Due to Auntie Beeb's rampant xenophobia, those of you outside of the UK may have to use a proxy or VPN to spoof a UK IP address.
It's not xenophobia, you silly twit. The BBC is funded by UK licence payers, who have no obligation whatsoever to provide free content to people in other countries.
Depleted uranium is carcinogenic, causes brain damage and reproductive organ failure among other nasty things. Not because of it's radiation but because it's a really nasty toxin, and the reaction products aren't nice either.
Chemical problems, not radioactive.
The problem is that anyone who criticises anything even tangentially related to a radioactive substance is labelled as an anti-science bleeding heart liberal hippy on slashdot.
The group think here is that because depleted uranium is not virulently radioactive, therefore any attempt to suggest it is responsible for Gulf War Syndrome is nothing but a revolutionary left wing attack on the glorious Western military machine, with no basis in reality.
Nobody has suggested that the depleted uranium was causing direct radiation poisoning just by being near it. It's a combination of handling a poison, and blowing that poison up and dispersing it in the air for people to breathe that is the problem.
those "on the receiving end" of a 10 kg projectile travelling at ~1000 meters per second don't suffer for long at all.
You seem to have missed the point that the Gulf veterans who fired the projectiles are also suffering from the side effects of depleted uranium use. If the DU just made better bullets or shells then disappeared there wouldn't be a problem.
But you just carry on parrotting the Military-Industrial complex line like a good boy, Gulf War Syndrome is purely imaginary.
Maybe I'm crazy, but 20% yearly revenue growth for a company Google's size seems pretty healthy.
In the deranged world of the stock market it is not enough for a company to increase revenue year on year. No, the rate of increase in the increase must also increase year on year.
Unless you can project forward revenue of something approaching infinity, your company is simply not trying hard enough.
Considering just the left alone, there have been lots of high profile actresses speaking out against it, and Beverly Hills is another area with low vaccination rates
To an outsider, Americans' use of terms like "left" is baffling. The sort of people who live in Beverly Hills are left wing only in the sense that they don't actually admire Hitler.
In rest-of -the-world terms I think you just mean "reasonably liberal on social questions".
One thing I've noticed about software engineers is that too many of them are lacking the critical statistics skills they need to function effectively. Perhaps it's because we tend to think in Boolean terms of true and false. Thus, "I have a 1:450,000,000 chance of winning the lottery" turns into "I have a chance of winning the lottery", which is a different wording that is remarkably easy to misinterpret as a "50:50" chance
"I'm not an hilariously fucking stupid knobend, I just tend to think in Boolean terms of true and false".
I think it's a bit of a different issue here. Notice these are pretty much all computer related firms. As we all know, many people in this field think anything can be fixed in the software.
Plus, they and their kids will soon be able to upload themselves into the Matrix following the Singularity, which is due any day soon, so there's no need to worry about trivia like physical diseases.
I mean fine, believe what you want, but don't call yourself an engineer when you hold so much science in contempt guys.
Well, they're just engineers, not scientists.
I expect a lot of them are "computer scientists" though, and therefore highly likely to be climate change deniers, libertarians, survivalists, Gold Standard fans and Scientologists.
You don't believe that the State has a right to prevent you from harming me?
I think a libertarian would argue that the State has no such right, and that the resolution of your conflict is a matter for you (or your next of kin if you're dead) to take up in a civil court and claim damages.
In addition anything the government mandates runs the risk of abuse. Who chooses what immunizations make the cut? MMR? Smallpox? Chicken Pox? What about HPV? How much rigging the system will the pharmaceutical companies do to get the new canker sore vaccine included or include something that's not nearly as effective as they claim?
If it is the case that your government is controlled by large corporations, then that is an argument for strengthening the powers and democratic accountability of that government, and seriously diluting the power of the corporations.
I have no issue with vaccines. I have an issue with government usurping the power to decide what medical treatment I will undergo.
"Government" also prevents you from poisoning a neighbour's well because you don't like his dog or his taste in music.
You can spout all the "freeman on the land" rhetoric you like, but at the end of the day, if you live in society you have to accept curbs on your freedom.
So when you say extensive government is required for a level playing field, you misunderstand what libertarians mean by a level playing field
The normal meaning of the phrase "level playing field" refers to equality of opportunity for individuals, and pretty much by definition requires government interference in businesses who are discriminating against people because of sex, race or whatever.
Only business-obsessed libertarians and other right wingers would consider it as applying exclusively to the "rights" of companies.
It's all just playing with words in order not to sound nasty.
That's utter bollocks. Ignoring the dynamism and wonderfulness, you will never have an egalitarian society without government there to curb the excesses of powerful corporate interests. And unfettered laissez faire capitalism will result in even more powerful corporations than we have now.
It is more honest for libertarians to admit they are only really interested in liberty, and don't actually care about equality or fraternity at all.
But professional gamblers gamble a lot of money at a time on thngs with a far less ridiculous chance of winning than 1 in 175 million, and make a living in the medium term.
You can't really compare them with someone paying $2 for a lottery ticket.
I don't know about where you live, but here in the UK a lot of people who bought houses for less than GBP50,000 in the 1970s now have an asset worth over a million.
If during the last forty years they'd rented a house, they would essentially have been helping someone else to become a millionaire instead of them.
Telling the truth is not the highest moral quality: acting morally is.
Someone who does good but sometimes lies (eg. telling a white lie about Santa Claus to avoid upsetting a child) is morally superior to someone who does evil but is entirely honest about it.
I'm not drinking alcohol at all this year (just as an experiment - I'm not a recovering alcoholic or anything like that). I don't think that this has made any difference to my socialising.
"Getting drunk never helped me get laid, so maybe staying sober will".
People should always be trying to avoid taxes. Blindly paying whatever taxes are assessed is foolish and will always lead to the levying of more and more taxes because due to greed and human nature. Governments are incapable of ever lowering taxes in any real or meaningful way. The only way to avoid runaway taxation is perpetual tax avoidance. Many people go so far as to consider taxation theft, and avoidance patriotic.
As I get older, it becomes easier to understand why most revolutions start with hanging a bunch of the rich and powerful from lampposts.
Slashdot Mirror
Due to Auntie Beeb's rampant xenophobia, those of you outside of the UK may have to use a proxy or VPN to spoof a UK IP address.
It's not xenophobia, you silly twit. The BBC is funded by UK licence payers, who have no obligation whatsoever to provide free content to people in other countries.
Depleted uranium is carcinogenic, causes brain damage and reproductive organ failure among other nasty things. Not because of it's radiation but because it's a really nasty toxin, and the reaction products aren't nice either.
Chemical problems, not radioactive.
The problem is that anyone who criticises anything even tangentially related to a radioactive substance is labelled as an anti-science bleeding heart liberal hippy on slashdot.
The group think here is that because depleted uranium is not virulently radioactive, therefore any attempt to suggest it is responsible for Gulf War Syndrome is nothing but a revolutionary left wing attack on the glorious Western military machine, with no basis in reality.
Nobody has suggested that the depleted uranium was causing direct radiation poisoning just by being near it. It's a combination of handling a poison, and blowing that poison up and dispersing it in the air for people to breathe that is the problem.
those "on the receiving end" of a 10 kg projectile travelling at ~1000 meters per second don't suffer for long at all.
You seem to have missed the point that the Gulf veterans who fired the projectiles are also suffering from the side effects of depleted uranium use. If the DU just made better bullets or shells then disappeared there wouldn't be a problem.
But you just carry on parrotting the Military-Industrial complex line like a good boy, Gulf War Syndrome is purely imaginary.
Maybe I'm crazy, but 20% yearly revenue growth for a company Google's size seems pretty healthy.
In the deranged world of the stock market it is not enough for a company to increase revenue year on year. No, the rate of increase in the increase must also increase year on year.
Unless you can project forward revenue of something approaching infinity, your company is simply not trying hard enough.
I would call it "compound growth" on the lines of "compound interest".
Considering just the left alone, there have been lots of high profile actresses speaking out against it, and Beverly Hills is another area with low vaccination rates
To an outsider, Americans' use of terms like "left" is baffling. The sort of people who live in Beverly Hills are left wing only in the sense that they don't actually admire Hitler.
In rest-of -the-world terms I think you just mean "reasonably liberal on social questions".
One thing I've noticed about software engineers is that too many of them are lacking the critical statistics skills they need to function effectively. Perhaps it's because we tend to think in Boolean terms of true and false. Thus, "I have a 1:450,000,000 chance of winning the lottery" turns into "I have a chance of winning the lottery", which is a different wording that is remarkably easy to misinterpret as a "50:50" chance
"I'm not an hilariously fucking stupid knobend, I just tend to think in Boolean terms of true and false".
The far right and the far left both think those who disagree with them must be idiots
Deep down, everybody thinks those who disagree with them must be idiots.
I think it's a bit of a different issue here. Notice these are pretty much all computer related firms. As we all know, many people in this field think anything can be fixed in the software.
Plus, they and their kids will soon be able to upload themselves into the Matrix following the Singularity, which is due any day soon, so there's no need to worry about trivia like physical diseases.
I mean fine, believe what you want, but don't call yourself an engineer when you hold so much science in contempt guys.
Well, they're just engineers, not scientists.
I expect a lot of them are "computer scientists" though, and therefore highly likely to be climate change deniers, libertarians, survivalists, Gold Standard fans and Scientologists.
You don't believe that the State has a right to prevent you from harming me?
I think a libertarian would argue that the State has no such right, and that the resolution of your conflict is a matter for you (or your next of kin if you're dead) to take up in a civil court and claim damages.
AKA Sharia law.
In addition anything the government mandates runs the risk of abuse. Who chooses what immunizations make the cut? MMR? Smallpox? Chicken Pox? What about HPV? How much rigging the system will the pharmaceutical companies do to get the new canker sore vaccine included or include something that's not nearly as effective as they claim?
If it is the case that your government is controlled by large corporations, then that is an argument for strengthening the powers and democratic accountability of that government, and seriously diluting the power of the corporations.
Being good with computers does not automatically make you an expert in medicine, climate science, sexual politics or any number of other things.
I can't believe that a serious libertarian would send their kids to a state school. It would be like Richard Dawkins educating his kids with Opus Dei.
I have no issue with vaccines. I have an issue with government usurping the power to decide what medical treatment I will undergo.
"Government" also prevents you from poisoning a neighbour's well because you don't like his dog or his taste in music.
You can spout all the "freeman on the land" rhetoric you like, but at the end of the day, if you live in society you have to accept curbs on your freedom.
So when you say extensive government is required for a level playing field, you misunderstand what libertarians mean by a level playing field
The normal meaning of the phrase "level playing field" refers to equality of opportunity for individuals, and pretty much by definition requires government interference in businesses who are discriminating against people because of sex, race or whatever.
Only business-obsessed libertarians and other right wingers would consider it as applying exclusively to the "rights" of companies.
It's all just playing with words in order not to sound nasty.
It is more honest for libertarians to admit they are only really interested in liberty, and don't actually care about equality or fraternity at all.
You can't really compare them with someone paying $2 for a lottery ticket.
If during the last forty years they'd rented a house, they would essentially have been helping someone else to become a millionaire instead of them.
At least he's truthful that he's not truthful.
Telling the truth is not the highest moral quality: acting morally is.
Someone who does good but sometimes lies (eg. telling a white lie about Santa Claus to avoid upsetting a child) is morally superior to someone who does evil but is entirely honest about it.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
I'm not drinking alcohol at all this year (just as an experiment - I'm not a recovering alcoholic or anything like that). I don't think that this has made any difference to my socialising.
"Getting drunk never helped me get laid, so maybe staying sober will".
any possible GOP candidate will get 100% negative media coverage
Yes, even an outsider like myself knows that the entire US media are nothing more than a front for the Communists/Illuminati.
If you vote for Scott Walker the sun ain't gonna shine anymore.
People should always be trying to avoid taxes. Blindly paying whatever taxes are assessed is foolish and will always lead to the levying of more and more taxes because due to greed and human nature. Governments are incapable of ever lowering taxes in any real or meaningful way. The only way to avoid runaway taxation is perpetual tax avoidance. Many people go so far as to consider taxation theft, and avoidance patriotic.
As I get older, it becomes easier to understand why most revolutions start with hanging a bunch of the rich and powerful from lampposts.
I see your Electric Universe theory, and raise you a Time Cube.