Comment simply a non-starter (Score 1) 2247
this is why Ron Paul will not be the nominee
this is why Ron Paul will not be the nominee
People do not have to wait for life threatening care with single payer, just non-immediately needed procedures sometimes. Stop your ignorant talking points.
What we have now is wealthcare. The wealthy like the fact that they get quicker service for non life threatening care by removing millions of people from being able to access care at all. That's not equal opportunity for all.
SSLv2 being accepted by the server is a misconfiguration.
I manage multiple sites used by Fortune 100 companies (who are often slow to upgrade clients) and have had SSLv2 turned off on the server for years.
Yes, the Russians have been using these mini-reactors on some of their missions.
Unfortunately the average life expectancy for a musician is 27 years.
As we all know, life begins at ejaculation.
That's why masturbation is wrong.
If you masturbate, you've committed lust in your heart and spilled an innocent life on the ground.
LOL, good catch
wow that's the first outright troll post i've seen from kdawson. I guess he figured not enough of his jizm was on the site.
Yes, the NSA has given us a 100% guarantee that their most secure encryption method and servers will be used.
That's not really a valid comparison though.
While computer technology has increased dramatically since the space missions of the 1960s, rocket technology hasn't.
We still use the same basic equipment/principles/fuel/structures to get into space. Sure it might have a better computer/guidance system, but that doesn't really decrease the cost or complexity of getting into space.
So if we wanted to go to the moon again today, it would be a long and difficult undertaking just as it was in the 60s.
Sorry to be blunt but "I don't know enough to question this but I will dismiss this study because the author believes this unrelated thing" is just wrong.
Unless everyone in this discussion is willing to devote years of their life to properly studying climate science in enough detail to understand this kind of a paper (which let's be realistic is the only way), then that's what we are left with. Very few people in this thread are qualified to judge the validity of this guy's scientific arguments in the language of climate science.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
It shows he is not really the best interpreter of scientific evidence.
The evidence for evolution is beyond overwhelming. If he can't even realize that, I don't put much stock in his opinion of climate evidence.
"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon." -- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985