165 karma · joined April 14, 2008
http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulati...
Article is from 2011, but still pertinent.
According to 23andMe's site: "You should not change your health behaviors solely on the basis of information from 23andMe. Make sure to discuss your Genetic Information with a physician or other health care provider before you act upon the Genetic Information resulting from 23andMe Services. For most common diseases, the genes we know about are only responsible for a small fraction of the risk. There may be unknown genes, environmental factors, or lifestyle choices that are far more important predictors. If your data indicate that you are not at elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, you should not feel that you are protected. The opposite is also true; if your data indicate you are at an elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, it does not mean you will definitively develop the disease or condition. In either case, if you have concerns or questions about what you learn through 23andMe, you should contact your physician or other health care provider."
(Paraphrased from Harry Binswanger's article: http://onforb.es/1iQEN4U)
Anyone who asserts that the color of an individual's skin implies something about that individual is a quintessential racist. It implies nothing about you as an individual. Anyone who says it does (including you), accepts the premises that every racist accepts: that a color somehow defines the identity or nature of that individual.
"Offensively ignorant" #1) I can't control what offends you, that's your choice. If you are offended, then choose not to be. #2) Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information. What specific information am I lacking in this context?
"I've been around a good long while." Again, no (rational) person in this forum cares how long you've been around. What does that have to do with my argument?
Stunning level of ignorance.
If people want to pool their own money together, they can. The only thing this bill prevents is the government from forcing an individual to pay for something.
Even if every individual was morally obligated to pay for something that the town wants (which is not the case), providing services is not the proper role of government.
(email is in my profile)
$6 out of the $10 is a dead weight loss... completely consumed by government waste and inefficiency. The remaining $2 of the $10 is effectively transferred to bank accounts of politicians & friends via bribes, political donations, and outright theft.
The end game is exemplified in aid given to rid hunger in Africa, which is an increase in the population that suffers from hunger.
USA has been the only experiment in capitalism so far (and a raving success until the income tax was instituted)... why re-model on failed socialist principles?
If PDFCrowd can effectively handle images, I'll brand their logo into my bicep.
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Do you think that's absolutely trivial as well?
I'd actually like to see it formally proposed in some fashion, just to see which congressmen would advocate it... and then observe them promptly voted home the following election season.