I wonder if a similar thing happens when playing video games?

In Mexico, many (if not all) antibiotics are over-the-counter. If this remains true, it is definitely the Mexican public that need to be convinced.

I wonder how many other countries sell antibiotics without prescriptions?

From the article:

All they said was, "At least five months". If we worked backwards, how big would this asteroid have been, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago?

You seem like you know what you're talking about, so I'll ask you...

Why is it not possible that dark matter is simply just a hell of a lot of things like planets, comets, asteroids, gas or dust? Why can't these things exist outside of galaxies?

This is an honest question

I really hope someone on here can explain what I'm missing here...

Why is it not possible that "dark matter" is not simply just regular matter like asteroids, comets, planets, nebulae, and neutrinos?

I mean, they're discovering exoplanets at an alarming rate lately and we're still discovering asteroids and comets in our own solar system. Extrapolating these findings to all the other stars out there has got to add up to something substantial, right?

What about stars that have exploded and spewed their contents across the universe? Would not these contents become dark after they cool, thereby making them invisible to us? That would be the entire mass of a star that we couldn't see, right? And there's got to be billions upon billions of these, depending on how far away into the past we're looking, right?

Then there are neutrinos, which we know exist because we can detect them, but do we really know how many of them are out there?

Surely, the mass of all of these normal types of matter would add up to something substantial... right?

This is one big problem I have with the law. I think it's a mistake to classify bikes in the same class as cars. There are many pertinent differences between the two. Such as:

• Cyclists have greater visibility, since they are closer to the front end of their "vehicle", and they do not have the frame of a car blocking their view
• Cyclists do not pose the same threat to people or objects, should a collision occur
• Car drivers do not need to put their foot on the road when coming to a complete stop to prevent the car from tipping over
• The top speed of the average cyclist is slower than the 'school zone' speed limit for cars. A limit that is designed to allow the driver enough time to react to children suddenly on the road
• Cyclists cannot hit bumps, holes, or cracks in the road that cars can safely drive over without popping their tires (happened to me the other day, in fact)
• Cyclists cannot ride on gravel without instability and the threat of crashing.
• Not that this is done often, but a cyclist can quickly get off and walk their bike allowing the possibility for a cyclist to be legally treated as a pedestrian and thereby legally circumventing traffic laws.
• Cyclists have a natural concern with conserving momentum, which is a major deterrent against slowing/stopping. This is due to the amount of energy required to get the bike going again. The amount of energy required for a driver to speed up after slowing/stopping is negligible.
• Cyclists don't require a license to drive, so if they fail to follow the laws of the road, there is no threat of demerit points (if that's in your state, at least)

I'm not sure how the law should treat cyclists differently, but to lump cyclists and car drivers under all of the the same rules doesn't make sense. Personally I like the stoppage laws in Idaho for cyclists.

I don't dispute that you have encountered bad cyclists. However, to generalize all cyclists as bad drivers is not correct.

The fact of the matter is, there are bad drivers on bikes just the same as there are bad drivers on the road.

The bias happens when people encounter a bad driver in another demographic, they attribute the bad quality to that demographic (ie. their a bad driver because they're old, or their Asian, or they're a cyclist). But when they encounter a bad driver in their own demographic, they make excuses (ie. they must be having a bad day, or their wife is in labor, or they have diarrhea and need to get to a bathroom immediately, etc.)

Also, the good drivers get ignored because they don't stick out and as a result the positive examples never get attributed to any particular demographic.

We all do this to some extent, I believe, because it's in our nature, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Having followed the "Time" comic from the start, I am amazed that this level of detail was put into the artwork. But what amazes me even more, is that fans such as you have managed to connect the dots!

Thank you so much for sharing!

This is seriously one of the best comments I've read on Slashdot on this topic. It's a shame that you aren't modded higher.

I see a contradiction here, unless you're implying that you *literally* have the intelligence level of a chip.

We should do a Slashdot survey and see if the proportion is roughly the same on here as it is in TFA.

I've often been quite interested to learn if it's just a few loud people or just a lot of people on either side of this argument, since it seems to come up so frequently on here.

If people incorrectly call Native Americans, "Indians", what would they call Native Indians?

On the minus side, the public will never really know for sure that the use of the mental health resources prevented mass killings (though for me personally, I have no doubt that they would).

People who get the help and don't kill anyone may not have killed anyone anyways. And then there's the fact that certain individuals who need the help won't get it, either by slipping through the cracks or by deliberately avoiding getting help, and the mass killings will likely continue for these people regardless. So then the public perception is that the mental health resources are not doing anything.