For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes.
That's probably a non-starter.
I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.
*sigh* that's a Suzuki DL-650 Vstrom, not a Honda. The new one does get about 60mpg, my 2009 only about 55.
I agree with those that say that, unfortunately, this is not going to be a successful bike. I really like the idea of an electric motorcycle, but it should come from a company that does exactly that. H-D fans aren't going to want it, and the insane high price that they will charge for the nameplate will keep others from buying it. I'd love a 60 mile-range electric bike that cost $10,000. I'd buy it tomorrow, but this isn't that.
Since you've already made up your mind to be 100% wrong about your analysis of global warming, its threats, and its monumental external costs, there's no point in discussing it with you.
Most of the environmental issues from Coal have effectively been eliminated, except for the perceived C02 emission standard,
So, other than spewing the single largest existing threat to the welfare of human civilization, coal is just fine.
Meanwhile, by your arguments, the problem of setting up a recycling center for solar panels appears to be an intractible dilemma.
the Dorado machines have some very unusual characteristics such as 9-bit bytes
Now I'm picturing Nigel in front of a rack of Unisys machines:
"These go to nine bits."
Yes, one can often patent a drug for a new purpose. You probably can't charge $1,000/dose for a repurposing, but it can be done.
The absolutely shocking prevalence of autism today (currently estimated at 1 in 68 births, probably 1 in 40 boys) will make any drug that has a good effect profitable.
As the parent of an autistic teenager, I'm hoping for the best. It does appear that, like Tolstoy said, all autistic kids are autistic in their own way; so I'm not holding out a lot of hope. Some, though...
Do not forget that ObamaCare was rammed through without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.
It's the unfortunate case that Republicans don't generally support Democratic bills. Witness the recent student loan bill. There is not much question that a better educated populance means a better economy and a stronger nation. It's a truism that we could just pay for college education in a number of fields and reap economic benefits of many times the spending. Indeed, we used to do more of that and the country was stronger when we did.
You meant "you wouldn't approve" rather than "you wouldn't understand".
Positioned correctly, it isn't all that socially reprehensible to state the sentiment that you don't believe you should pay for people who drive their motorcycle without helmets, people who self-administer addictive and destructive drugs, people who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes or unprotected casual sex with strangers, and people who go climbing without using all of the safety equipment they could.
You don't really even need to get into whether you hold human life sacred, etc., to get that argument across. It's mostly just an economic argument, you believe yourself to be sensible and don't want to pay for people who aren't.
The ironic thing about this is that it translates to "I don't want to pay for the self-inflicted downfall of the people who exercise the libertarian rights I deeply believe they should have."
OK, not a bad position as far as it goes. Now, tell me how we should judge each case, once these people present themselves for medical care, and what we should do if they don't meet the standard.
Citation needed.
I just looked for a minute and found This NIMH study. If you look at the percentages per year they are astonishingly high. 9% of people in any particular year just for mood disorders, and that's just the first on the list. Then they go down the list of other disorders. The implication is that everyone suffers some incident of mental illness in their lives. And given the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lay practitioners in practice, it seems like much of the population try to get help at times, if only from their priest or school guidance counselor.
You are not a rock. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't ever suffeed a moment of irrationality?
I'm curious what his stance is on most martial arts practitioners.
I've never heard of one invading a school and karate-chopping a dozen young kids to death. Have you?
Yes, seeing a doctor really is a human right.
Does that mean we should bear the burden of your bad lifestyle choices? Well, we do today. Either those folks are in our emergency rooms, or they are lying on our streets. Either way, we all pay a cost.
It's not clear to me what you propose to do with them. Perhaps you should explain that a bit more clearly.
Hi AC
One would hope that a real scientific study would shed light on the situation. Unfortunately, this isn't it. It's a paper published by a Harvard student club and written by a gun industry lobbyist and a gun enthusiast. No balanced perspective that could lead to a real scientific paper here. The first refutation I found of the paper is certainly not peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal either, but makes a pretty good case that the statistics are cooked. It's here.
Please find a real scientific paper from a researcher without bias and then we can discuss it. This one doesn't quite meet the standard.
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.