Not going to happen. Sorry. It is a good idea, but there's a good enough mixture of corporate shilling and pointlessly oppositional partisanship to make this not actually make it through the whole process.
I'm not sure why an agriculture company would get a patent on a psychiatric medication. I get that Monsanto and Big Pharma are both "bad guys", but the patent(now expired) on Ritalin was granted to Novarta, a swiss pharmaceutical company, and most of their current work revolves around vaccines.
This is all information turned up in a few seconds of basic research(yay internet era). The point is that you shouldn't go crazy with every single thing being one big conspiracy.
Well, I think we all agree that enforcing "normality" is both stupid and impossible, because two people can pass each heading opposite directions looking for "normal".
So... just wind is, and this kind of a vaguely misunderstood economic question, not exactly anti-science dogma as you were describing. I mean... I get that people have misconceptions about nuclear power, but I've never really noticed a partisan slant in it, especially not the way global warming does. Which was my original thesis way back in the thread.
Could you be more specific, especially as to what you consider "speeches that parrot the dogma"? These are still very vague accusations that make it hard to establish whether the argument is valid and demonstrates the point you intend.
I think I have a factually valid counter-argument regarding the funding, but I'd like to understand what is the main point before I derail.
There should be an exemption to disliking grammar nazis any time someone goes out of their way to emphasize a word, and uses it completely incorrectly.
(or if your failure at grammar introduces serious ambiguity problems)
And again, I have to wonder how much of that perception is mired in stereotype versus any kind of real substantial population. I don't know, and I won't presume to assert that you're factually wrong, but I do feel the need to wonder.
There's only so much theoretical bandwidth on the broadcast range e/m spectrum. How much gets reserved for non-consumer purposes? How many towers/area can we afford? There's gotta be a theoretical fundamental limit, somewhere, right? Like there is with Moore's law?
How many liberals faking scientific literacy making that argument do you see on slashdot? Global warming denialism is more endemic to American conservatives than any of the commonly cited stereotypes about liberals.
That's not to say we deny the existence or alignment of the idiots, but we do know they're idiots.
No, what was overturned was not the traditional filibuster, and they elected to only overturn it for judicial nominations, since something like 30% of seats were empty.
Slashdot Mirror
Not going to happen. Sorry. It is a good idea, but there's a good enough mixture of corporate shilling and pointlessly oppositional partisanship to make this not actually make it through the whole process.
I'm not sure why an agriculture company would get a patent on a psychiatric medication. I get that Monsanto and Big Pharma are both "bad guys", but the patent(now expired) on Ritalin was granted to Novarta, a swiss pharmaceutical company, and most of their current work revolves around vaccines.
This is all information turned up in a few seconds of basic research(yay internet era). The point is that you shouldn't go crazy with every single thing being one big conspiracy.
Well, I think we all agree that enforcing "normality" is both stupid and impossible, because two people can pass each heading opposite directions looking for "normal".
Any idea what will be at this domain when its entire userbase is cured?
That's what I'm doing now. Incentivizing a change in another person because my own personal leverage against a monopoly is too small.
I convinced you, right?
Yeah, so when Microsoft was forcing people into other products because of the de-facto standard of windows, you didn't care, right?
No, but it's step 1.
If [asshole practice] isn't explicitly against the rules, then that's the first defense any person who engages in [asshole practice] rushes to.
One thing you can do:
duckduckgo.com
Another
mozilla.org or opera I guess
Don't use google anything. They're done.
That distinction helps no one. They're leveraging an effective monopoly on streaming video.
No they don't. We're the people they turn to when their crappy dell support won't help them fix "the internet"
Attempted paraphrase:
So what you're saying is that free market behavior correcting activities don't work in the presence of panopolies?
Because for every slashdotter that hears of this, a hundred non slashdotters won't, and they never imagine they'll get caught.
So... just wind is, and this kind of a vaguely misunderstood economic question, not exactly anti-science dogma as you were describing. I mean... I get that people have misconceptions about nuclear power, but I've never really noticed a partisan slant in it, especially not the way global warming does. Which was my original thesis way back in the thread.
Could you be more specific, especially as to what you consider "speeches that parrot the dogma"? These are still very vague accusations that make it hard to establish whether the argument is valid and demonstrates the point you intend.
I think I have a factually valid counter-argument regarding the funding, but I'd like to understand what is the main point before I derail.
What has any president since Carter done that's anti-nuclear, other than underfunding energy research?
There should be an exemption to disliking grammar nazis any time someone goes out of their way to emphasize a word, and uses it completely incorrectly.
(or if your failure at grammar introduces serious ambiguity problems)
While I appreciate healthy skepticism about medical advances, "google it" is a phrase I associate more with pseudoskepticism than the real deal.
And again, I have to wonder how much of that perception is mired in stereotype versus any kind of real substantial population. I don't know, and I won't presume to assert that you're factually wrong, but I do feel the need to wonder.
There's only so much theoretical bandwidth on the broadcast range e/m spectrum. How much gets reserved for non-consumer purposes? How many towers/area can we afford? There's gotta be a theoretical fundamental limit, somewhere, right? Like there is with Moore's law?
Uh, usually if you're making an argument by example, you're supposed to cite that example.
How many liberals faking scientific literacy making that argument do you see on slashdot? Global warming denialism is more endemic to American conservatives than any of the commonly cited stereotypes about liberals.
That's not to say we deny the existence or alignment of the idiots, but we do know they're idiots.
No, what was overturned was not the traditional filibuster, and they elected to only overturn it for judicial nominations, since something like 30% of seats were empty.
Or maybe I was commenting on the inanity of the part before. Does that scenario seem plausible to you?
Your post history(sorry) suggests you're American. Why do you feel like you have jack shit to say about how Canadian government works?
No, I'm "blinded" by basic respect for the conventional understanding of the English language, and not being literally insane.
What the hell is wrong with you?