If the groups were large enough, you might have a point. However, the small groups combined with a rat that has an abnormally high cancer rate means the SNR is way to low.
The study was rejected because it's signal to noise ratio was crap and they didn't use enough rats. I don't know about you, but as someone who occasionally reads science literature, knowing such matters is kind of fucking important as to how much weight I give a particular study..
Meh, true, but at the same time, may threaten the foundations of democracy, unless very explicitly defined somewhere later in the document, is vague enough to be utterly meaningless. A very, very few governments will use it as intended while the vast majority will only block the most egregious of the violations. And given the lack of specificity, both interpretations would be correct.
Moving to different jobs when a company fails wouldn't be such a big fucking deal if the War Labor Board hadn't given tax breaks to companies who provided health insurance in the 40's as a way of easing the effect that government mandated wage controls were already having. Then the tax benefits were never rescinded after the war at the behest of the UAW a and car companies mainly. Thus you have the current day problem of employees losing health insurance almost any time they change jobs.
Every country that could actually defend itself from an army of Frenchmen led by a male member of that country which called itself socialist has become a prime example of the monstrous lengths government can go to. Of course, according to all the ivory tower morons, none of those countries were actually socialist. The only time socialism works even remotely is when a population is very homogenous and the vast majority of defense spending is done by someone else.
Because Japan's tent cities have nothing to do with the fact that they forced 2 decades of stagflation upon their population or the massive real estate boom prior.
However those markets are not banking, car manufacture, healthcare, or tanning salons.
Correct, they do. Did you know that the US knife murder rate is almost double the UK's entire murder rate? That's right, Americans murder each other at twice the total rate of the UK just with knives. Or they used to anyway. Since American violence stats have by and large continued to go down and UK stats gone up, that may have changed recently.
The drop in murder rate as a percentage was virtually the exact fucking same between the US and Australia in the 10 years following the Port Arthur massacre. IIRC the US actually came out ahead a little in that contest. You'd have to check the statistics yourself to be sure however.
A description which applies to almost every movie theater I've ever been to with more than 1-2 screens. Unless you have evidence that the other theaters also did not have such an egress point, the relevance of your comment remains to be seen.
Murder rate boyo, not mass shooting rate. Not to mention I was discussing total murder rate and not merely gun murder rate. If gun murders go down but other types rise to compensate, the lack of gun deaths means jack shit. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of reliable and valid studies on the subject(and if you don't implicitly understand what I mean by reliable and valid when it comes to statistical studies you should probably exit the discussion forthwith) show no correlation between gun availability and total suicide rate.
Any civilian carrying a rifle is much more likely to be properly trained in its use than a LEO discounting actual military.
There's also the fact that the minimum size of the projectiles tended to be over a half inch in diameter.
The reason modern primers are so difficult is because they are specially non-corrosive. Potassium chlorate primers would be dead fucking simple to make and for people who want to chance blowing their hands off theirs always fulminate of mercury.
And yet the subversives in the republican party are the only ones who have even attempted to get serious about replacing the status quo, for good or ill. Where are all the radicals in the left wishing to take out the likes of Schumer and Feinstein and making a serious attempt at it even if they fail?