any non zero probability is too much for comfort
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the real world.
Removing money and "gifts" from the equation would also do a lot.
Yes, please continue to oversimplify, overstate, and not read papers in their entirety.
It makes this task easier.
Daily Caller....They never saw a anti-environment position/myth they didn't like.
Linking to the Daily Caller for anything science/environmental is like referring Trump as an example of modesty.
Bee hive numbers are really nothing more than an indicator of demand for bees. If anything, more bee hives might be indicative of a problem, because more domestic bees are needed to pollinate crops when there aren't enough wild pollinators. Wild bee numbers are way down over the last few years
Hit the nail on the head.
The REAL issue is how populations of non-cultivated bees are doing. Bumblebees and all the other sorts of bees that we don't use to commercially produce honey or pollinate farms are also important, even if no human is directly making a dollar from the bees' work.
That there is the real issue alright. And it actually supports your statement that the rebound here is most likely due to the efforts of keepers to keep hives afloat.
Wild bees, bumble bees, etc, even just pollinators in general (including non-bees) are all crashing too, right along side the honeybees kept by humans. They talk about how the honey bees matter because they pollinate a very significant portion of our agriculture. The flip side is that the wild pollinators do the rest of the job (as well as pollinating nature in general, not just human crops), and with them crashing too, it becomes even more important to find the cause and a solution.
And shill number 3 shows up to collect his 2 cents.
This is just astroturfing for a manufacturer of pesticides.
And lets not forget that it wasn't just honeybees that were dying off.
Bees not raised by humans (wild bees, non-social bees, bumblebees, etc) were and are dying off too. Still.
Not sure monoculture is the problem since honeybees weren't the only bees collapsing.
Wild bees, bumble bees, and non-social bees have also been collapsing.
who modded this false racist trash up?
1- we're supposed to believe that all 82 people were cases of "black on black" crime?
2- the "black on black crime" canard needs to go away. a pretty good summation ( http://www.thenation.com/artic... )
1.The term is a racial canard. Of course, it could merely be descriptive, an adjective for a certain kind of crime, like “same-sex domestic-partner violence.” But it’s not. Same-sex domestic-partner violence is distinguished from opposite-sex domestic-partner violence. But “black-on-black crime” has no racial equivalent: nobody talks about white-on-white crime (see 2) or Asian-on-Asian crime. It’s a construct assigned solely to black people, and it interprets their transgression through a purely racial lens. It ranks alongside “the down-low,” a phrase used to refer to black gay men who lead straight lives, only to cheat on their wives with other men. When white men do it, it’s called “Brokeback Mountain”; when black men do it, it gets a special name. The phrase “black-on-black crime” makes sense only if you understand black people’s propensity to commit crimes against people of their own race as inherently different from the way other racial groups commit crimes.
2.In this regard, black criminals are not particularly different. America is very segregated, and its criminality conforms to that fact. So the victims of most crimes are the same race as those who commit them. Eighty-four percent of white people who are killed every year are killed by white people. White people who buy illegal drugs are most likely to buy them from white people. Far from being extraordinary, the fact that black criminals are most likely to commit crimes against black people makes them just like everybody else. A more honest term than “black-on-black crime” would be, simply, “crime.”
3.It is not a taboo. Anyone who seriously thinks that black people are not talking about black people killing other black people just doesn’t know any black people. Black people talk about it a lot. They have a lot to talk about. But while black-on-black crime is a nonsense term, black crime is a serious issue. Black people may not be much more likely to kill members of their own racial group than whites, but they are still more likely to kill and be killed. It’s not as though the black community hasn’t noticed that. Most cities have several black-led organizations confronting this very thing. Nor do black people grieve according to some code of silence. Go to any inner-city church, youth club, park, concert, barbershop, beauty salon or high school basketball game and listen. Every now and then, like last year after Chicago high school student Hadiya Pendleton was shot, they even get a national platform to talk about it. And when they do, they seize it.
4.The police are a special category. That’s the point. Black people are not, by dint of their melanin content, instructed to protect and serve the public; the police, by dint of their employment, are. Black people do not have a monopoly on violence; the police do. So when the people entrusted with upholding the law kill someone, that raises very different issues than if a kid from down the block shoots somebody. When the people who are supposed to protect everybody show an undeniable propensity to kill one group of people more than others (black men aged 15 to 19 are twenty-one times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts), that inevitably raises the question of discrimination. Our taxes don’t pay to support black criminals in their pursuit of black victims; they are currently going to support police in the shooting of black people.
5.The police are not an elevated category. The law still applies to them. When black people kill other black people, families and communities seek justice. When there are eyewitnesses, videos and forensic evidence, they want investigations, arrests, indictments, trials and convictions. They also want the punishment to be proportionate to the crime. They want no less when a policeman is the killer. In reality, they get far less. In fact, they get nothing. There is no punishment because, apparently, there was no crime.
It's called institutional or systemic racism, and it's very much alive in the real estate market.
Depends on the speech, the person, and in what role their speech originates from.
-money in politics: not free speech
-private citizen being racist: free speech
-government official being racist in his official capacity: not free speech
i never really looked into it. always thought 232 was the newer.