I'm going to wait until the evidence comes in before I make a decision.
But if there's one theory that explains everything without invoking dark matter, and one that has to use dark matter to explain certain things, which one are you going to believe? I know I would sure favor the one not using dark matter.
Actually, being attractive isn't that important. It's kinda like being rich, it will get some who judge you on that aspect alone, but probably not the ones you really want. Much more important than being attractive is not being a slob. Like you said, don't do anything to turn them off before they get to know you (well, at least if you are confident and funny...)
Well, one reason might be to keep people from killing you in order to release the copyright on your works. I would not want to be a person that just created a popular creative work, which other people wanted to get in on, since all they would have to do to be able to use it is kill me...
From what I've heard (which may or may not be accurate...), the reason the FISA courts wouldn't work is because they wanted mass surveilance combined with the data mining powers of the NSA. If they just wanted to spy on individuals, this would have been no problem, but they're trying to cast their net wider than the FISA courts would have allowed (due to quantity or lack of evidence I'm not sure) them to.
So let me get this striaght, they fly by evolving into a creature just a little bit ahead of themselves? And here I thought they flew by flapping their wings....
But what I don't get is how they go from bees fyling to no evolution. Certainly no scientist would say that science currently explains evrything about the universe. And that's all that this example is used for, to show limits of science, since it has nothing to do with evolution. (It's not really even biology, more like physics...)
I'm sorry, but Google is a company that people have heard of. And if this is being marketed toward people who otherwise couldn't afford a computer, or do not currently have one, then the new operating system is not a concern either. The fact that it wouldn't run off the shelf software is a concern, since if the consumers don't have any computer experience, they won't know anything about compatibility either.
Well, there was discussion, but not much came of it. There is a whole convoluted mess of a timeline with different people and groups wanting legislation. Much of it stems from the fact that the FDA didn't originally want to liscense GM food, since they'd never had to OK produce before.
Way to effectively neuter your original statement completely. You have now stated effectively nothing, since you have just defined personal profit as any sort of motivation.
Really, all that would have happened then is you would have no case against Sony for doing what they did. People still would have done what they were told to do to get the CD to play. The difference is that they would have had to explicitly alow what was happening (and the vast majority would have).
While I agree that this would make the news everywhere, this sort of attack wouldn't do quite as good a job of spreading terror as many others. Attacking people at work or on their way to work I think is much more effective than attacking a group of rich tourists. While it would certainly cause a stir, the average person wouldn't be as worried about this as they would an attack on their daily commute.
While I do agree with your argument in principle, there are a couple of flaws with your specifics. Basically, there absolutely should be controls on antibiotics. There are already problems due to improper use and antibiotic resistant bacteria. An uninformed user would likely take them either for the wrong problem or for too short of a time period, causing a much larger problem and rendering them uneffective in the future. Secondly, many drugs have serious side effects as well as interactions with other drugs that the average person would know very little about.
Now obviously, if prescriptions ere no longer necessary, doctors would still be around, and people who felt that they were not well equipped to make medical decisions would go see them instead of trying to do it themselves. And this reason is why I agree with you in principle, since if everyone was reasonable and knew their limitations, it should work. But unfortunately, people aren't all smart or humble or wealthy enough to afford doctors now that they are optional, so they will be likely to make some very bad decisions that affect the rest of us.
Of course, if you're dying, I don't really see what difference it makes if the procedure or drug isn't fully tested. As long as someone has adequately explained the risks to you and you understand them. (wait, what risks? you're already dying...) The only contention I have here is that you can sometimes feel you have less of a chance of living than is actually true. But again, just make sure that you adequately understand the risks.
The problem with that is that we already know that life happened, we don't need to prove life's existence. we are interested in the causes of life. and by merely observing a supernova, you can prove nothing about what caused it.
And then, once they had produced too much of it, proceded to choke on their own waste, wiping out a good portion of life on earth. (several times as a matter of fact)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to wait until the evidence comes in before I make a decision.
But if there's one theory that explains everything without invoking dark matter, and one that has to use dark matter to explain certain things, which one are you going to believe? I know I would sure favor the one not using dark matter.
I hear they also have a wonderful telephone system...
talking to Jesus with no pants on.
Yeah, doesn't he normally wear a robe?
Actually, being attractive isn't that important. It's kinda like being rich, it will get some who judge you on that aspect alone, but probably not the ones you really want. Much more important than being attractive is not being a slob. Like you said, don't do anything to turn them off before they get to know you (well, at least if you are confident and funny...)
Personally, I prefer to do both so I have redundant back up systems. Plus, the deck of cards really helps pass the time.
Except the dogs would only find the cancer if it was in your butt...
Perhaps there has been more evidence uncovered, but I certainly don't remember Iraq having anything to do with 9/11. Would you care to share?
I knew this was true for allergies, but I had not heard about it for the immune system in general. Does anyone have a link to the study?
Well, one reason might be to keep people from killing you in order to release the copyright on your works. I would not want to be a person that just created a popular creative work, which other people wanted to get in on, since all they would have to do to be able to use it is kill me...
Soon the humans will build a board with a nail so large that it will destroy the entire world! Ha ha ha ha!
Actually, assuming 90 degree rights, two rights make a backwards.
From what I've heard (which may or may not be accurate...), the reason the FISA courts wouldn't work is because they wanted mass surveilance combined with the data mining powers of the NSA. If they just wanted to spy on individuals, this would have been no problem, but they're trying to cast their net wider than the FISA courts would have allowed (due to quantity or lack of evidence I'm not sure) them to.
Beer is the grossest tasting thing ever.
Spoken from a Budweiser-Miller-Coors experience, obviously. Hmm, is it just me or do these statements not mesh all that well...
So let me get this striaght, they fly by evolving into a creature just a little bit ahead of themselves? And here I thought they flew by flapping their wings....
But what I don't get is how they go from bees fyling to no evolution. Certainly no scientist would say that science currently explains evrything about the universe. And that's all that this example is used for, to show limits of science, since it has nothing to do with evolution. (It's not really even biology, more like physics...)
I'm sorry, but Google is a company that people have heard of. And if this is being marketed toward people who otherwise couldn't afford a computer, or do not currently have one, then the new operating system is not a concern either. The fact that it wouldn't run off the shelf software is a concern, since if the consumers don't have any computer experience, they won't know anything about compatibility either.
Well, there was discussion, but not much came of it. There is a whole convoluted mess of a timeline with different people and groups wanting legislation. Much of it stems from the fact that the FDA didn't originally want to liscense GM food, since they'd never had to OK produce before.
Actually, in rare cases, there have been female mules that are fertile.
Way to effectively neuter your original statement completely. You have now stated effectively nothing, since you have just defined personal profit as any sort of motivation.
Really, all that would have happened then is you would have no case against Sony for doing what they did. People still would have done what they were told to do to get the CD to play. The difference is that they would have had to explicitly alow what was happening (and the vast majority would have).
While I agree that this would make the news everywhere, this sort of attack wouldn't do quite as good a job of spreading terror as many others. Attacking people at work or on their way to work I think is much more effective than attacking a group of rich tourists. While it would certainly cause a stir, the average person wouldn't be as worried about this as they would an attack on their daily commute.
While I do agree with your argument in principle, there are a couple of flaws with your specifics. Basically, there absolutely should be controls on antibiotics. There are already problems due to improper use and antibiotic resistant bacteria. An uninformed user would likely take them either for the wrong problem or for too short of a time period, causing a much larger problem and rendering them uneffective in the future. Secondly, many drugs have serious side effects as well as interactions with other drugs that the average person would know very little about.
Now obviously, if prescriptions ere no longer necessary, doctors would still be around, and people who felt that they were not well equipped to make medical decisions would go see them instead of trying to do it themselves. And this reason is why I agree with you in principle, since if everyone was reasonable and knew their limitations, it should work. But unfortunately, people aren't all smart or humble or wealthy enough to afford doctors now that they are optional, so they will be likely to make some very bad decisions that affect the rest of us.
Of course, if you're dying, I don't really see what difference it makes if the procedure or drug isn't fully tested. As long as someone has adequately explained the risks to you and you understand them. (wait, what risks? you're already dying...) The only contention I have here is that you can sometimes feel you have less of a chance of living than is actually true. But again, just make sure that you adequately understand the risks.
infinite time
infinite space
infinite possibilities
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we know none of these...
The problem with that is that we already know that life happened, we don't need to prove life's existence. we are interested in the causes of life. and by merely observing a supernova, you can prove nothing about what caused it.
And then, once they had produced too much of it, proceded to choke on their own waste, wiping out a good portion of life on earth. (several times as a matter of fact)