Comment Re:Iran must go (Score 1) 163
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
The summary says that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us (and not us towards it), so we can sue the andromedans for any damage.
You fail at relativity.
The entire point of everyone having a gun is so the GOVERNMENT is not safe - from the people.
How many people buy a gun to protect themselves from the government?
A 100% armed populace would make me mistrust my fellow citizens, not the government.
Which is why statists like Communists, Nazis, and Socialists HATE an armed populace.
Strawman. There are plenty of peaceful democratic countries in the world with rational policies on gun control. They aren't statist, and they don't "hate" an armed populace. They recognize that being fit to own a gun is something you must demonstrate to your fellow citizens. The government serves as a benign proxy for those citizens. That's what govenment does.
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but
Kindly share the "facts" of which you speak.
And it's not just Obama and Kerry at the western side of the table. It's the P5+ (the five permanant members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.)
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs?
I don't recall anyone saying they want a deal "at all costs."
Really, the engineering to make and guide a missile is not formidable these days.
Looks at SpaceX's record, looks at the original poster... *shrug* Yeah, whatever.
SpaceX is not making missiles. They're making rockets and spacecraft that will be human-rated. That's a bit more challenging.
It still works for me.
Instead of complaining, maybe you could provide an alternate link?
Kind of suggests a brand new spin on Dan Akyroyd's sketch on SNL.
FTFA:
later, sometime in the '20s, the 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics were added to the melody, and Summy copyrighted that.
If "sometime in '20s" was 1929, then this copyright calculator says Jan. 1, 2025.
Also FTFA:
[Warner/Chappell] says the copyright that counts is one obtained in 1935, for arrangements of the song. If that's true, "Happy Birthday to You" will eventually go into the public domain — but not for 15 more years, in 2030.
Nowhere in TFAs can I see any evidence that Barney Frank actually used the word "hypocrisy."
Well, did he? From what I can see, that word is used by the writers of TFAs, not Frank.
even though [climate change deniers on Fox and in congress are] not scientists, to use some of their words
"I'm not a scientist" is the new defensive crouch of deniers.
Stephen Colbert had a great piece about it awhile ago. The linked video is almost 5 minutes long, but worth the time to watch.
The gist of your argument is that there should be some central authority that verifies scientific results before the media consumes them. That's a noble goal, but I'm afraid I can't hold out any hope for it.
Science can't dictate to the media what they publish, nor should it. Let's accept that scientists and journalists adhere to the covenant of attempting to disclose the truth, but sometimes they get it wrong. By publishing things that are both right and wrong, they can hope to arrive at the truth eventually, through the process of peer review. Given enough freedom, the truth tends to win. That holds for the media as well as science.
But creating a central authority, no matter how well-intentioned, that attempts to confirm the truth, is doomed to undermine the freedom that makes all of the above possible. The truth is the truth. It's not what some authority says it is.
Imperfect as it is, the process of peer review before and after publication, is a viable method for evaluating scientific results prior to their publication. Mistakes will happen, and they will be corrected, sometimes immediately, and sometimes more slowly. But they will be corrected.
Or should this role be left to science journalists?
Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah!
No.
Left entirely to science journalists? Probably not.
But some science journalists are pretty good at it. Good enough that some professional scientific societies present awards to journalists for exceptional reporting in their fields.
"God particle"
Thank mainstream media for coining that phrase. Scientists just shrugged because it's easier to let the children be happy with a new shiney while the adults are doing important things.
Actually, you can thank Nobel laureate Leon Lederman. He wanted to call it The Goddamn Particle (because it was so hard to detect) but his publisher wouldn't let him.
No one has driven more profits into the PC industry either.
On balance, I think the PC industry prospered in spite of Microsoft, not because of it.
That's not to say they haven't done some good things. There's Surface, and
Whoooosh!
Tell that to the moderators who scored me informative. They're the ones who were whooshed.
I was just providing a missing punchline.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
