He said pray at the alter of, like a a deity, it doesn't actually exist, and no lifestyle you live will be "free market" enough for the ardent moralizers. It's a broken mentality. There never were "true free markets".
It's this thin veneer of ironic hate, that really fails to cover for being fundamentally bad people. "I'm posting on the internet, in a way that will permanently demonstrate my incompatibility with civilized society."
Beloved franchise=first released in 2009 to moderate critical reception.
I didn't buy dragon age 2 because I could smell the awful a mile away. That doesn't justify threatening the goddamn life of writer, in conjunction with your kind of misogynistic bullshit, over the fact that she wrote some things you don't like.
Steam, is, in fact, mostly just a web browser. It has a few other things it can do, like start games, and install things. The vast vast vast vast majority of the interface and design is just a web browser, hitting a web-app the steam devs created.
Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.
He said lacking any justification at all for his statement.
People die of cancer everywhere, and everywhen, it's not unique to "our" food. It's not magically caused by "chemicals". There are carcinogens present in modern society, but the primary causes of cancer aren't your damn food.
Yeah, and the headline even contradicts the poorly written news article(which is already far too removed from the research to be safe). It specifically was engineered to treat one kind of cancer, they think it will effects on a similar cancer, and have a little hope for "many others". That's a far-cry from "curing all cancers".
Actually, pretty quickly after takeoff, a rocket's inclination is changed to 25ish degrees. If you just go straight up, you're just going to fall back to earth and never achieve orbit.
Well, there's not unreasonable evidence that early human slash-and-burn farming caused a reduction in important negative feedbacks (vis-a-vis forests) and the carbon cycle. But that has basically negligible effect compared to the rates of change (and rates of change of rates of change) seen since 1800.
How about thousands of well documented papers, all carefully reviewed, many retested with other instruments, based on fundamentally valid physics, with no meaningful contrary assessments?
The fundamental hypocrisy here is one that is necessary to the scientific method. You must simultaneously be willing to accept that some components of a branch of study are flawed enough to warrant whatever hypothesis, experiment, or observation you are doing, while still believing in the fundamental soundness of the scientific method, and the general accuracy of most results, which form the basis of your own study.
This is a case where they're just being intentionally obtuse, and have nothing interesting to say. Not a "not even wrong" moment, and more of a just plain wrong.
We can actually tell when this happens, you know. We can examine the soil layers around the earth, and a consistent layer across the whole planet in the same strata identifies a time when substantial dust was settling. I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, but haven't actually looked at what experts say.
No, it's pretty much just "no". The phrase "global warming" conventionally describes the unprecedentedly rapid rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution. That is entirely "our fault" because of aforementioned unprecedented rate, and that data is quite incontestable without dramatic misrepresentation of what is being compared.
Isn't it inconvenient when people who have nothing insightful to say speak up?
Now that we're addressing what the post was. Yes, yes it is.
Posting a sarcastic poorly informed opinion entirely lacking context, fact, or meaningful insight is not the same as "thinking differently." It's petulant, immature, and helps no one, least of all people who might agree with them for legitimate reasons.
Healthy skepticism, sure, insane "I absolutely refuse to believe this because it goes against my preconceived notions" is moronic. Video games and cognitive abilities have been related in the past. This, to my knowledge, is the first study that uses controls for different genres, but far from the first addressing the concept.
No, but nothing is incompatible with religious views as religious views have a long history of eventually ceding the point on everything that was previously believed to be of divine origin.
Since the rise of the advertising gods, the "content" of the internet has primarily fallen into the hyper-uninformative type like top-ten lists with "fair use" google image searched images slapped next to each. That's not to say there isn't content that I value, but the squeeze for advertising dollars seems to me to have made content worse and not better.
Slashdot Mirror
He said pray at the alter of, like a a deity, it doesn't actually exist, and no lifestyle you live will be "free market" enough for the ardent moralizers. It's a broken mentality. There never were "true free markets".
It's this thin veneer of ironic hate, that really fails to cover for being fundamentally bad people. "I'm posting on the internet, in a way that will permanently demonstrate my incompatibility with civilized society."
Beloved franchise=first released in 2009 to moderate critical reception.
I didn't buy dragon age 2 because I could smell the awful a mile away. That doesn't justify threatening the goddamn life of writer, in conjunction with your kind of misogynistic bullshit, over the fact that she wrote some things you don't like.
Steam, is, in fact, mostly just a web browser. It has a few other things it can do, like start games, and install things. The vast vast vast vast majority of the interface and design is just a web browser, hitting a web-app the steam devs created.
Unfortunately, the abuse is frequently targeted at hapless employees. You can hate bobby kotik all day for the business abuses he engages in, but when people threaten the lives of poorly paid writers for daring to have a philosophy about writing, it's not a good thing.
Actually, on Free-to-play pay-to-win games, they seem like the most useless demographic.
To say that every part of society has gone though a dramatic shift over the last 2 centuries is an extraordinary understatement.
Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.
He said lacking any justification at all for his statement.
People die of cancer everywhere, and everywhen, it's not unique to "our" food. It's not magically caused by "chemicals". There are carcinogens present in modern society, but the primary causes of cancer aren't your damn food.
Yeah, and the headline even contradicts the poorly written news article(which is already far too removed from the research to be safe). It specifically was engineered to treat one kind of cancer, they think it will effects on a similar cancer, and have a little hope for "many others". That's a far-cry from "curing all cancers".
It was the ministry of love. Ministry of truth is more like the NSA.
Actually, pretty quickly after takeoff, a rocket's inclination is changed to 25ish degrees. If you just go straight up, you're just going to fall back to earth and never achieve orbit.
Well, there's not unreasonable evidence that early human slash-and-burn farming caused a reduction in important negative feedbacks (vis-a-vis forests) and the carbon cycle. But that has basically negligible effect compared to the rates of change (and rates of change of rates of change) seen since 1800.
How about thousands of well documented papers, all carefully reviewed, many retested with other instruments, based on fundamentally valid physics, with no meaningful contrary assessments?
"Solidly provable" isn't a definable term. If you want hard evidence, set hard criteria. Should you do so, I think people might be able to comply.
The fundamental hypocrisy here is one that is necessary to the scientific method. You must simultaneously be willing to accept that some components of a branch of study are flawed enough to warrant whatever hypothesis, experiment, or observation you are doing, while still believing in the fundamental soundness of the scientific method, and the general accuracy of most results, which form the basis of your own study.
This is a case where they're just being intentionally obtuse, and have nothing interesting to say. Not a "not even wrong" moment, and more of a just plain wrong.
We can actually tell when this happens, you know. We can examine the soil layers around the earth, and a consistent layer across the whole planet in the same strata identifies a time when substantial dust was settling. I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, but haven't actually looked at what experts say.
No, it's pretty much just "no". The phrase "global warming" conventionally describes the unprecedentedly rapid rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution. That is entirely "our fault" because of aforementioned unprecedented rate, and that data is quite incontestable without dramatic misrepresentation of what is being compared.
Isn't it inconvenient when people who have nothing insightful to say speak up?
Now that we're addressing what the post was. Yes, yes it is.
Posting a sarcastic poorly informed opinion entirely lacking context, fact, or meaningful insight is not the same as "thinking differently." It's petulant, immature, and helps no one, least of all people who might agree with them for legitimate reasons.
Healthy skepticism, sure, insane "I absolutely refuse to believe this because it goes against my preconceived notions" is moronic. Video games and cognitive abilities have been related in the past. This, to my knowledge, is the first study that uses controls for different genres, but far from the first addressing the concept.
I was anthropomorphizing anyways. Views themselves don't do anything. They're passive objects.
No, but nothing is incompatible with religious views as religious views have a long history of eventually ceding the point on everything that was previously believed to be of divine origin.
SQUEAK.
Since the rise of the advertising gods, the "content" of the internet has primarily fallen into the hyper-uninformative type like top-ten lists with "fair use" google image searched images slapped next to each. That's not to say there isn't content that I value, but the squeeze for advertising dollars seems to me to have made content worse and not better.
Unlikely results with good controls and p>>0.05. So congrats on that argument from personal incredulity.
With their fantastic still-present control over their country.