions may not pay crap, the people who transport and deal with the logistics and warehousing do quite well..
Cheaper at walmart for the most people doesn't mean less jobs, it means a better standard of living. That's the fact too. As for less jobs, well, that may be a reality but there are reasons to why it is outside of walmart. Walmart filled a void that was needed, it didn't create the void nor did it extend it. It's sort of important because human nature considers themselves over those they don't know.
The ability of you to afford a car based upon Walmart savings is debatable.. People bought cars before there was a Walmart. That there is a lack of jobs, definitely makes it difficult to sell cars, so I don't see Walmart as the savior of the auto industry.
OK, I will take as debatable. But I know that shift as small as 15% in costs for me would have made the car unaffordable when I purchased it. Buying cloths for me, my then girlfriend and her two kids, crap needed around the house like waste cans, cleaning supplies, laundry and dish detergent, replacing broken plates-glasses-lost silverware, and all if purchased at other stores would have easily encroached in that 15%. Now granted, walmart doesn't sell everything as foreign made, some of the stuff is American made in which high discounts are still found. I'm sure I can't be the only one ever to be in a position like that. I found that driving 35 miles once every other week to visit family and then shop at the walmart on the way back, made that car so much more affordable in a tight economic situation. Now there is one about 8 miles from my house but I still do the travel.
it's pretty bad when you think of yourself as the only one who knows the truth. Millions of other ignorant people might be a sign that you reality just isn't all that believable.
I have read those point before, I know what they claim to say. However, they don't present anything new to the mix as you are attempting to claim. You also bastardizing science in order to make the claims fact when they are mostely opinion about facts.
Perhaps you should get back to me when you're more educated on the differences between fact and opinion.
What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.
No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life.
You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.
No, you are either misinformed or attempting to purposely blur the lines to support your positions. The evidence doesn't contradict anything when you escape from the current theory of evolution and take the evidence at hand for their own merit.
It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. You don't even know what the word species means, or what interbreeding means, as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the concept of ring species. You lack a high school level knowledge of biology and expect to be taken seriously in a discussion.
Oh, ad hominem attracts. Gee Wizz, who would have thought it. I know exaclty what they mean and you do too. You also know exactly what I am talking about as this isn't our first discussion over this. Usually you are the religious gloval warming pusher but we have talked about macro and micro evolution before.
You don't even know enough to know that you sound like a complete buffoon. Your arguments are logical, but your assumptions are completely off kilter and contrary to current knowledge, heck, you don't even use basic words from biology correctly, so your conclusions are nonsensical.
Take on the points or shut up. It's really thatr simple. You should know by now that you have to present hard evidence to change my mind, not personal attacks.
You just keep claiming that completely untrue things are true, but who are you trying to fool?
No, I keep claiming that completely possible things are possible. You are the one incorrectly claiming that they are impossible by pointing to non-relevent positions.
You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.
I fully understand what a ring species is. What I don't acnowledge is your attempt at a usage for the term. Physically prohibited from breeding doesn't mean biological incapable. That is why a ring species doesn't present any problems. It also doesn't lend the support that you think it does either.
You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was invented, a new species of bacteria had evolved that could digest it.
You are the one who is wrong. None of the observed speciations happened without scientist splitting genes and direct manipulation of them. What is incorrectly being called speciation is where a group of offspring don't tend to breed or somehow are not physically-mechanically capable of interbreeding. That is not speciation yet you and many other people want to claim it is. Here is the test, look at the definition of species and if the result can interbreed (naturally or not) then it's the same species. Quit with the semantics of changing the definitions in order to support a point that would never otherwise have been possible. This is not a situation where if you don't like the game change the rules works.
The poorer folks aren't buying imports for the most part except for possibly luxury items like toys. Food will always be cheaper domestically and that would be their primary purchase with clothing probably following that up, but those purchases would be much fewer and far between.
Clothing would probably be the biggest import for these people. Electronics and computers would likely be the second. We can't seem to even produce a phone in the US without it costing the consumer over $50 where a cheap import costs 5-10.
The simple fact is that foreign competitors have an unfair advantage right now because they are exporting far more into the US than they are consuming.
That isn't because of the lack of tariffs. That's because of the dollar value compared to production costs. The dollar value adjusts as the strength of the US dollar moves while the production costs are pretty much fixed because of internal factors but the advantages are mainly because of costs. We have over regulated our industry and our unions have taken the productivity out of the market by demanding too much compensation.
Taxing those imports keeps that under control, and keeps money within the US economy, which in turn stimulates the economy locally, which in turn raises pay levels and disposable income.
You need to consider that there is more then one side here. We tax the imports, they do the same. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 compounded the recession from the stock market drops in 1929 causing the great depreciation. This was an effect of Most of Europe and Canada either matching the tariffs, finding other trade partners, or becoming self sufficient but the end result was locking the US out of most of the markets. The only way your isolationist policy begins to work is if you ignore the fact that we need foreign buyers to maintain our own economy. That's why this is a world recession and not just a US one.
Humans are just part of the natural environment that created both breeds. No difference. Great danes and chihuahuas are separate species. Just like two species on the opposite sides of a ring in ring species are separate.
Ring species are not that much of a problem at all. They are not biologically blocked from breeding, just physically or mechanically. Now, if humans are just part of the natural enviroment, then don't object to humans causing the breeding which proves rings species much like the great dane and chihuahua argument. Either be consistent or stop arguing.
You can see this in birds of the arctic circle. Each type can breed with those next to it, but travel too far around the circle and the species can't breed. For example, A-B-C-D-E-F-G. A can breed with G and B, produce sterile offspring with C and F, and can't breed at all with D. Such collections of ring species exist all over the world, and it's not too far of a stretch to look at great danes and chihuahuas the same way. Because a great dane father would simply kill a chihuahua, the mother is physically unable to bear the children even with artificial insemination.
Which bird can and can't breed but are the same species? Choice and mechanic disadvantage is not relevant but which birds are incapable?
But all that is moot, because we have far more compelling evidence. We've bred species of fruit flies in the lab that can no longer interbreed with wild fruit flies.
Actually, no we haven't. We have bred fuit flies that don't favor other fruit flies but the only genetically incompatible fruit flies were created though direct gene manipulation under a microscope. In short, the only natural breeding is a preference unless we splice genes in and out of their eggs. That isn't natural and isn't much different then taking a pig's heart and placing it in a human. You get something that lives but isn't a separate species.
Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. The debate about macro evolution is over. It was only ever considered a separate thing by creationists anyhow. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing.
Specialization has only been observed by direct manipulation of the raw genetic material (a process that could never be natural) or by bastardizing the definition of species.
Macro and Micros are not the same thing either. I already explained the differences and the terms are used by people pointing to the specific in which evolution breaks. That could be creationist but it can also be evolutionist who don't buy the entire story. You cannot attempt to define or redefine the descriptive words others use to point to a specific part of a theory they are in disagreement with. Your insistence that it is the same thing is nothing more then you trying to hide the shaky parts inside the sound ones in a slight of hand attempt to avoid criticism of it. In species evolution does not prove anything would ever jump species or become a new species. All it means is that change and adaptation occurs inside the species. Attempting to hide speciation behind that obvious and noticeable fact is nothing more then propping up smoke and mirrors to make the crowd think something else is happening.
It's not an individual. It's a company threatening to move all of it's workforce offshore, meaning it would give nothing back to the community, which in turn makes it a leach on society.
If it's not based in the US, then it isn't a leach on our society. Besides, they would be paying foreign taxes anyways. It wouldn't be a leach at all.
There are valid reasons to tax imports, otherwise you end up lopsided, much like we already are today with China. It keeps the cost of imports on par with local goods and stops all of your cash from leaving the company on imports.
Not really. there are valid reasons to impose tariffs and such but the lopsidedness is out of necessity more so then policy. There are many people in the US who make so little that without cheap imports, the poverty level would increase overnight. Unions and over regulation have driven up American made prices to the point that the lower 1/3 of Americans either can't afford them or have to make cuts in their lifestyle in order to. Increasing the minimum wage and so on doesn't equalize the income levels either because it's one of those things causing the problem in the first place, over priced domestic products. Cheap imports are the stop gap that allow unions and others to demand higher wages. As we see with GM. it's ruined them.
I would also be a valid tool for preventing this kind of abuse of the system, or threats of pulling out their work force overseas.
I still don't see any abused here. You are free to be governed however you want. If you can't change the government of your local country, then move to another if they will take you. It's the same with corporations, they owe no participation in anything. They work within a set of rules and when those rules become intolerable, they move somewhere else. It's called freedom, not abuse.
Lol.. Silly boy, Technical possibility isn't diminished by physical improbability.
The physical size differences in the dogs is attributed to a single gene sequence (IGF1 gene) which is inhibited or suppressed in smaller dogs through selective breeding. The IGF1 gene acts like or triggers a growth hormone which accounts for large dogs stature. In short, the biological differences between a chihuahua and a great dane are present in all small dogs verses large dogs.
Now, pointing to something like a chihuahua and a great dane and the differences there causing them not to interbreed is much like the attempt to stray from the definition of species in order to claim speciation. In fact, with the same principles applied, physically not being able to reproduce because of physical obstructions or physical mechanics and not biological obstructions would make both the chihuahua or a great dane different species then their respective selves if another chihuahua or a great dane they were simply on separate continents separated by an ocean and possessed no possability of breeding within their own breed. Because they don't breed doesn't mean they cannot breed, and even if they don't breed, it doesn't mean they are a separate species. Obviously a chihuahua nor a great dane separated by an ocean would be considered different species because they didn't reproduce with their own species on the other continent.
Noting biologically prohibits a great dane and a chihuahua from breeding outside of the mechanics necessary due to the obvious differences. Whether or not this possibility to breed is artificial doesn't play into this. As I said, the specific different is the suppression of a gene in the DNA sequencing, they are the same species and are capable of interbreeding. The characteristics preventing a chihuahua and a great dane from naturally breeding is a result of the species not being separate species.
Also, without humans, they wouldn't exist in the first place. Humans breed chihuahuas and great danes into existence. They are after all, breeds of the same species. And don't start claiming that humans can be involved in one instance but not the other just to press a pointless point.
Then other countries tax our exports and we still lose by American companies not making as much profit.
This is a real problem and we have already seen recessions created because of protectionist border policies. Part of the great depression's intensity was a result of that. Wilson lowered tariffs that has been as high as 50% since the civil war. Some blamed the 1929 stock collapse on the free trade but it was pretty much other reasons. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed and it raised tariffs to record levels causing Canada, and most of Europe to either raise tariffs in American imports, Find new trade partners leaving America out of the mix or develop a system of self-sufficiency (Autarky) that had the same effect as excluding American trade.
After WWII brought us out of the depression, we settled on the Bretton woods system (named after the place it was create/enacted in) in which unilateral agreements were cast aside in favor or mroe fair and equitable multilateral agreements with much lower rates.
I also find it highly disturbing that someone thinks that the American government should be used to persecute one individual. You just don't want the government to have that type of authority. The reason why is because it can be used against you shall you ever find yourself on the opposite side of it. You don't want that to happen in any way- the government can tax you yourself in an attempt to persecute you for what amounts to a political ideal. And yes, moving to a country with lower taxes is a political Idea just as much as it is a business decision.
owever even as an expat, I am required to pay taxes on my income. It may be offset some by taxes paid to the country I am living in, but it is still there.. So with that said, the same should be true of corporations. If that is the case, which it isn't but should be, then it just becomes a matter of where the corporation is going to provide jobs.
Sort of. This is only true if you retain your American citizenship. If you denounce it and become a citizen of another country, you are not obligated to continue paying American taxes.
With a corporation, it is still true in both instances too. It is illegal to hide income offshore for the purpose of avoiding taxes. However, if the company moves a division off shore and incorporated it there as a subdivision, then all that matters if where the parent corporation is located at. If in the US, then all profits passed to the parent corporation will be taxed as normal income. IF the parent corporation isn't based in the US, and it gives up it's US rights, then it is the same as a citizen who gives up it's citizenship rights.
It is obvious with the success of Walmart, that most Americans could care less about having jobs in the US, and that corporations could care less about providing Americans with jobs as long as there is maximized shareholder profit. I suppose that if you could give a rats ass about the people in your own country, then yes there is nothing patriotic about running a corporation.. The problem is, that as you reduce the number of people with income, you reduce the number of people who can buy your products..
No, what is obvious with walmart is that most Americans prefer to pay less for the same things or the least for something comparable. It has nothing to do with preference of jobs in certain places, that is all extracurricular to the effects of walmart and outside the buying decisions for most Americans. People are going to walmart because if fits within their budgets better. Not because of some desire to lose American jobs or any connections to patriotism. If it wasn't for the savings Walmart offers, I couldn't have purchased the American made car I am driving.
So don't fall into the traps of false dichotomies based around obscure interpretations of events. The practice of one doesn't mean another is present or that the presence even means what you think it does. It's really complicated attempting to declare what others are thinking, especially when you hold some animosity surrounding that.
That was an interesting theory. I haven't heard of it before but it sounds like a lot of other things I have heard of.
However, we have seen what can be interpreted as laughter in other animals too. Young elephants have shows signs of this, Rats emitted ultrasonic squeals in response to tickling, Dogs emit emotion and come back for more just like the chips presenting their feet to be tickled again and again with their laughter studies.
Lets forget about the common ancestor for a minute, we know the speech patterns are different between apes and humans, we know they are different between most other species. Now, if all these other animals share a similar trait, that means that at any given point in time when the environment made it more of an advantage to pack together, these could have been inherent strong points accentuated by breeding and the survival during these times. Now there could have been several environmental scenarios throughout time but it isn't unreal to believe that the same effects would have happened to similar looking and functioning animals. In short, if it effected apes, it most likely would have effected humans in the area too. Even if we are a single line species evolved from a separate pile of goo, it's possible that the events paralleled and effected each other the same.
Now, putting the common ancestor back into the mix. The same is still true, if could be a trait from a common ancestor, or it still could be an event or series of events that brought it out. The common ancestor only introduces another possibility, it doesn't eliminate any others.
Slashdot Mirror
They are very relevant. They are the copyright holders and the only people who can make a claim against google for enforcement of the license.
If that happened, the response would be more like enforcement provisions within the WIPO treaties and Gatt agreements. The WTO provides protections against foreign countries from taking the patent and copyright materials too.
In the end, the native "other countries" would end up with laws over this too. All it would do if pushed, would be to bring enforcement to other countries.
The problem with points like that is that international trade is negotiated based around the protections of products within the countries. Currently, there are several in effect that penalize certain countries for doing business with others that don't repsect the property laws of one of the country.
What can happen , and I doubt it would over this one implementation, is that the economic advantages actually place pressure on certain countries to isolate the other in trade relations or take an economic hit themselves. This all became possible with the multilateral agreements after WWII and each trade agreement since contained protections against IP violations within the trade group either directly or indirectly. So the laws of other countries do apply to some extent.
I think I asked for links to the actual research which does say "doesn't reproduce" and mot incapable of doing so. Instead, you show links to a site that is designed to push the agenda or opinion over others, that really smart there.
But lets look at your page and what it was to say about speciation with the fruit flies,
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971): sterile males, can't mate period and would not evolve the species at all
Thoday and Gibson (1962): didn't mate from preferential selection, not biological incompatability
Crossley (1974) : again preference and choice, no biological incompatability
Kilias, et al. (1980) : Sterile offspring and preference or choice, no biological incompatability
All the rest is interpreted too. It doesn't say what your wanting it to say on it's own.
If you can't admit the simply truth that the interpretation of evidence is opinion until empirically observed, then this conversation is over due to your own ignorance.
That's interesting. Once those employees made it to the government labs, they would be under congress's domain though. I wonder how this would play out if the requirement was places on only those with access to the labs and the sensitive information within them?
Which species specifically state that the biological make up is so different that reproduction is biologically impossible? And no, don't point to idiots misinterpreting something, point to the actual research. You called it and are insisting something, now show it.
You need to drop the religious zealotry and look at it for what it is. The facts are A, B, and C, specialization claims are nothing more then an interpretation of those facts. The facts by themselves don't say anything about speciation, it allows you to create conclusions or opinions about them in order to signify their meaning. The facts on their own don't say anything close to what your claiming, and evolution, macro-evolution to be precise is not a fact, it's an opinion of facts.
I have read the Wikipedia articles. In fact, it just says the end populations are too distant to breed. It doesn't say biologically incapable of breeding just that they don't breed. It even offers the gulls as an example in which they are perfectly capable of interbreeding but do not because of migration patterns and preferences. This is no a biological restriction to breeding and you calling them a separate species or pointing at is as proof of specialization is nothing but opinion. It's not fact, it's opinion about facts. The evidence or facts themselves don't say what you wanting it to say so you add opinion and interpret it to fit your mold.
That's ok too, That is how science works. But don't deny someone the ability to challenge the opinions or what you think the evidence means because it's all interpreted opinion.
No, I'm arguing the point that your facts don't mean what you think they mean. You can't take facts on their own and present them on their own to the conclusion, you have to interpret them surrounding a bastardized concept that when applied liberally breaks down in an instant as obnoxious and absurd.
I don't think you understand, it's all opinion over observed evidence. You are making jumps to maintain your position and in doing so, you have offered nothing but unterpreted evidence that relies a whole lot on opinion. You have not disproved anything, you have simply stated your opinion and the opinions of other people.
In fact, you are the one with the denial problem.
Being an American is being a US citizen. You are talking about naturalization rights here and there is no such thing for a set of continents.
And if continental approximation is what you were intending to refer to, you fail on that too, there are the North and South American continents so you wouldn't be American, you would be North American or South American with the possibility of Central American depending on the school of though concerning the validity of geographical location being continent worthy but you wouldn't ever be just an American unless you are from the only country with America in it's name.
I'm not sure why idiots attempt to claim that but clearly the smallest examination of the situation show how wrong you are. I suspect it's because they secretly love the US so much while despising their own countries that they have to somehow twist reality in a way that gives them the America name. It's amazing when you find what shit hole most of these people come from.
During the cold war, closet homosexuals and married but cheating husbands who stood a lot to loose have turned state secrets over to the Russians surrounding the threat of exposure of those acts. Basically, anything that could publicly humiliate someone or present financial strain is a security risk. We had subs that would attach leaders to Russian telecommunications cables and was listening in on conversations for years, it was exposed to the Russians for 35K when a worker who was dissatisfied with his position and in economic trouble turned over information on it.
Perhaps an ask and tell policy is worth implementing. The issues you raised are only a security problem if they somehow apply pressure to the person. Suppose you don't want your wife to know you were by and tried sex with a sheep once, that could be my leverage to get you to do things you would never otherwise do (even if it's something as simple as dropping infected USB sticks around the facility in hopes that someone will plug it into a computer to see who's it is). Now suppose you fears loosing you job over that information, would you then be willing to do even more? But if you declare the information, that can never happen (assuming they aren't anal about the truth). And if they keep the information private, then instead of fearing the loss of your job, or your wife finding out, then you report it to a JPL liaison officer who gives you fake information while tracking the spy down and taking the entire ring out with hopes of never exposing you. And if you are exposed, the liaison officer simply claims it was part of a cover operation you participated in when we knew someone was poking around looking to steal secrets.
Personally, I would prefer this over just disqualifying someone. Knowing who and why someone is seeking unauthorized information is more powerful then preventing the possibility in the first place. However, discretion needs to be made.
I don't think it matters. California law shouldn't apply here.
If the JPL is on US government property and owned by the US government, the California laws applies only at the whim of Congress. The constitution gives congress the exclusive authority "To exercise exclusive legislation" over Washington DC, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other _needful buildings_. Unless the JPL is a wasteful project and not a "needful building", then California law would only apply by extension of power granted by congress.
Now this is by a presidential directive, the problem is that if congress gave the president that power over this program, then it relies on the same extension or at will as congress extended state law. So the problem here would be to define the intent of congress. If the presidential power came after the extension of state laws, then the will of congress is clear in that it supersedes state law because congress would have known of the effects on previous laws.
I don't think this issue is completed yet. It will most likely hit the Supreme Court simply because the federal government doesn't like to give up powers. That seems to be the case regardless of which party is in power.
I see what your saying but patriotism doesn't mean blind support or acceptance for policy. It is completely possible that someone could remain a patriot without supporting a new policy. But the difference between a company and a person has more to do with how they are constituted. A person is born with rights, a company is create because of one of those rights. Disbanding the American entity and reconstituting it elsewhere isn't near as involved as renouncing citizenship.
Cheaper at walmart for the most people doesn't mean less jobs, it means a better standard of living. That's the fact too. As for less jobs, well, that may be a reality but there are reasons to why it is outside of walmart. Walmart filled a void that was needed, it didn't create the void nor did it extend it. It's sort of important because human nature considers themselves over those they don't know.
OK, I will take as debatable. But I know that shift as small as 15% in costs for me would have made the car unaffordable when I purchased it. Buying cloths for me, my then girlfriend and her two kids, crap needed around the house like waste cans, cleaning supplies, laundry and dish detergent, replacing broken plates-glasses-lost silverware, and all if purchased at other stores would have easily encroached in that 15%. Now granted, walmart doesn't sell everything as foreign made, some of the stuff is American made in which high discounts are still found. I'm sure I can't be the only one ever to be in a position like that. I found that driving 35 miles once every other week to visit family and then shop at the walmart on the way back, made that car so much more affordable in a tight economic situation. Now there is one about 8 miles from my house but I still do the travel.
it's pretty bad when you think of yourself as the only one who knows the truth. Millions of other ignorant people might be a sign that you reality just isn't all that believable.
I have read those point before, I know what they claim to say. However, they don't present anything new to the mix as you are attempting to claim. You also bastardizing science in order to make the claims fact when they are mostely opinion about facts.
Perhaps you should get back to me when you're more educated on the differences between fact and opinion.
No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life.
No, you are either misinformed or attempting to purposely blur the lines to support your positions. The evidence doesn't contradict anything when you escape from the current theory of evolution and take the evidence at hand for their own merit.
Oh, ad hominem attracts. Gee Wizz, who would have thought it. I know exaclty what they mean and you do too. You also know exactly what I am talking about as this isn't our first discussion over this. Usually you are the religious gloval warming pusher but we have talked about macro and micro evolution before.
Take on the points or shut up. It's really thatr simple. You should know by now that you have to present hard evidence to change my mind, not personal attacks.
No, I keep claiming that completely possible things are possible. You are the one incorrectly claiming that they are impossible by pointing to non-relevent positions.
I fully understand what a ring species is. What I don't acnowledge is your attempt at a usage for the term. Physically prohibited from breeding doesn't mean biological incapable. That is why a ring species doesn't present any problems. It also doesn't lend the support that you think it does either.
You are the one who is wrong. None of the observed speciations happened without scientist splitting genes and direct manipulation of them. What is incorrectly being called speciation is where a group of offspring don't tend to breed or somehow are not physically-mechanically capable of interbreeding. That is not speciation yet you and many other people want to claim it is. Here is the test, look at the definition of species and if the result can interbreed (naturally or not) then it's the same species. Quit with the semantics of changing the definitions in order to support a point that would never otherwise have been possible. This is not a situation where if you don't like the game change the rules works.
Clothing would probably be the biggest import for these people. Electronics and computers would likely be the second. We can't seem to even produce a phone in the US without it costing the consumer over $50 where a cheap import costs 5-10.
That isn't because of the lack of tariffs. That's because of the dollar value compared to production costs. The dollar value adjusts as the strength of the US dollar moves while the production costs are pretty much fixed because of internal factors but the advantages are mainly because of costs. We have over regulated our industry and our unions have taken the productivity out of the market by demanding too much compensation.
You need to consider that there is more then one side here. We tax the imports, they do the same. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 compounded the recession from the stock market drops in 1929 causing the great depreciation. This was an effect of Most of Europe and Canada either matching the tariffs, finding other trade partners, or becoming self sufficient but the end result was locking the US out of most of the markets. The only way your isolationist policy begins to work is if you ignore the fact that we need foreign buyers to maintain our own economy. That's why this is a world recession and not just a US one.
Ring species are not that much of a problem at all. They are not biologically blocked from breeding, just physically or mechanically. Now, if humans are just part of the natural enviroment, then don't object to humans causing the breeding which proves rings species much like the great dane and chihuahua argument. Either be consistent or stop arguing.
Which bird can and can't breed but are the same species? Choice and mechanic disadvantage is not relevant but which birds are incapable?
Actually, no we haven't. We have bred fuit flies that don't favor other fruit flies but the only genetically incompatible fruit flies were created though direct gene manipulation under a microscope. In short, the only natural breeding is a preference unless we splice genes in and out of their eggs. That isn't natural and isn't much different then taking a pig's heart and placing it in a human. You get something that lives but isn't a separate species.
Specialization has only been observed by direct manipulation of the raw genetic material (a process that could never be natural) or by bastardizing the definition of species.
Macro and Micros are not the same thing either. I already explained the differences and the terms are used by people pointing to the specific in which evolution breaks. That could be creationist but it can also be evolutionist who don't buy the entire story. You cannot attempt to define or redefine the descriptive words others use to point to a specific part of a theory they are in disagreement with. Your insistence that it is the same thing is nothing more then you trying to hide the shaky parts inside the sound ones in a slight of hand attempt to avoid criticism of it. In species evolution does not prove anything would ever jump species or become a new species. All it means is that change and adaptation occurs inside the species. Attempting to hide speciation behind that obvious and noticeable fact is nothing more then propping up smoke and mirrors to make the crowd think something else is happening.
If it's not based in the US, then it isn't a leach on our society. Besides, they would be paying foreign taxes anyways. It wouldn't be a leach at all.
Not really. there are valid reasons to impose tariffs and such but the lopsidedness is out of necessity more so then policy. There are many people in the US who make so little that without cheap imports, the poverty level would increase overnight. Unions and over regulation have driven up American made prices to the point that the lower 1/3 of Americans either can't afford them or have to make cuts in their lifestyle in order to. Increasing the minimum wage and so on doesn't equalize the income levels either because it's one of those things causing the problem in the first place, over priced domestic products. Cheap imports are the stop gap that allow unions and others to demand higher wages. As we see with GM. it's ruined them.
I still don't see any abused here. You are free to be governed however you want. If you can't change the government of your local country, then move to another if they will take you. It's the same with corporations, they owe no participation in anything. They work within a set of rules and when those rules become intolerable, they move somewhere else. It's called freedom, not abuse.
Lol.. Silly boy, Technical possibility isn't diminished by physical improbability.
The physical size differences in the dogs is attributed to a single gene sequence (IGF1 gene) which is inhibited or suppressed in smaller dogs through selective breeding. The IGF1 gene acts like or triggers a growth hormone which accounts for large dogs stature. In short, the biological differences between a chihuahua and a great dane are present in all small dogs verses large dogs.
Now, pointing to something like a chihuahua and a great dane and the differences there causing them not to interbreed is much like the attempt to stray from the definition of species in order to claim speciation. In fact, with the same principles applied, physically not being able to reproduce because of physical obstructions or physical mechanics and not biological obstructions would make both the chihuahua or a great dane different species then their respective selves if another chihuahua or a great dane they were simply on separate continents separated by an ocean and possessed no possability of breeding within their own breed. Because they don't breed doesn't mean they cannot breed, and even if they don't breed, it doesn't mean they are a separate species. Obviously a chihuahua nor a great dane separated by an ocean would be considered different species because they didn't reproduce with their own species on the other continent.
Noting biologically prohibits a great dane and a chihuahua from breeding outside of the mechanics necessary due to the obvious differences. Whether or not this possibility to breed is artificial doesn't play into this. As I said, the specific different is the suppression of a gene in the DNA sequencing, they are the same species and are capable of interbreeding. The characteristics preventing a chihuahua and a great dane from naturally breeding is a result of the species not being separate species.
Also, without humans, they wouldn't exist in the first place. Humans breed chihuahuas and great danes into existence. They are after all, breeds of the same species. And don't start claiming that humans can be involved in one instance but not the other just to press a pointless point.
Then other countries tax our exports and we still lose by American companies not making as much profit.
This is a real problem and we have already seen recessions created because of protectionist border policies. Part of the great depression's intensity was a result of that. Wilson lowered tariffs that has been as high as 50% since the civil war. Some blamed the 1929 stock collapse on the free trade but it was pretty much other reasons. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed and it raised tariffs to record levels causing Canada, and most of Europe to either raise tariffs in American imports, Find new trade partners leaving America out of the mix or develop a system of self-sufficiency (Autarky) that had the same effect as excluding American trade.
After WWII brought us out of the depression, we settled on the Bretton woods system (named after the place it was create/enacted in) in which unilateral agreements were cast aside in favor or mroe fair and equitable multilateral agreements with much lower rates.
I also find it highly disturbing that someone thinks that the American government should be used to persecute one individual. You just don't want the government to have that type of authority. The reason why is because it can be used against you shall you ever find yourself on the opposite side of it. You don't want that to happen in any way- the government can tax you yourself in an attempt to persecute you for what amounts to a political ideal. And yes, moving to a country with lower taxes is a political Idea just as much as it is a business decision.
Sort of. This is only true if you retain your American citizenship. If you denounce it and become a citizen of another country, you are not obligated to continue paying American taxes.
With a corporation, it is still true in both instances too. It is illegal to hide income offshore for the purpose of avoiding taxes. However, if the company moves a division off shore and incorporated it there as a subdivision, then all that matters if where the parent corporation is located at. If in the US, then all profits passed to the parent corporation will be taxed as normal income. IF the parent corporation isn't based in the US, and it gives up it's US rights, then it is the same as a citizen who gives up it's citizenship rights.
No, what is obvious with walmart is that most Americans prefer to pay less for the same things or the least for something comparable. It has nothing to do with preference of jobs in certain places, that is all extracurricular to the effects of walmart and outside the buying decisions for most Americans. People are going to walmart because if fits within their budgets better. Not because of some desire to lose American jobs or any connections to patriotism. If it wasn't for the savings Walmart offers, I couldn't have purchased the American made car I am driving.
So don't fall into the traps of false dichotomies based around obscure interpretations of events. The practice of one doesn't mean another is present or that the presence even means what you think it does. It's really complicated attempting to declare what others are thinking, especially when you hold some animosity surrounding that.
That was an interesting theory. I haven't heard of it before but it sounds like a lot of other things I have heard of.
However, we have seen what can be interpreted as laughter in other animals too. Young elephants have shows signs of this, Rats emitted ultrasonic squeals in response to tickling, Dogs emit emotion and come back for more just like the chips presenting their feet to be tickled again and again with their laughter studies.
Lets forget about the common ancestor for a minute, we know the speech patterns are different between apes and humans, we know they are different between most other species. Now, if all these other animals share a similar trait, that means that at any given point in time when the environment made it more of an advantage to pack together, these could have been inherent strong points accentuated by breeding and the survival during these times. Now there could have been several environmental scenarios throughout time but it isn't unreal to believe that the same effects would have happened to similar looking and functioning animals. In short, if it effected apes, it most likely would have effected humans in the area too. Even if we are a single line species evolved from a separate pile of goo, it's possible that the events paralleled and effected each other the same.
Now, putting the common ancestor back into the mix. The same is still true, if could be a trait from a common ancestor, or it still could be an event or series of events that brought it out. The common ancestor only introduces another possibility, it doesn't eliminate any others.