Though that was funny it was bull.
I would bet you any amount of money that they skipped over quite a few interviews of people who knew basic knowledge, simply keeping the idiots on to further ask them questions that would only embarrass the American people more.
The same could be done with England; doing a street interview and asking relatively the same questions to roughly 100 people and finding 7 people who held no basic knowledge of events, currencies, coalitions, and even countries both current and past.
If it is used for what it is supposed to be used for then yes Facebook is a benefit. However people seem to believe that Facebook is merely a place to play graphically poor games which help no person and are solely time eaters.
I still use Facebook to its original use: being able to connect to fellow classmates and discuss anything from politics to the homework that is due the next day.
So I will say that Facebook is good for people if they use it to the initial intended purpose; though many use it for reasons which are either questionable or extreme wastes of time.
This was utterly incoherent and I had not even the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.
What do you mean homework is absolutely and only for us ?
It will be a huge loss to those who are studying if there is no homework.
This argument as well makes no sense.
The PC is more complicated, and not quite as user friendly as a Mac. However I am computer savvy and hold no issue with PC operating systems. I have been using the same 40 GB hard drive lap top for 7 years and it runs smooth as silk due to me resetting the computer to initial set up, running Comodo ( free security system ), and keeping my processes below 90K ;)
So as far as I am concerned Mac's are overpriced, PCs are the way to go if you are computer savvy!
I have always had much more fun playing the Halo series compared to the Call of Duty series.
I feel that Halo requires a player of skill, whereas Call of Duty calls for someone who can press the trigger on a grenade launcher; or where someone can be in a helicopter picking people off with kill streaks that show utterly no skill whatsoever.
One who feels no empathy or sympathy towards any human ( especially one in pain ) are normally unable to be taught how to understand a person.
People whom suffer from APD feel that whatever they do affects nobody else but themselves; even if what they are doing is mass murder.
if this is wrong and there simply is no way to treat them, I'd see deterrence/incapacitation as reasons to keep them separated from society
Certain disorder hosting people should be kept away from society and attempted to be treated; all should have an attempt at rehabilitation as a human is a human. Humans are known for being indifferent to basic ideals such as diseases which are normally incurable; case studies are not a very rare occurence within psychology.
This is a horrid atrocity. Had the physical capability been available anyone should have intervened.
Syria should have never released the couple back to Afghanistan, how Syrian officials could merely accept Afghanistan's promise to simply slap the couple on the wrist and let them be at peace is ludicrous.
In a backwards country such as Afghanistan there really is no such thing as a slap on the wrist for an engaged woman adulterous.
Had Syrian officials been in their right mind they could have avoided this whole situation by not releasing the couple back to Afghanistan.
Had physical intervention been possible then someone should have intervened.
There was no trial, and the actions within themselves were a direct breach of basic human rights.
I find the whole situation disgusting.
Well though it may seem messed up; the people employed by EPIC Security have the choice to quit.
So if EPIC Security had to hire these people with them aware of the knowledge that they would be working X amount of hours and receive X amount of vacation time, so chances are these people went into their jobs fully aware of the time alotted for vacationing: they get no sympathy from me I used to work slave shifts (10 hours no breaks ).
meaning lyrics
I am going to assume you meant "with meaning in the lyrics"
To say that rappers don't have meaning in their lyrics is absurd. When you take the O.G.s of rap they are truly feeling what they rap about, whereas there are some rappers i.e. Soulja Boy whom posses no true skill and also lacks a basic understanding of the English Language.
There are definitely rappers that deserve plethoras of kudos to their ingenuity with the English Language. Rappers such as: Gangstarr, AZ, Lupe Fiasco, Nas, Fabolous and the list goes on...
Rap isn't what it was in the 80's
Yes it is, if not better.
Listening to your local radio station isn't going to let you delve into the true world of rap, that will take you as far as iTunes ( current ) top 100 will. You have to go underground for the good stuff.
something of real life struggle.
So what the rappers that grow up in the worst neighbor hoods, have no money, and are constantly fought and abused don't count due to making it big? So as soon as they land that record deal and move out of the slum they all of a sudden don't fit into the category of rapping about real life struggles?
Well mate as far as I am concerned it is the circle of life.
Some people have only been on this website for 20 minutes, however I can remember a choice few whom have created debates grossing in over 400 posts.
Some are indefinitely not even worth arguing against as they have posted an incoherent argument that, even after disputing it hoping for someone to argue back, no one will defend the person in question.
Some however make epic posts that end up being the highest rated comment and generate a major debate between lasting members of CreateDebate.
So with me it is a love/hate relationship, that leans more on the benefits of love.
;)
Could one not make the argument that those suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder are unable to be treated?
That there are specific people whom didn't commit murder as a crime of passion, however more as a crime to view the suffering of another?
The basic knowledge of sciences within themselves still elude me ...
I am indefinitely a humanities person. As they say everything is eventual and hypothetically I will possibly have a slightly firmer grasp on anything within the field of science in the future.
That being said I concede, and am much more confused with the situation than when I started.
Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time.
I said that was fact.
So: Not factual.
I said the specific piece I posted was not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
Ha, I was going to post an argument regarding this however decided against it but apparently left the heading up.
So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.
Don't tell me have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity?", as it is a theoretical explanation of observed force between matters.
allele frequencies within a population change over time.
That is a fact.
Human chromosome number 2 is an exant combined match of chimpanzee chromosomes 13 and 14 (a fact explained by the theory) homologous structures exist between closely related taxa (a fact explained by the theory) atavisms occur in organisms (a fact explained by the theory)
There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.
So: Not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
I think there are a number of arguments "for" the bombing of the two Japanese cities during World War II, so I'll take the unpopular role and play Devil's advocate. First off, if you look at the title of this argument, it is "Was the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable or not?". Not just "Hiroshima", but Hiroshima [August 6th] AND Nagasaki [August 9th]. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese war machine would not surrender. This really shows how hard the citizens of Japan and the politicians of Japan were fighting in this total war.
Secondly, the usage of Nuclear Weapons for the first time by the United States was relatively fortunate. If it were a country at war with America who'd dropped the first bomb, you could easily argue that due to the tension of this time period the US would've deployed more of them in retaliation. During the Cold War, for example, arms races between the US and Russia led to both sides having hundreds / thousands of nuclear missiles. Since the US was the first to drop the bomb, it set a historical precedent and was used as a deterrant. Despite the low yield of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" bombs [modern stockpiles have warheads thousands of times more powerful], the sheer destruction caused gave Nuclear Weapons an area of seriousness and the reality of their destruction that has prevented their usage under the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction".
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fought under Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan by American forces using conventional warfare tactics [think: Omaha Beach, Operation Market Garden, etc], would the more powerful Nuclear weapons have been used during later wars? How would the Cold War have progressed differently? If Fat Man or Little Boy were dropped during testing in the Bikini Atoll, would more powerful, modern nuclear bombs have been used in any of the wars since the Second World War?
The Korean War, The Cold War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf Wars, Iraq, even Iran in the future. What would the American Military's stance on the usage of Nuclear bombing be if it didn't have the negative press from the bombing of Japan? It would certainly lack it's biggest deterrent.
Perhaps this could be seen as a constructive or progressive "lesser of two evils". America would not have backed down from Japan, as Japan was starting to lose the battle. Regardless of whether the fight was waged using conventional tactics or nuclear bombs, a similar Japanese death toll would have occurred. These days, the largest argument people see these days against the usage of Nuclear weapons is the debate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the two bombings actually prevented further loss of life from Nuclear weapons.
There hasn't been a nuclear bombing since on this magnitude [with the exception of the common usage of Tactical Nuclear devices on much smaller magnitudes]. Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives, by having the bombing during "favorable conditions"?
1) Low-yield nuclear bombs, by conventional standards.
2) The circumstances were that America was the only one with Nukes.
3) No fear of retaliation, no world-wide destruction followed.
4) Japan clearly had no plan to back down. How many more lives were lost versus a full-on invasion?
5) No American or "Allied" lives were lost.
6) Field-test of a nuclear device, set the precedent for the level of necessity required to drop "The Bomb".
Though my idealogy may fall under the Theory of Evolution; to say Evolution is fact is far fetched.
Pieces of the puzzle are falling together rather nicely, however the pieces haven't connected perfectly especially not well enough to say proven.
