The U.S. spending more money on AIDs research then double the rest of the world
This statistic has nothing to do with global responsibility. With all respect to those people who are dying of AIDS it is not, on a global level, a particularily huge problem. Far more people die of heart disease, cancer, etc.
Besides, most of the research done on AIDS is performed by large corporations who want to sell AIDS drugs to the world. It is not a measure of altruism - it is a measure of economic force.
Same with foreign aid. Why should Canada help out Haiti? Why should the rest of the world? The US doesn't help out everyone in need, only those whose wellbeing will directly affect the US. Who is the largest contributor to Nauru? I'm willing to bet it is not the US.
Haiti needs money to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the US. And, like every other country in the world, the US only spends money on what benefits them The US spends billions on foreign aid to Israel as well. Is this because it's people are starving? Or their education system is lacking? No - it is because it serves the US well to have a Mid-East ally in a position to crush the combined armies of their 2nd and 3rd world neighbours.
Perhaps some of that money spent on some community based universities might do more good to the US maintaining it's knowledge/power base than much of it's foreign "aid".
...marijuana is nonaddictive, users are peaceful and calm, there is no impairment of coordination, most activites you can do sober you can do stoned...
There is a mounting level of clinical trial material that states that Marijuana has some severe adverse events associated with it's use. Paranoia for one and aggression for another. In some people it aids in the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. It can lead to feelings of helplessness, depression and psychological addiction. Oh, and let's not forget things like dietry problems, birth defects, etc that are higher in chronic abusers.
I have heard some people claim that people who are affected in this way are a minority - that these people are let down by their genes. This is exactly the same issue with alcohol. And cigarettes. Others say that if used correctly it is perfectly harmless. So is alcohol.
On the whole I would think that a little more education on both of them would go a long way. They are not as different (in terms of risk)than both the law and the smokers/drinkers would have us believe.
Oh, in a vain attempt to stay OT... Marijuana and alcohol represent a far greater threat to young minds than all the violence and sex in computer games. That's why we have ratings systems. We just need proper enforcement of them.
Then let me add my name to the pro-Steam list. I was dubious about Steam's ability to deliver as promised, and XP hardly needs another process running in the background, but Steam is in my experience an incredible tool.
It allows me to install HL2 / CS:S on any of my PCs - or any net-attached PC if I plan to stay in it's vicinity for any length of time. If my PC dies I just log on to another PC, install Steam and away I go.
Trust the whining percentage of/.rs to complain that software licensing is too strict and when a software package that allows true "single-user" licensing comes along complain about that too!
I mean come on guys (and girls)! What have you done to improve commercial software licensing/distribution lately?
When you have been raised in a strong religious tradition Aethism is an extremely difficult concept to swallow. Many atheists have spent long hours weighing up what they want/need to believe against what they can see, observe and understand.
Calling it a ""do not disturb" sign hung out by the intellectually inert" is, in my experience, false. Believing something because it makes you feel safe and content does not guarantee that what you believe is the single truth - it just indicates that you may be nervous of accepting the possibile validity of conflicting points of view.
Try some real unbiased scientific analysis on Christian beliefs and see how they hold up.
Proper scientific theories provide a possible answer based upon observable phenomema, make predictions about possible future observations and provide tests that can confirm said theory.
The only explanation that ID provides is that something causes whole species to pop into existance - properly designed and fit for purpose of course.
We have changed whole regions of landmass to make them unfit for their original biological inhabitant - why hasn't something come along and inundated our metropolis' with some form of city-dwelling orangotan?
When we have to avoid stepping in urbanite monkey poo scientists will consider this a real contender.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry in advance for feeding the troll
The U.S. spending more money on AIDs research then double the rest of the world
This statistic has nothing to do with global responsibility. With all respect to those people who are dying of AIDS it is not, on a global level, a particularily huge problem. Far more people die of heart disease, cancer, etc.
Besides, most of the research done on AIDS is performed by large corporations who want to sell AIDS drugs to the world. It is not a measure of altruism - it is a measure of economic force.
Same with foreign aid. Why should Canada help out Haiti? Why should the rest of the world? The US doesn't help out everyone in need, only those whose wellbeing will directly affect the US. Who is the largest contributor to Nauru? I'm willing to bet it is not the US.
Haiti needs money to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the US. And, like every other country in the world, the US only spends money on what benefits them The US spends billions on foreign aid to Israel as well. Is this because it's people are starving? Or their education system is lacking? No - it is because it serves the US well to have a Mid-East ally in a position to crush the combined armies of their 2nd and 3rd world neighbours.
Perhaps some of that money spent on some community based universities might do more good to the US maintaining it's knowledge/power base than much of it's foreign "aid".
...marijuana is nonaddictive, users are peaceful and calm, there is no impairment of coordination, most activites you can do sober you can do stoned...
There is a mounting level of clinical trial material that states that Marijuana has some severe adverse events associated with it's use. Paranoia for one and aggression for another. In some people it aids in the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. It can lead to feelings of helplessness, depression and psychological addiction. Oh, and let's not forget things like dietry problems, birth defects, etc that are higher in chronic abusers.
I have heard some people claim that people who are affected in this way are a minority - that these people are let down by their genes. This is exactly the same issue with alcohol. And cigarettes. Others say that if used correctly it is perfectly harmless. So is alcohol.
On the whole I would think that a little more education on both of them would go a long way. They are not as different (in terms of risk)than both the law and the smokers/drinkers would have us believe.
Oh, in a vain attempt to stay OT... Marijuana and alcohol represent a far greater threat to young minds than all the violence and sex in computer games. That's why we have ratings systems. We just need proper enforcement of them.
Then let me add my name to the pro-Steam list. I was dubious about Steam's ability to deliver as promised, and XP hardly needs another process running in the background, but Steam is in my experience an incredible tool.
/.rs to complain that software licensing is too strict and when a software package that allows true "single-user" licensing comes along complain about that too!
It allows me to install HL2 / CS:S on any of my PCs - or any net-attached PC if I plan to stay in it's vicinity for any length of time. If my PC dies I just log on to another PC, install Steam and away I go.
Trust the whining percentage of
I mean come on guys (and girls)! What have you done to improve commercial software licensing/distribution lately?
When you have been raised in a strong religious tradition Aethism is an extremely difficult concept to swallow. Many atheists have spent long hours weighing up what they want/need to believe against what they can see, observe and understand.
Calling it a ""do not disturb" sign hung out by the intellectually inert" is, in my experience, false. Believing something because it makes you feel safe and content does not guarantee that what you believe is the single truth - it just indicates that you may be nervous of accepting the possibile validity of conflicting points of view.
Try some real unbiased scientific analysis on Christian beliefs and see how they hold up.
Proper scientific theories provide a possible answer based upon observable phenomema, make predictions about possible future observations and provide tests that can confirm said theory.
The only explanation that ID provides is that something causes whole species to pop into existance - properly designed and fit for purpose of course.
We have changed whole regions of landmass to make them unfit for their original biological inhabitant - why hasn't something come along and inundated our metropolis' with some form of city-dwelling orangotan?
When we have to avoid stepping in urbanite monkey poo scientists will consider this a real contender.