So if there were 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979, that represents 7.60% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+1979 )
..and if there were 56,800 biomedical graduate students in 2009, that represents 5.42% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+2009 )
So... c'mon man, where are the jobs?
I read it at first that he was advocating for burying the lines. Or constructing the poles out of Adamantium.
I never read it as the OP wanted to do away with electricity. His only slant seems to be anti-Power Company.
independent study and problem solving
skills, then the OP's observation is move valid IMHO.
Is the $15,000 fee paid yearly?
If its not, your outlined plan would seem to give even more incentive to not hire Americans. Just pay the fee once, and then for the next N years keep the immigrant non-citizen workers at a lower wage.
Assuming you're the OP... you have a lot of qualifying comments that are not the same as the OP's claim of outright banning cars.
So yes, you're right, there are several facets to the process. And it's much more constructive to talk about them rather than just straight trolling, even if elements of your response are still outright trolling.
That's a pretty near-sighted idea.
If you ban cars, how will people in areas of the world designed for cars get access to food? Heathcare?
How will companies that service utilities service the infrastructure?
How many people would consequentially die by banning cars? Much more than the car deaths per year.
You have the power... to stop being a negative, short-sighted person. Think about a solution rather than trolling.
Thanks for the insightful and provocative post today. I didn't have the energy to post a similar defense today against the
Glad you didn't get down-modded for the profanity!
Hopefully someday all relevant people will realize the true costs involved.
Haha you have a good point there. Hopefully we as a species can find some non-depressing realities through the results over our lifetimes. Hopefully...
You collapsing the wave function doesn't look like the likely way we'll all end, given the current state of affairs
No I'm not, along with Einstein, Feynman, and many others.
A lot has happened since 1927 in quantum mechanics.
Assuming your post is derived from the following Wikipedia excerpt:
Then you have interpreted it a bit incorrectly. Everything is not random, everything exhibits a degree of randomness. Just because we can't properly measure the deterministic nature of it, doesn't make it inherently random.
It looks random to us, but if there were no limit to our measuring capability we would know that it is indeed not random.
Kind of like the Earth Is Flat type argument of modern times.