here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?
Wow, that's your reasoning?! Nervous system + suffering? Make sure you never fall asleep or get put under for surgery or go into a coma. Or better yet don't get instantly killed in any way since you would not suffer. I'm not sure it's the others that are using "hucksterism of philosophy".
These are all unique "organisms" according to this philosophy. If birth control causes fertilized eggs to pass through, and they naturally do this quite often, then we should rush to research how to prevent all of these natural abortions, right?>
This is true that normal contraception meds can cause the fertilized egg to not implant and be abortive. It's why due to moral stances, my wife and I decided to quit the pill--for birth control--and relied on the numerous other means to prevent fertilization.
That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.
Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.
Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.
So generics are not as good as expensive name brands in FDA regulated items? Seems you're making the fallacy of more expensive equals more effective.
I have first hand experience with it - and it's clear, as the message came from the top to drive down wages... look for foreign workers. Laws be dammed, particularly in right to work states. It's a sad but real truth to this situation of immigration. Is it everywhere - of course not - but I'd wager mostly everywhere.
While not exactly the same, my companies policy is the same. Huge multi-national firm everyone knows. You cannot hire Americans. New hires can only be from low cost countries, not H1B - they work in that country remotely. Being a multi-national company it's not that bad but companies don't want to pay American wages and benefits.
The Google car has done something like 700,000 miles and crashed twice. Both times this occurred, it was under control of the human occupant.
This is quoted all the time, but how do you prove it? The car always has a driver behind the wheel. What's to say that any accidents are blamed on the driver as a way of Google PR protecting their pet project while they fix the bugs (actually that's a smart move for them).
I wore them for a full day out and about and while they got a few looks nobody said anything at all.
There will be mixed reactions even if some are too polite to say anything. I love tech and am wanting to try these but a guy had them on near me at a restaurant and I just wanted to tell him to take it off. Google hasn't perfected the social acceptance yet.
No, there is no such thing as faith in science. No one strongly believes anything.
Good one. I had a chuckle.
Doesn't this happen every time they come out with a major update?
My thoughts as well. I have a Eee Netbook that could never update to Win7 Service Pack 1 due to some mysterious issue that always failed no matter what I tried. Numerous hours and forums later, I just gave up since it's just a netbook and works fine for what it does and just install numerous small updates.
Scientists have speculated for decades about the possibility that these may have been slightly different in the distant past - and thus the laws of physics would not be exactly the same.
This is quite controversial, mavericky science because it's very hard to test -
If it's not testable, then by definition it is not science.
Now there's no proof the fundamental constants have changed at all since the big bang, but there's no proof they haven't... By factoring in those different values we could possibly explain a lot of the other things which currently remain open questions.
So while it's unlikely - it's nevertheless and most decidedly NOT bollocks.
Then it's not science.
It's maverick science for sure
"Maverick Science". Made up definitions still don't get you to a testable theory.
That's great in terms of dominating the market and reaping the rewards that come with it,
Hmm, I guess you've not seen the $ that Androids competitors bring in directly and for their developers.
This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"
Exactly. Lawrence Krauss and others are trying to redefine "nothing" for there own personal theories and world view (he's an atheist). I guess that's understandable from that viewpoint, but you can make a lot of interesting theories if you redefine terms to fit your own meaning.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.
