How would multiple husbands for each woman work? If you're fucking her ass, you're not much improved over homosexuality, and potentially 9 months of every year she'll be pregnant with only one husband, who'll be looking for sex while she's out of commission.
Written records in America go back to the 1500s, so we've got you beat there. But we're talking about temperature measurements. Since the first thermometer was invented in 1714, and the first place to take regular atmospheric temperature readings was in Rio de Janero beginning in 1849, and since reliable records weren't kept most places until sometime in the 20th century, it doesn't really matter.
The air-headed, young attractive females like money.
The nasty, skanky, smelly, ugly, saggy, hairy legged ones will put out if you feed em this line (or buy them weed.)
Take two examples of rich people: Bill Gates & Larry Ellison. Certainly neither is a product of genetic riches, so based on your theory, neither are descended from wealthy families. In the case of Bill Gates, he did come from a moderately wealthy family, but Larry Ellison was an orphan. Excepting for the strange conditions of capitalism and democracy, you can take two other examples. Prince Charles and Yasser Arafat spring to mind as good examples of the ultra-rich who obtained their riches outside of capitalism.
Actually, the only evolutionary conclusion that can be drawn is that poor people will evolve to produce prettier daughters, thus ensuring the survival of their group. It is evolutionary advantageous for poor people to have pretty daughters. There is no evolutionary advantage for rich people to have pretty children, since their rich descendants will be able to procure pretty mates.
You are confusing evolution with breeding. If traits within a species (such as shortness) are emphasized in breeding, then their descendants will have those traits, but unless isolated over extreme time (longer than all the racial differences so far -- pygmies can still reproduce with swedes), there is no species change.
Unless it is a significant change (the difference between living and dying), evolution doesn't matter at all. Not if you believe in the natural selection component of evolution. So a thousand tiny changes are completely meaningless unless something in the environment causes each of those thousand changes to sigificantly alter the survival & reproduction of the individual with the change comparatively with the individual with a different (or no) change.
Michael Jordan was varsity his sophomore year. His sob story was that he didn't make varsity his freshman year and had to play JV until a growth spurt between 9th and 10th grade.
Actually a "web log" is a log of web sites. Like slashdot. Somewhere some people got them confused with public diaries, probably both types of pages added "guestbook" comment features and and datestamps originally with server side includes.
Other problems in Africa are caused by war, which is triggered by famine, drought, disease, starvation, etc. Things that are common in Africa. It really is the most inhospitable climate, all around, and modern technology has lead to survival rates that cause overpopulation that lead to the causes of wars.
You're right, Africa is both a dust bowl and a rain forest full of poisonous Monkeys. And a savannah full of Lions & Elephants in between. But Libya happens to be in the dust bowl part of it.
People used to have sex in college. Sadly, porn has become its substitute. Jerking off to myspace would not have been considered as satisfying in my day.
You are correct that it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. But I'll sell you a ticket to Santa's Workshop, complete with shrimp cocktail and wine tasting.
It sounds about right. But your car's exhaust probably produces more oxygen (and platinum) than is in 1 km^3 of atmosphere at 35,000 feet. The air is alot thicker down here. And CO2 is pretty heavy. Probably not much of it gets up there. Certainly not from your car, since the tropopause keeps most everything down here from getting above 35,000 feet.
Oil exporting countries are only making money in the margins on the current market rate of crude oiol. Most of their exports are tied up in long term contracts with the major oil companies -- BP, Exxon, Texaco, Shell, Total, etc., at $25/barrel or less. The NYMEX price of oil is the "spot market" price. Think of the California electricity shortages of a year ago. If you had a contract, you were still paying 5 cents per kilowatt hour (unless your public utility decided to sell the power you were paying them to produce with local tax dollars to California utilities at 35 cents/kwh -- then yours would go up to from 8 to 11 cents.) That's right. The Chevron that was charging you 6 times as much for gas (the end price may have only tripled, but half of the original price was tax) even though it didn't cost them a penny more for crude. And they were making more profit because they had strong-armed most of the independent franchise gas stations and refineries out of business or bought them out. So even if you had a gas station and a refinery to compete with them, you would have to pay $60 per barrel (probably to the big three: Exxon/Mobil, BP/Amoco/Unocal/Conoco/Philips, Chevron/Texaco/Royal Dutch/Shell) for crude while they were paying $20 per barrel. Hence, you could not compete with them because of their monopoly (actually small oligarchy) powers.
That's ridiculous. Rate of extraction hasn't increased so much, but the amount extracted from a specific field has been enormously expanded. Water/Methane pumping, better well casing, explosions, harder bits, deeper drilling, and tons of other things have increased the yields of specific fields exponentially. Lots of abandoned oil fields are re-opened as technology becomes available to better extract them.
Having more oil than Saudi Arabia is meaningless if you have to use 70% of it just refining the next lot
Not if you have more than 3 times as much. At three times as much, you can use 66% of your extracted oil to continue extraction, and you'd still produce more than Saudi Arabia.
Actually, there may not be a price at which extracting oil from tar sands, synthesizing oil, or producing ethanol makes sense. All of these are done now with existing surplus energy from the light sweet crude (and coal, natural gas, uranium, and hydroelectric) we already have.
You don't know that those are all the known unknowns. There could be some known unknowns that you don't know about, but if they're unknown to you, they would be unknown unknowns to you, so I can't really fault you on that, just ask you to qualify the "all" in your quantifying of known unknowns.
Slashdot Mirror
How would multiple husbands for each woman work? If you're fucking her ass, you're not much improved over homosexuality, and potentially 9 months of every year she'll be pregnant with only one husband, who'll be looking for sex while she's out of commission.
Unless by sarcasm, you mean faking stupidity and/or ignorance of the engrish langrage, it's not sarcasm.
Apparently that was the first party. You know. The explorers. Columbus crossed the ocean blue with even fewer women.
actually, they just didn't want to go out with you.
Written records in America go back to the 1500s, so we've got you beat there. But we're talking about temperature measurements. Since the first thermometer was invented in 1714, and the first place to take regular atmospheric temperature readings was in Rio de Janero beginning in 1849, and since reliable records weren't kept most places until sometime in the 20th century, it doesn't really matter.
The air-headed, young attractive females like money. The nasty, skanky, smelly, ugly, saggy, hairy legged ones will put out if you feed em this line (or buy them weed.)
Take two examples of rich people: Bill Gates & Larry Ellison. Certainly neither is a product of genetic riches, so based on your theory, neither are descended from wealthy families. In the case of Bill Gates, he did come from a moderately wealthy family, but Larry Ellison was an orphan. Excepting for the strange conditions of capitalism and democracy, you can take two other examples. Prince Charles and Yasser Arafat spring to mind as good examples of the ultra-rich who obtained their riches outside of capitalism.
Actually, the only evolutionary conclusion that can be drawn is that poor people will evolve to produce prettier daughters, thus ensuring the survival of their group. It is evolutionary advantageous for poor people to have pretty daughters. There is no evolutionary advantage for rich people to have pretty children, since their rich descendants will be able to procure pretty mates.
You are confusing evolution with breeding. If traits within a species (such as shortness) are emphasized in breeding, then their descendants will have those traits, but unless isolated over extreme time (longer than all the racial differences so far -- pygmies can still reproduce with swedes), there is no species change.
Unless it is a significant change (the difference between living and dying), evolution doesn't matter at all. Not if you believe in the natural selection component of evolution. So a thousand tiny changes are completely meaningless unless something in the environment causes each of those thousand changes to sigificantly alter the survival & reproduction of the individual with the change comparatively with the individual with a different (or no) change.
Michael Jordan was varsity his sophomore year. His sob story was that he didn't make varsity his freshman year and had to play JV until a growth spurt between 9th and 10th grade.
Actually a "web log" is a log of web sites. Like slashdot. Somewhere some people got them confused with public diaries, probably both types of pages added "guestbook" comment features and and datestamps originally with server side includes.
Other problems in Africa are caused by war, which is triggered by famine, drought, disease, starvation, etc. Things that are common in Africa. It really is the most inhospitable climate, all around, and modern technology has lead to survival rates that cause overpopulation that lead to the causes of wars.
You're right, Africa is both a dust bowl and a rain forest full of poisonous Monkeys. And a savannah full of Lions & Elephants in between. But Libya happens to be in the dust bowl part of it.
Care to name a government in Africa with responsible leadership and relatively little corruption? Besides Libya of course.
Don't worry, the families won't be embarrassed to get anything near $1 million. Maybe split between them.
People used to have sex in college. Sadly, porn has become its substitute. Jerking off to myspace would not have been considered as satisfying in my day.
You are correct that it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. But I'll sell you a ticket to Santa's Workshop, complete with shrimp cocktail and wine tasting.
It sounds about right. But your car's exhaust probably produces more oxygen (and platinum) than is in 1 km^3 of atmosphere at 35,000 feet. The air is alot thicker down here. And CO2 is pretty heavy. Probably not much of it gets up there. Certainly not from your car, since the tropopause keeps most everything down here from getting above 35,000 feet.
Too bad we don't have a way to stop the Earth from warming up either.
Oil exporting countries are only making money in the margins on the current market rate of crude oiol. Most of their exports are tied up in long term contracts with the major oil companies -- BP, Exxon, Texaco, Shell, Total, etc., at $25/barrel or less. The NYMEX price of oil is the "spot market" price. Think of the California electricity shortages of a year ago. If you had a contract, you were still paying 5 cents per kilowatt hour (unless your public utility decided to sell the power you were paying them to produce with local tax dollars to California utilities at 35 cents/kwh -- then yours would go up to from 8 to 11 cents.) That's right. The Chevron that was charging you 6 times as much for gas (the end price may have only tripled, but half of the original price was tax) even though it didn't cost them a penny more for crude. And they were making more profit because they had strong-armed most of the independent franchise gas stations and refineries out of business or bought them out. So even if you had a gas station and a refinery to compete with them, you would have to pay $60 per barrel (probably to the big three: Exxon/Mobil, BP/Amoco/Unocal/Conoco/Philips, Chevron/Texaco/Royal Dutch/Shell) for crude while they were paying $20 per barrel. Hence, you could not compete with them because of their monopoly (actually small oligarchy) powers.
That's ridiculous. Rate of extraction hasn't increased so much, but the amount extracted from a specific field has been enormously expanded. Water/Methane pumping, better well casing, explosions, harder bits, deeper drilling, and tons of other things have increased the yields of specific fields exponentially. Lots of abandoned oil fields are re-opened as technology becomes available to better extract them.
Having more oil than Saudi Arabia is meaningless if you have to use 70% of it just refining the next lot Not if you have more than 3 times as much. At three times as much, you can use 66% of your extracted oil to continue extraction, and you'd still produce more than Saudi Arabia.
Actually, there may not be a price at which extracting oil from tar sands, synthesizing oil, or producing ethanol makes sense. All of these are done now with existing surplus energy from the light sweet crude (and coal, natural gas, uranium, and hydroelectric) we already have.
You don't know that those are all the known unknowns. There could be some known unknowns that you don't know about, but if they're unknown to you, they would be unknown unknowns to you, so I can't really fault you on that, just ask you to qualify the "all" in your quantifying of known unknowns.