Yes, but that only works if you define tool as 'something only humans use'. We haven't discovered anything new about tools when we find tool using animals, we've discovered something about animals. Redefining tool is exactly antithetical to science.
Effective does not equal one hundred percent efficacy. There is a direct correlation between being vaccinated and not catching those specific diseases - it's not a high correlation between being immunised for measles and catching something else, and this is still being tested in those parts of the world that don't have vaccinations. The risk of autism is small to non existent (there is no correlation). Would you rather your kid have autism or catching tetanus and dying?
Parents tell all sorts of anecdotes that turn out to be true, the most prominent of which is sugar rushes. The singular of data is not anecdote.
-just because big pharmaceutical companies benefit doesn't mean children who get vaccinated don't either. It's like not eating food because 'Big Agro' is profiting.
Rights aren't something that go away when it becomes terribly inconvenient. If you don't like the way someone is abusing them, you need to change them, not decide they don't apply.
Your subconscious is only selecting on traits that signal to it. That's probably the reason diabetes, multiple sclerosis and heart problems thrive, because they don't signal early, they just manifest abruptly.
Or you could just be using this as a justification of your desire to copulate with as many strangers as possible because, you know, monogamy is not unique to the human species. So I doubt that it's a case of where human "morality" is overriding a "biological drive", unless you believe penguins and the like also have a highly developped code of ethics. In fact, the very existence of "jealousy" - an emotion that can even lead humans to kill each other - could be seen as an argument showing that monogamy is actually hard-wired into the human psyche, and perhaps those individuals who don't practice it are the unusual ones.
Either way I don't care, it's one of these argument that we will argue about 'till the cows come home but no one will actually ever be able to prove anything. Popcorn?
We want our mates to be faithful, that's what jealousy does: tries to get us to make sure our partners are carrying our genes. There are good reasons why jealousy would propagate in a non monogamous society, it probably isn't an indicator that we're monogamous by nature. Monogamy can develop in nature, and thrive, and the opposite happens too. Humans do have well documented drives however to spread their genes around, just because you don't doesn't mean a lot of people do.
"We should always ask how genetic engineering should go wrong."
It's like calling someone out for going on an anti-gun nut diatribe after a bunch of nuts up and kill a heap of people. Who else is in a position to potentially abuse new technology? Minorities? Non-wealthy individuals? When we start to have people blaming the rich for peeing in dank city alleys, then you can start on that.
The top five percent is just how one in twenty people use that bandwidth. It's not exactly a high goalpost - there's no set limits, its just the top 5% at a point in time.
It's more like renting a house with advertised 'unlimited water' but if you use more than 95% of people, then you don't get any water.
I have here a genuine one-hundred-percent authentic flag with the exact same design as the flag that went to the moon! Heck, it's at all sorts of places - the UN, Washington D.C., embassies across the world! Now you might be thinking to yourself, what would I want for this incredible flag experience? Ten thousand dollars? Nine thousand dollars? No! It could be yours for the bargain price of only $8999! Act now, supplies are limited!
And why should religion be providing these morals and ethics? Science, by itself, is not equipped to produce morals and ethics, but people are, as is reason and logic.
Second, just because one can make the logical argument that god cannot be proved not to exist does not make it logically sound. You need to prove, with logic, that god does exist.
Third, hardly any religious evangelists/debatists/etcetera actually use logic in their belief.
They wanted to utilise some of the credibility of having real scientific results besides theirs presented alongside. A Pepsi site would have zero credibility in presenting scientific results.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that only works if you define tool as 'something only humans use'. We haven't discovered anything new about tools when we find tool using animals, we've discovered something about animals. Redefining tool is exactly antithetical to science.
It sounds like he's already decided it's breaking the law.
A platform that is secure as you want = not allowing users to do something bad for them.
Effective does not equal one hundred percent efficacy. There is a direct correlation between being vaccinated and not catching those specific diseases - it's not a high correlation between being immunised for measles and catching something else, and this is still being tested in those parts of the world that don't have vaccinations. The risk of autism is small to non existent (there is no correlation). Would you rather your kid have autism or catching tetanus and dying? Parents tell all sorts of anecdotes that turn out to be true, the most prominent of which is sugar rushes. The singular of data is not anecdote. -just because big pharmaceutical companies benefit doesn't mean children who get vaccinated don't either. It's like not eating food because 'Big Agro' is profiting.
Indispensability and value are not the same thing.
No, my (Australian) physics class has american students who struggle precisely because they've been raised on imperial units.
Rights aren't something that go away when it becomes terribly inconvenient. If you don't like the way someone is abusing them, you need to change them, not decide they don't apply.
Which is why most universities give separate results for 'did not attend final' and 'got zero marks on final'.
Your subconscious is only selecting on traits that signal to it. That's probably the reason diabetes, multiple sclerosis and heart problems thrive, because they don't signal early, they just manifest abruptly.
Or you could just be using this as a justification of your desire to copulate with as many strangers as possible because, you know, monogamy is not unique to the human species. So I doubt that it's a case of where human "morality" is overriding a "biological drive", unless you believe penguins and the like also have a highly developped code of ethics. In fact, the very existence of "jealousy" - an emotion that can even lead humans to kill each other - could be seen as an argument showing that monogamy is actually hard-wired into the human psyche, and perhaps those individuals who don't practice it are the unusual ones.
Either way I don't care, it's one of these argument that we will argue about 'till the cows come home but no one will actually ever be able to prove anything. Popcorn?
We want our mates to be faithful, that's what jealousy does: tries to get us to make sure our partners are carrying our genes. There are good reasons why jealousy would propagate in a non monogamous society, it probably isn't an indicator that we're monogamous by nature. Monogamy can develop in nature, and thrive, and the opposite happens too. Humans do have well documented drives however to spread their genes around, just because you don't doesn't mean a lot of people do.
Libertarians are the ones demonising gay people, minorities and foreigners, sure. Its certainly not the people trying to legislate against them.
Who enforces that line for the rich?
Why should anyone?
If someone makes a genetic mutation that causes them to breathe out gas that kills poor people, I would sure wish someone was drawing a line.
"We should always ask how genetic engineering should go wrong." It's like calling someone out for going on an anti-gun nut diatribe after a bunch of nuts up and kill a heap of people. Who else is in a position to potentially abuse new technology? Minorities? Non-wealthy individuals? When we start to have people blaming the rich for peeing in dank city alleys, then you can start on that.
The top five percent is just how one in twenty people use that bandwidth. It's not exactly a high goalpost - there's no set limits, its just the top 5% at a point in time. It's more like renting a house with advertised 'unlimited water' but if you use more than 95% of people, then you don't get any water.
But neither are they open about some of the projects the money goes towards.
I have here a genuine one-hundred-percent authentic flag with the exact same design as the flag that went to the moon! Heck, it's at all sorts of places - the UN, Washington D.C., embassies across the world! Now you might be thinking to yourself, what would I want for this incredible flag experience? Ten thousand dollars? Nine thousand dollars? No! It could be yours for the bargain price of only $8999! Act now, supplies are limited!
I'm not sure how he reached the conclusion that the economic system which made the middle class huge is going to destroy that same class.
And why should religion be providing these morals and ethics? Science, by itself, is not equipped to produce morals and ethics, but people are, as is reason and logic. Second, just because one can make the logical argument that god cannot be proved not to exist does not make it logically sound. You need to prove, with logic, that god does exist. Third, hardly any religious evangelists/debatists/etcetera actually use logic in their belief.
That's what we wanted you to think!
Or at least a nice house.
Oh you still can, but now you can offer an alternative as a reward.
It's a calculator and not a device like an iPhone or a PC that can be used as a calculator.
Sketches? We used to DREAM of sketches!
They wanted to utilise some of the credibility of having real scientific results besides theirs presented alongside. A Pepsi site would have zero credibility in presenting scientific results.
Because they have a clear motivation for fraud and misleading reports.