I was going to suggest to put it in a NEMA enclosure with rating of around 6 or 6p or higher. Maybe with a filter one a side but it appears the box you suggested is about the same (although it doesn't look like it's certified NEMA).
Alternatively, if he wanted to go with a more powerful system, he could find a NEMA enclosure and bolt parts into it. IT won't likely resemble a real computer and probably need modification. I'm thinking a lot of the older alarm enclosure boxes might be viable too. Something from Honeywell or Knight maybe- some even had mounts for drives but good luck finding one.
One might. It has certainly been described as the evil works of the devil. But they might also be a bit clueless. The supernatural creator supposedly made man master of everything so it would be likely that the deception is little more of a useful tool in that end. But it is all subject to interpretation I guess.
Belief in God is unscientific. There's no objective arguments for or against (there can be objective arguments against certain conceptions of a god).
Correct.
Believing in something against the evidence is anti-scientific.
incorrect. For instance, the evidence shows that water will flow downhill. Someone believed it would flow uphill if you put pressure behind it. Not we can view evidence of that being true, but at one point, it would be anti scientific and taboo if what you claim is true. Was plumbing a second story or a house on the hill anti-science? See how silly that it?
It's conceivable that the Universe was created in media res, with all the evidence of something over thirteen billion years of history, at any point in the past. This means that, to understand the Universe, or to function in society, we have to think as if the past actually happened, and the "fact" that the Universe was created last Thursday is irrelevant, even if it means that I never signed those mortgage papers, and they were simply created as part of God's plan.
Correct. Which is why I posited that a belief in an earth less than 10,000 years old is not anti science because the evidence of it being older could be a result of the creation. The easiest way to explain it might be with someone reproducing and piece of furniture. They can copy the methods to produce the original, they can manipulate the finish, even cause the appearance to be antiqued artificially. They can even do such a good job at it that it fools everyone into thinking it's a 300 year old piece too. But especially in science, the evidence of one thing does not mean another piece of evidence cannot be ture also. For instance, 2(1+1) is the same as 2+2 is the same as 5-1. They all equal 4. If science limited everything else possible and insisted that only 2+2 was valid, 5-1 would be anti scientific by your declaration. Of course we know that not to be true.
But you are correct in that it is irrelevant in science. Unscientific comments and thought does not matter to science and it is not anti science. You have to hold them and use them every single day. For instance, do you pay for your gas or drive off without paying? That's an unscientific thought because it is based on your ethics. Sure there may be penalties, people may have the highly unscientific reaction and exhibit emotions toward you, you could get away without being caught too. But in the end it is an unscientific dilemma that does not make you anti science.
What's the evidence for YEC? Specifically which evidence is there that the "Earth is 10,000 years old"? Give one example that is not a folk tale. To believe that one must actively avoid all the media, courses, books, and basically everything in our culture that supports evolution.
I do not have to show any evidence. I never said YEC is true or anything of the sort. I said science does not disprove it, cannot disprove it, and you are incorrect in trying to claim it does.
As i already pointed out, the evidence being part of the creation for whatever reason is how that can happen. Its no different that 2(1+1) and 2+2 both equalling 4.
And as I pointed out, there can be legitimate dual paths to the same conclusions and there can even be paths that are a subset of another function leading to the same conclusions. Stop pretending there is only one way.
But there is a difference between unscientific claims and being anti-science, and the people who obstinately believe that YEC is true are truly anti-science. It's exhibited through their actions - that not only do they not believe that the Earth is OLD but you must also believe it's only 10,000 years old (or ~6000 years old (4004 BCE) depending on which lunatic you're talking to). This includes various arguments of the "dragon in my garage" style as exhibited above and such nonsense as the Dover PA school board idiocy. It's the active opposition that makes them anti- something and not just un- something. That's what the actual dictionary definition of "anti-" means.
Lol.. there is nothing anti scientific about an unscientific argument concerning the perceptions in science. Here your failure is in thinking that information needs to be disregarded or rejected when I have several times now laid out scenarios in which the information is still used for the context it is useful.
What has been done is that evidence has been presented that the Earth is older than 10,000 years notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. It's that scientific conclusions are always contingent on whatever evidence there is, not dogma. YECs have to show at least some evidence that the Earth is as young as they say it is for their point to have any standing. And they can't. Because they have no evidence outside of circular "logic" and outright fraud. I mean, come on, the whole Noah's Ark thing in KY and Discovery Institute BS is all about grift and fleecing the marks (the "true believers")
Wrong, wrong, wrong. All anyone has to do is posit that the appearance of evidence was the will of the creation. You cannot challenge that scientifically because it is not a scientific statement. Your failure is in demanding arbitrary conditions be present that do not need to be present. You are essentially building staw men to shoot them down because it makes you feel like a killer or something.
No, I'm not actually. You're just a troll and IHBT. But whatever. An unused blade becomes rusty.
No, you are simply wrong and going around making incorrect unscientific statements pretending they are scientific in your worship of science. You are a religious zealot in much the same ways the fundamentalists are.
1 - there are an infinite number of very unlikely problems which could be avoided by a simple low-cost countermeasure
And yet we already have the chemical sensors in place and more being installed. But lets ignore all that for some stupid reason that amounts to you basically thinking you know it all and sit on our hands when something could be cheap and easily integrated into existing systems and possibly save lives or lowers suffering from effects. But hey, you know it all right?
2 - infinity times 'low-cost' equals high-cost
And low costs equals low costs. Did you see the word "if" in my statement or did you blind yourself jerking your knee so hard trying to reply that you know it all? Perhaps if a dispersal system was implemented, you wouldn't need to get raped as much when going to the airport or accosted so much in the subways. Perhaps you enjoy that jack booted security and don't want to lose it.
Lol.. you are not a good driver when you get in an accident. Almost all accidents can be avoided if you are driving. But that is not important.
What is important would be your anti explaination. It is flawed in more than one ways. First, no one needs to reject anything. A young earth is completely compatable if the creator card is played. It simply was created to look that way. Ok that error pointed out. The next would be you anti christian point. The only way it would make sense in comparison would be if you treat science like a religion. The term you were looking for is blasphemus. That is because the church does not allow changes. Science specifically does. Making a non scientific statement should not endanger your worldview unless it is your religion. It is not blaphemus to science. It is not anti science. And that is true no matter how much it hurts your feelings.
If you don't mind me asking, exactly what changws to the world were you expecting? He certainly has changed the world or more likely sat back and watched it change with the lead from behind when i'm not golfing foreign policy.
Lol.. i'm mildly amused by your attempt but the reality is that you are trying too hard to talk past the point as if it somehow invalidates it.
First, answer this question. Is 2(1+1) equal to 2+2?
Of course it is. Nothing in math or science prevents there being more than one way to calculate 4. So, is there more than one way to nake the color white? Of course there is, there is a separate color palete for pigment representaltions and light. So the fact that evidence shows one usable way of understanding does not negate another, it just shows we have useful information that we can use and build other information from.
I was not in any way saying science was not correct. I was saying that in science, the existance of one theory or interpretation of evidence does not preclude any other. When someone inserts a supernatural force, it cannot be falsified and is not scientific but it also is not anti science. Even the possabilty of the earth being younger but appearing older must exist in science else you stop being scientific. Of course there is no evidence i know of that but if it isn't allowed, we are out of science and into religion or something else.
So i was at a flee market the other day. I saw this old antique table. I also saw someone purchase it for what seemed a small amount of money. I looked at it and saw the dove tail joints were modern and it wasn't old at all. Someone created this table purposely making it look old for astheics. The idea and concept is not new or foreign in thought or practice. This guy just wasn't trying to fool people so it was easy to spot on examination and with the price. Nothing in science prevented the manipulation of the finish or style to appear old. Nothing in science prevented me from noticing it either. In fact, i could have used science to discover its real age or i could have just taken the guy's word when he told me it was a reproduction. The later is not scientific and it certainly is not anti science.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It does not in any way require anyone to ignore evidence,, they can perfectly well accept the evidence as part of a more grand scheme that happens to not be scientific. As i already pointed out, the evidence being part of the creation for whatever reason is how that can happen. Its no different that 2(1+1) and 2+2 both equalling 4. Science can do nothing about that either because science cannot falsify it.
Anyone trying to claim science disproves religion or who is focused on people with religious beliefs is simply unscientific. They are actually more of the religious mindset than anything. You can "not believe" their claims but it would not be because of anything scientific. It would be because the claims are not scientific.
Now i know your all pissed off because your worldview doesn't fit with the reality of the situation. But that would not have happened if you did not make unscientific claims as if they were. In short, you are just wrong.
Oh my. Using an unscientific plead to suggest science is true and the unscientific view is not. Here is the problem with people who think they know it all but fail to understand what they think they know. First, why would a god create in ways that would make you think otherwise- thats simple, declared man to be the masters of earth and all that is on it. How can you master it if you cannot understand it. But you are missing the point. Science cannot falsify any of that, it cannot prove it is true and the other is not true. It is not anti science it is just not scientific.
As for the rest of your highly unscientific tripe, i do not have to prove or predict anything. All i have to do is recognize what science actually says which is that there is a natural explaination that does not need a creator but does not rule one out- because it cannot.
So thanks for playing and sorry i insulted your religion but you should have stuck with science.
You must have a very dificult time with reading comprehension. I never said the concept was scientific, i said you cannot use science to disprove it. Therefore saying the earth is 10,000 years old is not anti science, its just unscientific.
But go ahead and froth at the mouth toughting what you wany to have been said instead of what was said.
By the way, i know exactly how science is supposed to work and calling people anti science because of beliefs science cannot falsify is more anti science than the gp envisioned some religious idiot as being because the gp is pretending yo come from a scientific stance. That's like crashing you car and swearing you are a good driver.
The earth being less than 10,000 years old is not anti science.
I know, you have to make those overly broad statements because if you allow anyone who does not agree with you any dignity, you might loose faith yourself. But seriously, you are no different than a preacher thinking he will lose his followers and their donations by doing so.
And what is especially interesting is that I will be neither you or anyone else using anti science as if it is a real description, understand the science yourself enough to know that it's just an explanation and could be right or wrong, could be the result of a creation by design, or could be just a parallel process that turns out to be only true on paper. In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.
Now believing in that supernatural being or it's creation is not scientific, but it's not necessarily anti science either. Fail on your part I guess.
You mean NASA or the Air Force would refuse to launch for them? I mean the US Air Force has been putting weather satellites into orbit for quite a while now and they either do it themselves or have it ride on a NASA mission.
I say find one of the devices, look at how it appears, then manufacturer fake ones and put them near police headquarters and a couple of the officers homes.
Get the cops themselves asking about it. I'm sure they will not get blown off so easily and cops are generally stupid anyways. The ones not in the know will end up blabbing all about it eventually.
I don't know abut a top priority or taking funds from other programs but I think it is reasonable to have some level of protection should this turn out to be cheap and easily administered. We already have chemical sensors in subways after the Tokyo incident, we also already have fire suppression systems. The chemical sensors were in the works ever since the subway in Tokyo in 1995 and rushed into service after 9/11. It's been expanding ever since.
It's not like it would be a major retrofit or some sort of extensive project to have something like this neutralizing agent around so it could be deployed should a sensor go off. It's likely to be brought in or something similar to it after an evacuation if a sensor goes off anyways. If it's cheap and easily deplorable, what is the harm?
I wonder if it could be distributed globally. I mean like an epi pen or even in a sensor in a subway that would automatically use the stuff if sarin or some other chemical gas is detected.
Well this is the issue isn't it... how do you know if the person was guilty or not? the 4% you cite are the ones who actually got justice after serving long prison terms... it doesn't count the people still in prison but innocent, nor the ones executed.
If they were trialed and convicted, made it through the appeals process, DNA evidence, and witnesses and so on and still on death row, I'm satisfied enough in their guilt. But we are not talking about people still in prison, just people on death row. There is a very high standard for being sentenced to death and an elaborate appeals process that takes a very liberal approach.
f you kill someone then you deserve to get the death penalty right? well if the state (you, me, and everyone who does nothing to change the death penalty law thereby accepting them) executes an innocent man, that's murder and you deserve the death penalty.
Even at 4% it's certain we are executing innocent men... and we're all to blame.. why do we get to murder and not pay the price we demand of those we put to death?
Like I said, it would be whomever lied in court. If they are convicted and no one lied, it would be accidental just like you crashing your car after sliding on ice and killing someone. But those instances are rare, the bar for a capitol punishment case is high and the death sentence would most likely be withheld without someone lieing or manufacturing evidence.
especially because it costs less to house a man till he dies (and this allows the opportunity to eventually free him if innocent)!!!!!
Actually, if you are not on death row, you are less likely to be set free because less resources are devoted to appeals and process for prisoners not on death row. If you are on death row, one of the reasons it costs so much more is because they do so much more to ensure you are not the innocent person you claim to be. Regular prisoners do not get this extra attention.
Yeah totally. Execution is suicide in exactly the same way that vandalizing someone's car is punching yourself in the face. i.e. not at all, in any conceivable way.
If you know the possible consequences of an action is your own death and decide to do those actions, how is that not your fault? I mean pull a gun on a cop, very few people will blame the cop for shooting and killing you. If you decide to act in ways that will cause your death, it is the same as suicide.
As for the rest, I really do not care enough about the death penalty. If I go on a killing spree, I expect I will be killed in the end. If I do not, I really have nothing to worry about. I can however see someone wanting to see the killer of their loved ones dead. In fact. I would likely do it myself if I knew who killed one of my loved ones.
I wonder about how many innocent people executed would constitute an unacceptable rate to you.
Well, right now, it seems we sentence to death a little over six tenths of one percent of the convicts compared to the number of people murdered. In other words, of the number of people murdered, we only prosecute and sentence to death roughly 0.6% in comparison. Come talk to me when that number reaches 1 percent or better.
How naively ignorant you are. It's almost cute if it wasn't so offensive.
First, not everywhere is your back yard. Not everywhere is only where "you" want to go. There are places not serviced by trains and that is more common than not in the US. For instance, it is more than 100 air miles to the nearest passenger train station in my area and travel by anything other than air to it would be closer to 150 miles. And as someone else pointed out, there are no long haul electric passenger trains in the US.
Also, if we drop oil from ships, then the perishable cargo will end up having to be flown because of the time spans involved so we will end up needing more oil. Or do you think every place on the planet can actually grow food and food stuff year around? Do you think that manufacturing facilities should be broken up and created in more regions creating the need for more fossil fuel energy?
But lets go back to your electric train and electric car. Without oil, they simply would not be around. You do not think it is electricity that lubricates the parts do you? You do not think it is electricity that forms the basis for the plastics and polyesters that make your electric car light enough to actually be feasible for more than a 20 mile round trip do you? I swear, you are like the PETA guy wearing leather shoes and a fur coat at a protest.
We can wait for oil & coal to have disastrous consequences, or put pressure on industry to change before it gets that far. Such as taxing CO2 emissions in general. If this provides too much tax money, use it to fund research & construction of nicer alternatives. And if cheap countries refuse and tries to compete using polluting industry? Trade embargo or put the CO2 tax on all their products.
This will never- ever happen. At least never in our life times. First, third world countries with cheap energy is a go to for outsourcing textiles. No politician in their right mind would ever embargo those countries because of this. Second, taxing all CO2 emissions harms the poor disproportionately and is cruel so again, no politician in their right mind who has to answer to the public will ever do it. Even if they call for it, they will only do so knowing there is no chance in hell of it happened. The best they can do is tax some CO2 emissions in order to subsidize less cost effective technology.
But the reason why oil will not collapse without government interference is because it's largely market driven. So when the demand goes down, the price does too, which will stabilize or increase demand to a point. But no one proposing the political solutions are even trying to reduce emissions. They are trying to redistribute wealth which was the goal of several political groups (like jubilee 2000) when Global Warming became such a big scare and demanded something needs to be done.
If you do not doubt me, look at the Kyoto protocol. All annex one countries were to allow duty and tariff free imports from LCD countries plus 14 of the annex one countries were considered EIT countries and they would have their limits set so high that they could sell the credits to the industrialized (developed) countries to make up their shortfalls. Furthermore, the annex two countries were required to provide financial and technological support to the EIT countries.
In the end, it was not about carbon emissiosn, it was about transferring wealth and there was a huge political backlash over it in most of the world subject to it. Canada even ended up withdrawing for the treaty. Europe increased it's imports from these EIT countries as well as the LCD countries and that is how they coped with their reduction demands. Of course Germany, the darling of the Green Movement, had the added bonus benefit of unifying East and West Germany which was counted separate in 1990 and 1991, so they made a huge drop by getting rid of redundant systems and replacing outdated soviet systems with modern efficient ones. Germany BTW, has also stopped reducing an
You bring up this European and french thing like it means something. It does not. America is not a continent. The Americas aee two separate continent denoted by the words North and South. Further, there are geographoc distinctions like central america. If you are attemting to address an entire continant or region, you need to use the names corisponding like north american or south american.
Its not the rest of the world's problem if you local language is so backwards or restricted to make that aware. You are conversing in English and failing to use defined english terms in doing so. It is your problem not mine. You government does not have your problem, nowhere else in the world has your problem. Its just people like you who want to look ignorant on purpose who have the problem. It is no different than the difference between tom or jerry, it is a given name and defined before you ever got confused and decided to stand behind your ignorance is such a proud and public fashion.
I'm not sure why you would need to distinguish like that. Canadians are not american, they are north american just like the mexicans even though there is the artificial central america designation for the area. Or do south americans somehow fail to qualify for your quirk in reasoning? America is not the continent, its North America. There is also a South America, and an invented Central America if you want to jump from continental designation to a useful geographic distinction.
What you essentially are doing is trying say that heard looks like a flock so you will create a term like dogian to distinguish a pack of dogs. The problem is, theee are already valid names and terms that achieve the goal and it is pure ignorance when other terms are invented and substituted.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to suggest to put it in a NEMA enclosure with rating of around 6 or 6p or higher. Maybe with a filter one a side but it appears the box you suggested is about the same (although it doesn't look like it's certified NEMA).
Alternatively, if he wanted to go with a more powerful system, he could find a NEMA enclosure and bolt parts into it. IT won't likely resemble a real computer and probably need modification. I'm thinking a lot of the older alarm enclosure boxes might be viable too. Something from Honeywell or Knight maybe- some even had mounts for drives but good luck finding one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Maybe these guys are running the state?
One might. It has certainly been described as the evil works of the devil. But they might also be a bit clueless. The supernatural creator supposedly made man master of everything so it would be likely that the deception is little more of a useful tool in that end. But it is all subject to interpretation I guess.
Correct.
incorrect. For instance, the evidence shows that water will flow downhill. Someone believed it would flow uphill if you put pressure behind it. Not we can view evidence of that being true, but at one point, it would be anti scientific and taboo if what you claim is true. Was plumbing a second story or a house on the hill anti-science? See how silly that it?
Correct. Which is why I posited that a belief in an earth less than 10,000 years old is not anti science because the evidence of it being older could be a result of the creation. The easiest way to explain it might be with someone reproducing and piece of furniture. They can copy the methods to produce the original, they can manipulate the finish, even cause the appearance to be antiqued artificially. They can even do such a good job at it that it fools everyone into thinking it's a 300 year old piece too. But especially in science, the evidence of one thing does not mean another piece of evidence cannot be ture also. For instance, 2(1+1) is the same as 2+2 is the same as 5-1. They all equal 4. If science limited everything else possible and insisted that only 2+2 was valid, 5-1 would be anti scientific by your declaration. Of course we know that not to be true.
But you are correct in that it is irrelevant in science. Unscientific comments and thought does not matter to science and it is not anti science. You have to hold them and use them every single day. For instance, do you pay for your gas or drive off without paying? That's an unscientific thought because it is based on your ethics. Sure there may be penalties, people may have the highly unscientific reaction and exhibit emotions toward you, you could get away without being caught too. But in the end it is an unscientific dilemma that does not make you anti science.
I do not have to show any evidence. I never said YEC is true or anything of the sort. I said science does not disprove it, cannot disprove it, and you are incorrect in trying to claim it does.
And as I pointed out, there can be legitimate dual paths to the same conclusions and there can even be paths that are a subset of another function leading to the same conclusions. Stop pretending there is only one way.
Lol.. there is nothing anti scientific about an unscientific argument concerning the perceptions in science. Here your failure is in thinking that information needs to be disregarded or rejected when I have several times now laid out scenarios in which the information is still used for the context it is useful.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. All anyone has to do is posit that the appearance of evidence was the will of the creation. You cannot challenge that scientifically because it is not a scientific statement. Your failure is in demanding arbitrary conditions be present that do not need to be present. You are essentially building staw men to shoot them down because it makes you feel like a killer or something.
No, you are simply wrong and going around making incorrect unscientific statements pretending they are scientific in your worship of science. You are a religious zealot in much the same ways the fundamentalists are.
And yet we already have the chemical sensors in place and more being installed. But lets ignore all that for some stupid reason that amounts to you basically thinking you know it all and sit on our hands when something could be cheap and easily integrated into existing systems and possibly save lives or lowers suffering from effects. But hey, you know it all right?
And low costs equals low costs. Did you see the word "if" in my statement or did you blind yourself jerking your knee so hard trying to reply that you know it all? Perhaps if a dispersal system was implemented, you wouldn't need to get raped as much when going to the airport or accosted so much in the subways. Perhaps you enjoy that jack booted security and don't want to lose it.
Lol.. you are not a good driver when you get in an accident. Almost all accidents can be avoided if you are driving. But that is not important.
What is important would be your anti explaination. It is flawed in more than one ways. First, no one needs to reject anything. A young earth is completely compatable if the creator card is played. It simply was created to look that way. Ok that error pointed out. The next would be you anti christian point. The only way it would make sense in comparison would be if you treat science like a religion. The term you were looking for is blasphemus. That is because the church does not allow changes. Science specifically does. Making a non scientific statement should not endanger your worldview unless it is your religion. It is not blaphemus to science. It is not anti science. And that is true no matter how much it hurts your feelings.
If you don't mind me asking, exactly what changws to the world were you expecting? He certainly has changed the world or more likely sat back and watched it change with the lead from behind when i'm not golfing foreign policy.
Lol.. i'm mildly amused by your attempt but the reality is that you are trying too hard to talk past the point as if it somehow invalidates it.
First, answer this question. Is 2(1+1) equal to 2+2?
Of course it is. Nothing in math or science prevents there being more than one way to calculate 4. So, is there more than one way to nake the color white? Of course there is, there is a separate color palete for pigment representaltions and light. So the fact that evidence shows one usable way of understanding does not negate another, it just shows we have useful information that we can use and build other information from.
I was not in any way saying science was not correct. I was saying that in science, the existance of one theory or interpretation of evidence does not preclude any other. When someone inserts a supernatural force, it cannot be falsified and is not scientific but it also is not anti science. Even the possabilty of the earth being younger but appearing older must exist in science else you stop being scientific. Of course there is no evidence i know of that but if it isn't allowed, we are out of science and into religion or something else.
So i was at a flee market the other day. I saw this old antique table. I also saw someone purchase it for what seemed a small amount of money. I looked at it and saw the dove tail joints were modern and it wasn't old at all. Someone created this table purposely making it look old for astheics. The idea and concept is not new or foreign in thought or practice. This guy just wasn't trying to fool people so it was easy to spot on examination and with the price. Nothing in science prevented the manipulation of the finish or style to appear old. Nothing in science prevented me from noticing it either. In fact, i could have used science to discover its real age or i could have just taken the guy's word when he told me it was a reproduction. The later is not scientific and it certainly is not anti science.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It does not in any way require anyone to ignore evidence,, they can perfectly well accept the evidence as part of a more grand scheme that happens to not be scientific. As i already pointed out, the evidence being part of the creation for whatever reason is how that can happen. Its no different that 2(1+1) and 2+2 both equalling 4. Science can do nothing about that either because science cannot falsify it.
Anyone trying to claim science disproves religion or who is focused on people with religious beliefs is simply unscientific. They are actually more of the religious mindset than anything. You can "not believe" their claims but it would not be because of anything scientific. It would be because the claims are not scientific.
Now i know your all pissed off because your worldview doesn't fit with the reality of the situation. But that would not have happened if you did not make unscientific claims as if they were. In short, you are just wrong.
Oh my. Using an unscientific plead to suggest science is true and the unscientific view is not. Here is the problem with people who think they know it all but fail to understand what they think they know. First, why would a god create in ways that would make you think otherwise- thats simple, declared man to be the masters of earth and all that is on it. How can you master it if you cannot understand it. But you are missing the point. Science cannot falsify any of that, it cannot prove it is true and the other is not true. It is not anti science it is just not scientific.
As for the rest of your highly unscientific tripe, i do not have to prove or predict anything. All i have to do is recognize what science actually says which is that there is a natural explaination that does not need a creator but does not rule one out- because it cannot.
So thanks for playing and sorry i insulted your religion but you should have stuck with science.
You must have a very dificult time with reading comprehension. I never said the concept was scientific, i said you cannot use science to disprove it. Therefore saying the earth is 10,000 years old is not anti science, its just unscientific.
But go ahead and froth at the mouth toughting what you wany to have been said instead of what was said.
By the way, i know exactly how science is supposed to work and calling people anti science because of beliefs science cannot falsify is more anti science than the gp envisioned some religious idiot as being because the gp is pretending yo come from a scientific stance. That's like crashing you car and swearing you are a good driver.
Lol.. you do not know that and you cannot make any arguments that definitively alter that. Didn't you read the rest of my post?
I bet you did and that is why you went directly ad hominem. Should I call you anti intellectual or religious zealot?
The earth being less than 10,000 years old is not anti science.
I know, you have to make those overly broad statements because if you allow anyone who does not agree with you any dignity, you might loose faith yourself. But seriously, you are no different than a preacher thinking he will lose his followers and their donations by doing so.
And what is especially interesting is that I will be neither you or anyone else using anti science as if it is a real description, understand the science yourself enough to know that it's just an explanation and could be right or wrong, could be the result of a creation by design, or could be just a parallel process that turns out to be only true on paper. In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.
Now believing in that supernatural being or it's creation is not scientific, but it's not necessarily anti science either. Fail on your part I guess.
You mean NASA or the Air Force would refuse to launch for them? I mean the US Air Force has been putting weather satellites into orbit for quite a while now and they either do it themselves or have it ride on a NASA mission.
I say find one of the devices, look at how it appears, then manufacturer fake ones and put them near police headquarters and a couple of the officers homes.
Get the cops themselves asking about it. I'm sure they will not get blown off so easily and cops are generally stupid anyways. The ones not in the know will end up blabbing all about it eventually.
I don't know abut a top priority or taking funds from other programs but I think it is reasonable to have some level of protection should this turn out to be cheap and easily administered. We already have chemical sensors in subways after the Tokyo incident, we also already have fire suppression systems. The chemical sensors were in the works ever since the subway in Tokyo in 1995 and rushed into service after 9/11. It's been expanding ever since.
It's not like it would be a major retrofit or some sort of extensive project to have something like this neutralizing agent around so it could be deployed should a sensor go off. It's likely to be brought in or something similar to it after an evacuation if a sensor goes off anyways. If it's cheap and easily deplorable, what is the harm?
I wonder if it could be distributed globally. I mean like an epi pen or even in a sensor in a subway that would automatically use the stuff if sarin or some other chemical gas is detected.
If they were trialed and convicted, made it through the appeals process, DNA evidence, and witnesses and so on and still on death row, I'm satisfied enough in their guilt. But we are not talking about people still in prison, just people on death row. There is a very high standard for being sentenced to death and an elaborate appeals process that takes a very liberal approach.
Nope. It would be whomever lied in court to convict the prisoner. We do not just flip a coin and say you need to die. Some people might like that but it just does not happen unless the cops kill someone (there have been more unarmed people killed by cops since 1999 than claimed innocent people executed).
Like I said, it would be whomever lied in court. If they are convicted and no one lied, it would be accidental just like you crashing your car after sliding on ice and killing someone. But those instances are rare, the bar for a capitol punishment case is high and the death sentence would most likely be withheld without someone lieing or manufacturing evidence.
Actually, if you are not on death row, you are less likely to be set free because less resources are devoted to appeals and process for prisoners not on death row. If you are on death row, one of the reasons it costs so much more is because they do so much more to ensure you are not the innocent person you claim to be. Regular prisoners do not get this extra attention.
If you know the possible consequences of an action is your own death and decide to do those actions, how is that not your fault? I mean pull a gun on a cop, very few people will blame the cop for shooting and killing you. If you decide to act in ways that will cause your death, it is the same as suicide.
As for the rest, I really do not care enough about the death penalty. If I go on a killing spree, I expect I will be killed in the end. If I do not, I really have nothing to worry about. I can however see someone wanting to see the killer of their loved ones dead. In fact. I would likely do it myself if I knew who killed one of my loved ones.
I wonder about how many innocent people executed would constitute an unacceptable rate to you.
Well, right now, it seems we sentence to death a little over six tenths of one percent of the convicts compared to the number of people murdered. In other words, of the number of people murdered, we only prosecute and sentence to death roughly 0.6% in comparison. Come talk to me when that number reaches 1 percent or better.
How naively ignorant you are. It's almost cute if it wasn't so offensive.
First, not everywhere is your back yard. Not everywhere is only where "you" want to go. There are places not serviced by trains and that is more common than not in the US. For instance, it is more than 100 air miles to the nearest passenger train station in my area and travel by anything other than air to it would be closer to 150 miles. And as someone else pointed out, there are no long haul electric passenger trains in the US.
Also, if we drop oil from ships, then the perishable cargo will end up having to be flown because of the time spans involved so we will end up needing more oil. Or do you think every place on the planet can actually grow food and food stuff year around? Do you think that manufacturing facilities should be broken up and created in more regions creating the need for more fossil fuel energy?
But lets go back to your electric train and electric car. Without oil, they simply would not be around. You do not think it is electricity that lubricates the parts do you? You do not think it is electricity that forms the basis for the plastics and polyesters that make your electric car light enough to actually be feasible for more than a 20 mile round trip do you? I swear, you are like the PETA guy wearing leather shoes and a fur coat at a protest.
This will never- ever happen. At least never in our life times. First, third world countries with cheap energy is a go to for outsourcing textiles. No politician in their right mind would ever embargo those countries because of this. Second, taxing all CO2 emissions harms the poor disproportionately and is cruel so again, no politician in their right mind who has to answer to the public will ever do it. Even if they call for it, they will only do so knowing there is no chance in hell of it happened. The best they can do is tax some CO2 emissions in order to subsidize less cost effective technology.
But the reason why oil will not collapse without government interference is because it's largely market driven. So when the demand goes down, the price does too, which will stabilize or increase demand to a point. But no one proposing the political solutions are even trying to reduce emissions. They are trying to redistribute wealth which was the goal of several political groups (like jubilee 2000) when Global Warming became such a big scare and demanded something needs to be done.
If you do not doubt me, look at the Kyoto protocol. All annex one countries were to allow duty and tariff free imports from LCD countries plus 14 of the annex one countries were considered EIT countries and they would have their limits set so high that they could sell the credits to the industrialized (developed) countries to make up their shortfalls. Furthermore, the annex two countries were required to provide financial and technological support to the EIT countries.
In the end, it was not about carbon emissiosn, it was about transferring wealth and there was a huge political backlash over it in most of the world subject to it. Canada even ended up withdrawing for the treaty. Europe increased it's imports from these EIT countries as well as the LCD countries and that is how they coped with their reduction demands. Of course Germany, the darling of the Green Movement, had the added bonus benefit of unifying East and West Germany which was counted separate in 1990 and 1991, so they made a huge drop by getting rid of redundant systems and replacing outdated soviet systems with modern efficient ones. Germany BTW, has also stopped reducing an
Sure you can. You just need to keep it like your real life and make it devoid of sexualized body parts.
You bring up this European and french thing like it means something. It does not. America is not a continent. The Americas aee two separate continent denoted by the words North and South. Further, there are geographoc distinctions like central america. If you are attemting to address an entire continant or region, you need to use the names corisponding like north american or south american.
Its not the rest of the world's problem if you local language is so backwards or restricted to make that aware. You are conversing in English and failing to use defined english terms in doing so. It is your problem not mine. You government does not have your problem, nowhere else in the world has your problem. Its just people like you who want to look ignorant on purpose who have the problem. It is no different than the difference between tom or jerry, it is a given name and defined before you ever got confused and decided to stand behind your ignorance is such a proud and public fashion.
I'm not sure why you would need to distinguish like that. Canadians are not american, they are north american just like the mexicans even though there is the artificial central america designation for the area. Or do south americans somehow fail to qualify for your quirk in reasoning? America is not the continent, its North America. There is also a South America, and an invented Central America if you want to jump from continental designation to a useful geographic distinction.
What you essentially are doing is trying say that heard looks like a flock so you will create a term like dogian to distinguish a pack of dogs. The problem is, theee are already valid names and terms that achieve the goal and it is pure ignorance when other terms are invented and substituted.