Anything other than an allegorical OEC reading is inconsistent with the historical understanding of the poetic nature of biblical prophetic visions as they appear in Genesis or Revelation, or whatever. YEC'er's trying to draw pseudoscientific observations from Genesis 1 understand as little about scripture as they do science.
If I build a deck and a pool in my backyard and cheat on my taxes about it, what exactly have I taken from you?
I was 19 when I got my first car loan. I thought I was buying a modest car, but I was a punk kid just out of college and I had no clue that "modest" and "new" are mutually exclusive. Had no credit, payments were high, and I signed up for an open lease. The car dealership assured me that my internship was more than sufficient for cover the payments. Two-and-a-half years later I was much, much wiser, but still saddled with that money drain until they finally repo'd it. I swear, I think I made like 2 on-time payments the entire time I had it. Took me a while to get my credit back, so it was a harsh lesson learned.
"Ever been to a Turkish prison, Bobby?"
That's a lot of words to say "waste food".
It's a strange day. People read the article and rant about a summary they didn't read.
Really? At least once a week there is a story like this, chosen to excite the conservatives and to try to make the liberals look bad. Can you show me an article posted in the past several months that does the opposite? No, you cannot.
Are you kidding me? Soulskill's got a dog-whistle called "climate change" he blows on every fucking day. Doesn't even matter what the article's about; the comment section derails immediately into diatribes against the evil nasty capitalists.
to excite slashdot's conservative majority
Um, yeah, that's crazy talk.
That quote from TFA is also in TFS. Did you read the summary?
The summary is pretty clear that this is about what goes in garbage cans, not compost.
I read the article, and am having a hard time seeing where the summary is incorrect.
If they publish findings that are extremely bad for the oil industry, then yes, I will believe those.
If they seem to publish only findings that are favorable to the oil industry, then no.
Thus such studies can only enforce an entrenched opinion, and cannot successfully convey truth. There is therefore every reason for Google not to fund privacy research; people will believe only bad results if they fund it.
If the article is to be believed, this was Stanford's decision, not Google's. It is also plausible that Stanford wishes to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy in taking the devil's money to do the good Lord's work, so to speak.
A challenge! Trial by stone!
There have been so few because, as it turns out, the moon is a terribly uninteresting place with really annoying dust.