The idea is to increase generation from renewables and nuclear so that you don't nead fossils.
There is a massive gap between "not 1st in absolutely everything" and "worse than everywhere else".
Your first "fact", that there are only two biological sentences, is not actually true. Intersex is a real biological thing and is entirely separate from political movements and debates about essentialism vs. culturally-defined roles. It's relatively rare, but that's not really the point.
Interestingly, the AC's political movement may be in part responsible for changing the language to prefer the plural over just using male pronouns. But I agree it's unlikely to "fix" English's grammar to fit anything but a strict binary mapping of genders.
Oh right, and nobody ever does anything that's illegal so there's no point in taking action against it.
Also stealing cars is illegal so why bother with keys?
I think some people severely underestimate and downplay the importance of wind power inconveniences like this (and the bright blinking lights into people's windows), but there is absolutely some BS about low-frequency noise causing cancer. I've seen that distributed and it is ridiculous.
The question was:
Light absolutely has mass. For what definition of mass does a photon not have mass?
People have given very standard definitions for which a photon has no mass. Asked and answered.
The fact that relativistic mass is a thing is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The article has a bit more info.
Spoiler alert: the shock is calibrated to each person to be "painful but not intolerable", and it's about 30 cents a shock for yourself or 60 cents a shock to others.
There may be an initial threshold -- my understanding is that the question would be something like:
"Would you rather be shocked 10 times and get $7 or shocked 20 times and get $9", or "Would you rather be shocked 5 times for $5 or have this chick get shocked 3 times for $4", not necessarily giving a 0 shocks = $0 option.
Well that's an irrelevant aside.
You know that it's religions that claim knowledge worth knowing that humanity that non-members do not accept as knowable.
How is it extremely unlikely? What evidence are you talking about?
It's not an intolerance of all forms of intolerance everywhere. That's a ridiculous strawman.
Your argument is like saying it's hypocritical not to eat people just because you eat potatoes.
Follow your statements through to their logical conclusion.
If marriage isn't a right, straight or gay, then a government which grants privileges only to straight marriage and not to gay marriage is unfair discrimination.
What relevance does that have?
There are laws in some places that explicitly prohibit the labeling of food items as non-GMO. Boy, does that piss me off!
See, this is a legitimate complaint. Get this fixed. Where are those laws?
You are confused about what homeopathy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.... Homeopathic medicine is very specifically not medicine.
You are thinking of traditional medicine. Which is, indeed, not 100% hogwash (not 0% either).
quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label.
It's just arbitrary. Might as well label something as made by people with princess leia hair. I'm pretty sure there's no proven harm, but I would oppose a label for that.
Agitate for people to label things as non-GMO. That's what you really want anyway. When you go to the store for milk you don't check each liquid vessel to exclude the ones that contain traces of apple, orange, alcohol, etc.., you go for milk. If you want something that contains no GMO, then ask for no-GMO labels (and enforce truth-in-advertising laws).
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests [ucsusa.org] that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
Here is an actual point. However, labelling isn't likely to solve that, you'd have to completely ban them. I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more. So far it looks just like the same "Red Queen's Race" evolution has always provided.
Stamping Kosher is like stamping something non-GMO. Stamping GMO is like stamping non-Kosher. Jews absolutely do not get foodstuffs stamped "this is not Kosher". It's 100% beef far more often than it's 0% pork.
If you require that you only eat non-GMO food, then get food stamped as non-GMO. I will support *that* stamp. If that stamp is not legally defensible, then you have a legitimate grievance. I support mandatory labelling of known health consequences (like nutritional information), and I support trust-in-advertising laws that say if you label something non-GMO it better not have GMO products in it. I do not support mandatory labelling of the arbitrarily large list of things that have no known health consequences, but which some people may believe have health consequences.
I don't think I've ever heard of a subculture that specifically tries to buy only GMO food, the way Jews go for Kosher food. Although I have to admit I sometimes hesitate when I see an organic label on something, and think "would this be organic anyway and they are just putting it on the label because it sells, or did they make some compromise that I wouldn't have wanted them to make just so they could add this logo".
Might as well ask why we don't mandatorily label things as containing products harvested using John Deere. They should be proud to stamp their box with "JOHN DEERE HARVESTED FOOD" for all the world to see, if there's no harm and no fear of harm from John Deere harvesters.