This is a joke right? I accept the inevitable whooshes if it is. Please say it is.

Except, this is \., supposedly inhabited by people educated enough to tell the difference between the common vernacular and the legal. You'd think that in a thread about the legality of copyright infringement people would at least be more likely to you use the precise word to communicate their point across to others. If you communicated ambiguously, you just wasted mine and everyone else's time.

That the growth rate is slowing down tells you it isn't exponential. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg

This is \. Please restate your analogy in car form.

No it's so that a farmer can pay big bucks to a chemical company to wholesale spray his crops hard with a nasty chemical and not have it kill the crops...so he can make more money overall than if he didn't spray in the first place. FTFY.

You are putting agnostics and atheists into one basket which makes as much sense as putting you in a basket with the fundies (you sound like a reasonable person). Even if you can't prove a negative, the onus is on the religious to provide infallible proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A paste apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter

They do this in the HK MTR system.

WHOOSH

They obviously have to teach the controversy.

At the risk of WHOOSH....FTFY

...or maybe social etiquette is just changing.

You're argument is deeply flawed. Guns could've quite easily made things worse by the same people being stupid enough to loot also being stupid enough to shoot people without good reason. How many people were injured/killed in the New Orleans flooding during the looting?

Saying it's absurd doesn't make it so.

Fortunately for us, science >> your opinion