Do you think anyone this naive would get to be the Democratic candidate? He knew what he was getting into and probably let every one that mattered (wall street...) know it as well.
And by the way, everyone that voted for him should have known this. He didn't even try to hide it very well! Just saying "hope" and "change" while having Lawrence Summers as an advisor doesn't look like actual hope and change.
Of course the injuries depend a lot on drivers' attitude. But this can change *very* fast. Just as an example, I live in São Paulo, Brazil. About 1-2 years ago, it was extremely rare for drivers to stop at pedestrian lanes (in places that did not have a red light). You could walk all day long for weeks and no driver would stop so that you could cross a street. Now, after a safety campaign (not anything out of this world), drivers respect for pedestrians has improved a lot. It is far from perfect, perhaps far from good but it happens often. And this was a change that took a little more than 1 year.
I ride my bike to work and buses were a weapon of mass destruction. After 2 accidents that killed bikers in a very important avenue and bikers made very intelligent (and noisy) protests, buses are no longer as dangerous as they used to be.
I started riding my bike to work about 5 years ago. At that time seeing anothe bicycle on the way was kind of rare and I used to hear about once a week drivers yelling at me that they paid car taxes, implying that I should move out of the street. I haven't heard this sort of remark for years and today on the same route I see a large number of bicycles. Deaths haven't increased (they may have decreased actually) and helmet use doesn't appear to have changed (just plain observation no real stats). As a side note, I should mention that in poor neighborhoods bicycles were always common and that's where most of the deaths used to ocurr (and still does) but in middle class regions bicycles were considered either toys or sport.
The thing is, what makes cycling safe is numbers. Drivers get used to bicycles and know what to expect. And a bicycling culture helps a lot. People talk and suggest better and safer routes, safer riding strategies and if an accident happens we can make sure everyone knows about it.
By the way, I wear a helmet but think that imposing them would be the worst thing for bicycle commuters.
You are correct but since when has the US used intelligence in foreign policy? It a disaster following another. And we can see it in real time: arming Al Qaeda sympathizers in Lybia last year and now Syria (dejavu?)!
Well, to be fair, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. Far from it. There are plenty of anti-Semitic Israel loving people. And Israel doesn't have much of a problems with anti-Semitism if it suits them: Anwar Sadat was an unrepentant Nazi sympathiser and is loved by every Zionist around. Extreme right wing groups and politicians all over Europe have always been rabid anti-Semitics and now are always seen kissing up to Israel because of a common enemy: Muslims. In the US kkk types used to be anti-Semitic and because of the "ayrabs" they have become Israel admirers. Then there are all those groups of evangelical Christians that love Israel because this way God can strike dead all the Jews in the same place, or that the rapture will only happen when all (or most?) Jews are back in the "holy" land.
To sum it up, it is very simple *and common* to be an Israel-loving anti-Semitic bastard!
You are wrong. Most countries have signed several agreements on human rights issues. Some of them state that crimes against humanity can not be signed away with some law that either the dictatorship or the new government, too afraid to question the military, made up to pardon crimes committed. And there might be another angle to it even though I'm not sure if it was used in this specific case: several Spaniards (and other Europeans and even Americans) were tortured and killed by the Pinochet regime.
It is incredible that even after almost 40 years, the judicial system in Spain still looks pretty much the same as in Franco's time. By the way things are going, every mobster should get a law degree. This way they can argue that every conversation they have should be protected by attorney/client privilege. As I understand the case, that's how they got rid of Garzón.
3. Researchers in the lab have successfully created reproductive isolation between forms (“species,” if you will) via artificial selection. This has been done in several studies of Drosophila (see my book with Allen Orr, Speciation). In fact, one experiment by Bill Rice and George Salt produced almost complete ecological isolation between two sublines of a single species (D. melanogaster) within only 30 generations of selection—roughly a year in the lab. That’s remarkable, for, as Rice and Salt say in their paper, “One of the principal difficulties with the study of speciation is that it occurs quite slowly on a microevolutionary scale, despite its apparent rapidity in the fossil record.”
Basically, you are stating the arguments of Intelligent Design which is an argument from ignorance. Pregnancy and babies didn't come just appear out of nowhere, it evolved over a long time from the moment sexual reproduction appeared. And probably in this first phase there was no distinction between egg and sperm, male/female. That evolved later on. I would guess that the first appearance of sexual reproduction was a difficult and improbable and it is no wonder that it took a long time to happen (2 billion years?).
Once sexual reproduction appeared it was an advantage: random mutations were no longer the only source of differences for natural selection to work on, sexual reproduction allows differential spread of genes among a population. In some ways, sexual reproduction could be considered a sort of evolution of "evolubility".
About the eyes, they evolved independently several times and all sorts of evidence show how it evolved. The starting process for the evolution of the eye might be difficult and even improbable but it happened at least a few times (for the different types of eyes currently existing and others that might have gone extinct).
I don't think they are imposing their religious rules, it is more like they wish Palestinians didn't exist or simply went away and the Israeli government does its utmost to make their lives miserable.
Unless there is a situation where the debt will *never* go away. If the guy misses a month or two, he will have to pay more interest. So he goes around begging every family member and friend to help him out. If he pays, lucky him if he doesn't he will have to pay more.
With easy credit that will never default colleges can increase tuitions as high as they want. Banks get more risk free money, colleges get more tuition and the system gets a more plyable work force willing to work as slaves.
You are correct. Epistemology shouldn't just be a word used by smart types in bar conversations to impress the ladies. It is extremely important to have an Idea of what is knowledge and how we acquire it. And in my opinion it is the most relevant area of philosophy today.
It is conceptually very easy to prove creationism or intelligent design: just find the creator or designer! If some guy (possibly a alien...) comes up and says that he designed life on earth he should be able to show how he did it and we might accept his evidence or not.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is not falsifiable. I can not prove it wrong and therefore science can not say anything about it. It can't be a scientific theory as long as no evidence that might be contested is available. Just saying that life is too complex is not an evidence for an intelligent designer, it is an argument from ignorance. Someone can not explain something (the complexity of life for instance) therefore we require an intelligent designer.
Not all "theories" are scientific. Embracing any theory even if "they are only 'possibilities' " is absurd. Have you any idea what kind of crap we would have to embrace?
A scientific theory requires evidence that can be shown to be wrong. At one time classical mechanics was considered to be accurate. There was no need for anything else until new evidence came in and showed that there were discrepancies. Such was the state of affairs in the late 1800's. Then someone proposed a new theory and voila: relativity. But relativity solved a lot of issues and made predictions that could be tested (even if it took some time or creativity). Since it solved many of the discrepancies but was not tested it was still a hypothesis. When the predictions were found to be correct (as correct as experimental uncertainty allows) physics adopted the new theory. That is a scientific theory. By the way, the new theory had to reproduce all previous results of classical mechanics at least as accurately as it was predicted with the "old theory". Classical mechanics didn't simply go away. It is used every day and any mechanical or civil engineer uses it as if there were no general relativity or quantum mechanics daily.
Someone might have come up with general relativity in, say, 1750. What would have happened in this case? If its predictions could not be verified experimentally it might probably have been dropped *for a while*.
Just coming up with a "description" of something is not a scientific theory even though it might be in everyday language a "theory".
I have heard "kill the.+ wherever you find them" lots of times but as of late I hear it most often from Israelis. There are other terms that are often used: roaches, dogs, etc. Open calls to expel all Palestinians from historic Palestine is not a fringe opinion in Israel (if it ever was). As for Palestinian TV, I have never watched it and if I did I wouldn't understand it but I don't believe you would understand it either. You got your info from somewhere and probably from MEMRI which is known for inaccurately translating things when it suits them (and I have checked translations with friends more than once to know that MEMRI lies often) and selectively translating things that are ion accordance to Israeli agenda. In the case of Palestinian TV there certainly are several anti-Semitic people there but what do you expect? Europeans have been butchering Jews for no reason for millennia and the Jews composed small minority of the population, what would you expect from people suffering for more than 60 years under occupation? Love and respect? Give me a break. But it doesn't matter, because if Palestinian TV was as bad as you say, cancelling some permit or finding some irregularity is a signature away for some petty Israeli bureaucrat and over the last 60 years Israel has bombed for far less.
As for Saudi Arabia, I expect anything from the Kingdom of Horrors. But this just shows that anti-Semitism is a non issue for Israel: Saudi Arabia has been a close strategic Israeli ally for decades and no one is threatening to bomb Saudi Arabia or even to impose sanctions. And MEMRI doesn't translate anti-Semitic bullshit from Israeli allies - including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Dubai and Egypt under Mubarack besides many others. By the way, Sadat was an actual a Nazi sympathizer and this was never a problem.
Come on, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?!? The guy fled Palestine after the 1936 Arab revolt. Then the war started and of course he turned to the enemy of the colonial occupier of his land. He had one or two meetings with Hitler. Haj Amin was an idiot and probably an anti-Semite but back in those days very few people were not anti-Semites including Americans and he was no mastermind behind the final solution (or master mind of anything) and Hitler certainly did not tell him about it.
You are either a tool or a liar. By the way if you weren't so ignorant you would know that for the Nazis the Jews weren't at the bottom of the scale: Arabs were considered worse. Hitler might have tried to please some Arab clown but he wouldn't get advice from him or inform him of his war crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think anyone this naive would get to be the Democratic candidate? He knew what he was getting into and probably let every one that mattered (wall street...) know it as well.
And by the way, everyone that voted for him should have known this. He didn't even try to hide it very well! Just saying "hope" and "change" while having Lawrence Summers as an advisor doesn't look like actual hope and change.
Again, how do you know it was caused?
How do you know?
While a larger the presence of SUVs might indicate an important sociological issue , I can't see how does this affect a bicycle.
mass of compact car >>> mass of bicycle
mass of SUV >>> mass of bicycle
speed of compact car ~ speed of SUV
It doesn't make much of a difference getting hit on the head by a 1 tonne rock or a 3 tonne rock.
Of course the injuries depend a lot on drivers' attitude. But this can change *very* fast. Just as an example, I live in São Paulo, Brazil. About 1-2 years ago, it was extremely rare for drivers to stop at pedestrian lanes (in places that did not have a red light). You could walk all day long for weeks and no driver would stop so that you could cross a street. Now, after a safety campaign (not anything out of this world), drivers respect for pedestrians has improved a lot. It is far from perfect, perhaps far from good but it happens often. And this was a change that took a little more than 1 year.
I ride my bike to work and buses were a weapon of mass destruction. After 2 accidents that killed bikers in a very important avenue and bikers made very intelligent (and noisy) protests, buses are no longer as dangerous as they used to be.
I started riding my bike to work about 5 years ago. At that time seeing anothe bicycle on the way was kind of rare and I used to hear about once a week drivers yelling at me that they paid car taxes, implying that I should move out of the street. I haven't heard this sort of remark for years and today on the same route I see a large number of bicycles. Deaths haven't increased (they may have decreased actually) and helmet use doesn't appear to have changed (just plain observation no real stats). As a side note, I should mention that in poor neighborhoods bicycles were always common and that's where most of the deaths used to ocurr (and still does) but in middle class regions bicycles were considered either toys or sport.
The thing is, what makes cycling safe is numbers. Drivers get used to bicycles and know what to expect. And a bicycling culture helps a lot. People talk and suggest better and safer routes, safer riding strategies and if an accident happens we can make sure everyone knows about it.
By the way, I wear a helmet but think that imposing them would be the worst thing for bicycle commuters.
You are correct but since when has the US used intelligence in foreign policy? It a disaster following another. And we can see it in real time: arming Al Qaeda sympathizers in Lybia last year and now Syria (dejavu?)!
Well, to be fair, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. Far from it. There are plenty of anti-Semitic Israel loving people. And Israel doesn't have much of a problems with anti-Semitism if it suits them: Anwar Sadat was an unrepentant Nazi sympathiser and is loved by every Zionist around. Extreme right wing groups and politicians all over Europe have always been rabid anti-Semitics and now are always seen kissing up to Israel because of a common enemy: Muslims. In the US kkk types used to be anti-Semitic and because of the "ayrabs" they have become Israel admirers. Then there are all those groups of evangelical Christians that love Israel because this way God can strike dead all the Jews in the same place, or that the rapture will only happen when all (or most?) Jews are back in the "holy" land.
To sum it up, it is very simple *and common* to be an Israel-loving anti-Semitic bastard!
You are wrong. Most countries have signed several agreements on human rights issues. Some of them state that crimes against humanity can not be signed away with some law that either the dictatorship or the new government, too afraid to question the military, made up to pardon crimes committed. And there might be another angle to it even though I'm not sure if it was used in this specific case: several Spaniards (and other Europeans and even Americans) were tortured and killed by the Pinochet regime.
It is incredible that even after almost 40 years, the judicial system in Spain still looks pretty much the same as in Franco's time. By the way things are going, every mobster should get a law degree. This way they can argue that every conversation they have should be protected by attorney/client privilege. As I understand the case, that's how they got rid of Garzón.
There are lots of non competing interests. They can sell out 1000 times. 10 thousand X 1000 = 10 million.
Genious! You just figured out who has been giving out millions of dollars using suspicious emails!
This is not true. Take a look at this post from *today* of Jerry Coyne
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/idiots-once-again-justify-their-name/
In particular this section:
3. Researchers in the lab have successfully created reproductive isolation between forms (“species,” if you will) via artificial selection. This has been done in several studies of Drosophila (see my book with Allen Orr, Speciation). In fact, one experiment by Bill Rice and George Salt produced almost complete ecological isolation between two sublines of a single species (D. melanogaster) within only 30 generations of selection—roughly a year in the lab. That’s remarkable, for, as Rice and Salt say in their paper, “One of the principal difficulties with the study of speciation is that it occurs quite slowly on a microevolutionary scale, despite its apparent rapidity in the fossil record.”
Basically, you are stating the arguments of Intelligent Design which is an argument from ignorance. Pregnancy and babies didn't come just appear out of nowhere, it evolved over a long time from the moment sexual reproduction appeared. And probably in this first phase there was no distinction between egg and sperm, male/female. That evolved later on. I would guess that the first appearance of sexual reproduction was a difficult and improbable and it is no wonder that it took a long time to happen (2 billion years?).
Once sexual reproduction appeared it was an advantage: random mutations were no longer the only source of differences for natural selection to work on, sexual reproduction allows differential spread of genes among a population. In some ways, sexual reproduction could be considered a sort of evolution of "evolubility".
About the eyes, they evolved independently several times and all sorts of evidence show how it evolved. The starting process for the evolution of the eye might be difficult and even improbable but it happened at least a few times (for the different types of eyes currently existing and others that might have gone extinct).
Exactly, this struggle hasn't been over evidence for 80 years.
I don't think they are imposing their religious rules, it is more like they wish Palestinians didn't exist or simply went away and the Israeli government does its utmost to make their lives miserable.
I haven't used it but there is a Delphi clone: http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/
.NET and C# were developed by the guy that developed Delphi.
I read somewhere that
Unless there is a situation where the debt will *never* go away. If the guy misses a month or two, he will have to pay more interest. So he goes around begging every family member and friend to help him out. If he pays, lucky him if he doesn't he will have to pay more.
With easy credit that will never default colleges can increase tuitions as high as they want. Banks get more risk free money, colleges get more tuition and the system gets a more plyable work force willing to work as slaves.
How can you even suggest that something new won't come from apple?
You are correct. Epistemology shouldn't just be a word used by smart types in bar conversations to impress the ladies. It is extremely important to have an Idea of what is knowledge and how we acquire it. And in my opinion it is the most relevant area of philosophy today.
It is conceptually very easy to prove creationism or intelligent design: just find the creator or designer! If some guy (possibly a alien...) comes up and says that he designed life on earth he should be able to show how he did it and we might accept his evidence or not.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is not falsifiable. I can not prove it wrong and therefore science can not say anything about it. It can't be a scientific theory as long as no evidence that might be contested is available. Just saying that life is too complex is not an evidence for an intelligent designer, it is an argument from ignorance. Someone can not explain something (the complexity of life for instance) therefore we require an intelligent designer.
Not all "theories" are scientific. Embracing any theory even if "they are only 'possibilities' " is absurd. Have you any idea what kind of crap we would have to embrace?
A scientific theory requires evidence that can be shown to be wrong. At one time classical mechanics was considered to be accurate. There was no need for anything else until new evidence came in and showed that there were discrepancies. Such was the state of affairs in the late 1800's. Then someone proposed a new theory and voila: relativity. But relativity solved a lot of issues and made predictions that could be tested (even if it took some time or creativity). Since it solved many of the discrepancies but was not tested it was still a hypothesis. When the predictions were found to be correct (as correct as experimental uncertainty allows) physics adopted the new theory. That is a scientific theory. By the way, the new theory had to reproduce all previous results of classical mechanics at least as accurately as it was predicted with the "old theory". Classical mechanics didn't simply go away. It is used every day and any mechanical or civil engineer uses it as if there were no general relativity or quantum mechanics daily.
Someone might have come up with general relativity in, say, 1750. What would have happened in this case? If its predictions could not be verified experimentally it might probably have been dropped *for a while*.
Just coming up with a "description" of something is not a scientific theory even though it might be in everyday language a "theory".
Having freedom of speech and professing to have freedom of speech are different things.
Noo! Not another crash!
I have heard "kill the .+ wherever you find them" lots of times but as of late I hear it most often from Israelis. There are other terms that are often used: roaches, dogs, etc. Open calls to expel all Palestinians from historic Palestine is not a fringe opinion in Israel (if it ever was). As for Palestinian TV, I have never watched it and if I did I wouldn't understand it but I don't believe you would understand it either. You got your info from somewhere and probably from MEMRI which is known for inaccurately translating things when it suits them (and I have checked translations with friends more than once to know that MEMRI lies often) and selectively translating things that are ion accordance to Israeli agenda. In the case of Palestinian TV there certainly are several anti-Semitic people there but what do you expect? Europeans have been butchering Jews for no reason for millennia and the Jews composed small minority of the population, what would you expect from people suffering for more than 60 years under occupation? Love and respect? Give me a break. But it doesn't matter, because if Palestinian TV was as bad as you say, cancelling some permit or finding some irregularity is a signature away for some petty Israeli bureaucrat and over the last 60 years Israel has bombed for far less.
As for Saudi Arabia, I expect anything from the Kingdom of Horrors. But this just shows that anti-Semitism is a non issue for Israel: Saudi Arabia has been a close strategic Israeli ally for decades and no one is threatening to bomb Saudi Arabia or even to impose sanctions. And MEMRI doesn't translate anti-Semitic bullshit from Israeli allies - including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Dubai and Egypt under Mubarack besides many others. By the way, Sadat was an actual a Nazi sympathizer and this was never a problem.
Come on, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?!? The guy fled Palestine after the 1936 Arab revolt. Then the war started and of course he turned to the enemy of the colonial occupier of his land. He had one or two meetings with Hitler. Haj Amin was an idiot and probably an anti-Semite but back in those days very few people were not anti-Semites including Americans and he was no mastermind behind the final solution (or master mind of anything) and Hitler certainly did not tell him about it.
You are either a tool or a liar. By the way if you weren't so ignorant you would know that for the Nazis the Jews weren't at the bottom of the scale: Arabs were considered worse. Hitler might have tried to please some Arab clown but he wouldn't get advice from him or inform him of his war crimes.
Unless you happen to be in Afghanistan.