Comment Re:Systems perpetuate themselves (Score 1) 228
Burning trees from managed forests is nearly carbon neutral (carbon lean, actually). Forrests that aren't harvested are carbon sinks.
Burning trees from managed forests is nearly carbon neutral (carbon lean, actually). Forrests that aren't harvested are carbon sinks.
If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet, just wait until you're a bit older. I can guarantee you it will happen, it is only a matter of when and how badly. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a guarantee. They hold all the cards and they set the rules of the game; you can't win or even hope to break even.
I've got news for you - government run healthcare in the US has denied people medical treatment while offering them a suicide pill, and we're not even talking about the VA here. You might want to think about that too.
The problem with your idea is that words have meaning, and terrorist doesn't mean the same thing as rebel. The word terrorist has its own meaning, and it isn't part of some "craze." Your certainty is nonsense.
The US is a functioning democracy. It's government changes by election, not rebellion.
The Civil War makes clear the label attached to rebels against the US government: rebels.
Your fantasy life is of no interest to me and probably anyone else on Slashdot.
Dumping the Brit's tea could've been construed as an act of terrorism at the time they were in.
I think that the implied ability of an ocean port with some floating tea in it to inspire "terror" is
Short of discovering cold fusion tomorrow and mass producing small devices with unlimited power that could change the CO2 back into a solid, we're screwed.
You wood think we wood have other means of trapping CO2 by now.
You might be confused about a few points there.
ALL of our founding fathers would be arrested as terrorists.
they fought their own country, the English.
The Founding Fathers were rebels, not terrorists. It is not a confusing distinction.
In the US, the people in charge are still the health insurance companies. They will call the shots during this situation just as they have for decades (including during the writing of the 2010 "health care reform" bill).
Your view is popular, but just simply wrong.
Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
Obamacare Architect: ‘Insurance Companies As We Know Them Are About To Die’
Trade secrets only work for things that are so difficult and complicated that there is little chance of someone else duplicating the invention.
Meaningful power generated by successful and reproducible "cold fusion" would seem to fit that description.
Snowden is on record stating that the only reason he took the NSA job was to steal top secret information. Snowden has yet to produce any actual evidence that he even tried to use the internal process. There have been reports that NSA can't find records of him doing so. You would think that since he managed to steal 1.7 million documents he might have managed a copy of an email or two.... funny that he didn't get anything to bolster his case. So much for Snowden and your first point.
Exposing foreign intelligence operations harms American national security. That takes Snowden out of the realm of "whistleblowing" if he was ever in it.
Snowden has demonstrated the opposite of loyalty to the US and its people. Snowden rejects and undermines the process of representative government. If the Constitution permits something he doesn't like he simply ignores it. Snowden is acting like an anti-democratic vigilante, trying to impose his view of the world and how it should be on all of us as he continues to damage America and aid its enemies.
You may want to reread that again since I don't think you quoted the relevant figures: "... 65 percent of U.K. scientists identify as nonreligious, only 6 percent of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious."
It's funny that you keep harping on the one variable in the article that *is* actually irrelevant to the whole thing, which is comparing across different populations. The whole point of a *scientific* study is to change one variable and see the effect, and clearly when you do that the difference is highly (statistically) significant.
Science seems to have more techniques than you are aware of. Studying the differences between societies was a major purpose of the study. The author reference that. This isn't a yield study, or lifetime testing, or any of that. Note that no titration is involved. Note (FTA): "...the first cross-national study of religion and spirituality among scientists." That seems pretty easy to understand.
And secondly - you are making a complete straw man to try to disprove the OPPOSITE correlation, ie. atheism leads to scientific study, when the obvious causation would be scientific study leads to atheism.
If you were more observant you would notice a common theme in Slashdot discussions that only atheists can really do science. What rubbish. I'm not sure how people maintain that cognitive dissonance given that many of the great scientists in history and even today believe in God. Nonetheless it keeps popping up.
Anyway, this thread has gone exactly nowhere as you keep repeating the same irrelevant statistic. I'm not even sure why I'm debating with a known
It is difficult to get anywhere if you keep going down the wrong path, or asserting false things as you have.
It isn't that I'm a "troll" so much as I bring unwelcome perspectives and facts to the argument that many people would prefer to not acknowledge. Calling me a "troll" is much easier than assembling facts and good arguments. That is why you refer to me as a "troll."
You are indeed responsible for your own actions so I can understand the despair. "Sigh."
"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell
