Regarding the evolution/creation debate. On one corner trying to make dinosaurs walk around with Christ is like trying to put God into a very very small box a simple human brain tries to understand. Life is the ultimate creation on Earth but to have a conscience is what makes us unique from the animal kingdom. To CHOSE to do good with it is what makes us truly divine.

At the other corner, the amount of chaos one universe would need to built consciousness with atoms created from the heart of a supernova all the way to us, typing on this forum, only based on pure random steps for 14 billion years is mind boggling. I wonder why, if we are made of pure element there is a need for life to exist and then there is an energy for life to evolve. But why? Being pure gold would not matter to me. I would simply be. Why is Life working so hard to stay alive?

I was raised as a Christian. I was not raised into believing a dude with a beard was sitting on a cloud though. I am still a believer as I was one before I knew what a Bible was. But you should not take anything on a personal level on the internet. Share your views and get ready to be slapped on both cheeks. Be ready to swim like a salmon fighting the counter current. But also, be ready to drop your computer, leave this forum, turn off the internet and look around if someone is not seeking somebody to just to talk to, family members, neighbor. Right now. Your life and your strong belief should be a natural lighthouse for others. Effortless. That's how I would define being a believer. Everything else is Politic and Dogma, this thread included.

I do not want to derail my REDDIT thread anymore as I created one with the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=453031.0 subject already

So USA citizens are mistrusting the government (arguably for good reasons), whereas Europeans have some more respect for theirs.

The Founding Fathers mistrusted their own government, the one they were about to create for generations. Most or all of them came from Europe, not even born on American soil. They knew their own past history on the old continent perfectly and were trying to create a new paradigm. No more empire, no more monarchy, no more tyranny. They knew they would not be alive forever and created a document that tells people they have the right to free speech (to bad mouth their own government not the right of Libel and lie about their neighbor), and the right to bear arm if that government transformed itself into a tyranny, like it did so many times before in Europe.

Europeans have zero respect for their own government as they believe government is a job creator, a right giver and nothing else. Europeans believes they are born with zero rights, only then their trusty government has a list of rights it gives to its citizen, the exact opposite in the USA.

So far millions upon millions of serfs and sheep all over Europe have been slaughtered by their own government, the one you believe was trustful. You still believe it is OK for families with "noble blood" to be on top of you forever while you keep your own middle class to be slaved forever. Why do you think the brightest among you leave your countries by the hundred of thousands every year to come and work in California?

Must be that trusty government of yours.

By the way what is the safest country in Europe and how many people can it absorb every year in its paradise?

What linux distro are you using?

I wonder if there were any prescription drugs involved. If the alleged perpetrator is a minor we will never know.

You cannot technically call the fetus' generators "parents" as it would bring too much "stuff" no one wants to deal with: When does life start? Does a fetus feel pain? Why would you want to discriminate against single mothers? Etc, etc...

You need to keep up with the program while feeding the hospital's smokestacks with the new flesh.

Permafrost may have far-reaching effects on climate change, a new study suggests.


The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer new evidence that permafrost thawing releases large amounts of greenhouse gases, which can raise global temperatures.

"We've known for a while now that permafrost is thawing," Suzanne Hodgkins, the lead author on the paper, said in a statement. "But what we've found is that the associated changes in plant community composition in the polar regions could lead to way more carbon being released into the atmosphere as methane."

Permafrost, which is a thick layer of soil that remains frozen year-round, is usually found in the world’s polar regions. The latest study shows that as permafrost melts, it produces releases significant amounts of methane. Compared to carbon dioxide, methane is 33 times more effective as a greenhouse gas.

The study involved taking samples from soil in Sweden. Researchers found that if permafrost melts entirely, there will likely be five times as much carbon in the atmosphere than there is today.

"The world is getting warmer, and the additional release of gas would only add to our problems," said Jeff Chanton, a researcher from Florida State University.

Permafrost covers about 24 percent of all land in the northern hemisphere and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon -- twice the amount currently found in the atmosphere. A 2012 study predicted that greenhouse gases released from melting permafrost could increase the world’s temperature by an additional 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit within the next century.

Ted Schuur, a permafrost expert at the University of Florida, conducted his own field research on permafrost and climate change in Alaska. He said that climate change and permafrost thawing are linked at the point where the melting triggers further warming.

"We're on the edge of a major transition point," Schuur told USA Today about one of his studies, which found that tundras worldwide may be releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they can absorb. The resulting emissions may resemble those caused by deforestation, but they are not as harmful to the environment as emissions from power plants and cars.

The latest study is part of a larger multicontinent effort that included researchers from North America, Europe and Australia.

http://www.ibtimes.com/permafrost-thawing-may-lead-way-more-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-1568925



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Frosting on my cake (tax cake for climate change that is) cannot be stopped!

Americans have recently been hit with some of the largest premium increases in years, according to a Morgan Stanley survey of insurance brokers.

The investment bank’s April survey of 148 brokers found that this quarter, the average premium increase for customers renewing an insurance plan is 12 percent in the small group market and 11 percent in the individual market, according to Forbes’ Scott Gottlieb.

The hikes — the largest in the past three years, according to Morgan Stanley’s quarterly reports — are “largely due to changes under the [Affordable Care Act],” analysts concluded. Rates have been growing increasingly fast throughout all of 2013, after a period of drops in 2012.

While insurers were hiking premiums since 2012 by smaller amounts, the lead-up to the Obamacare’s launch has seen the average rate at which premiums are growing fourfold.

The small group market saw a jump from a growth rate of close to 3 percent during Morgan Stanley’s September 2013 survey to just above 6 percent three months later in December — the month before a surge of Obamacare regulations hit insurance companies.

Over the next three months, the rate doubled again to the current average small growth premium growth rate of 12 percent.

Individual policies saw a much starker jump after the Obamacare exchanges launched, in anticipation of the health care law going live in 2014. Morgan Stanley’s September 2013 survey, like the previous three quarters, found a fairly constant growth rate around 2 percent — but in December, the rate had shot up to above 9 percent.

Morgan Stanley’s results echo what consumers are already seeing: the Affordable Care Act’s intensive regulation of the insurance market is driving health care premiums up strikingly.

The survey found that premium increases are due to several specific Obamacare policies. The most talked about may be the new benefits all insurance plans are required to offer and excise taxes targeted at insurers themselves, Forbes reports.

But there are two other big contributors to the rise in costs. Age restrictions on premiums prevent the insurer from charging older customers who cost more to cover a higher premium — hiking the costs for young and healthy people disproportionately. Commercial underwriting restrictions also bump up insurers’ costs and are reflected in premiums.



http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/survey-u-s-sees-sharpest-health-insurance-premium-increases-in-years/?advD=1248,657751

Or Chromium and Chromium OS Project?

Climate Change Green is the new Totalitarian Socialist Red...

Firefox is open source. A fork with a less tainted name is always possible.

I shared why I would.
Never said you should not.

If you were reading through this thread and found nothing that would keep you from using it it would be perfectly fine. This thread is beyond the choice of a simple browser usage though.

Gay activism was never an issue to me but it made sense you have lobbyists defending what you believe in, no matter what (in this case pushing for more Government intrusion in your life from the pink mafia).
Now I lost total respect for them when I realized I would get news of gays being persecuted, beaten, hanged all over the world NOT from the gay activists. I mean NEVER. It was always from "right wing extremist websites" supposedly offended and crying for exorcism for anything gay.


That, to me, before the Firefox event, was madness.


Do a google search about gays in egypt and in the middle east, about gay persecution in the world. Hopefully I am wrong and a lot of results would come from gay activist websites.

Sure more important issues are at stake, but with multiple threads one could cover multiple issues at heart as you may have found out with me, maybe

While mentioning changing peoples' behavior:






Report: British Schoolchildren Being “Brainwashed” With Global Warming Propaganda…



British schoolchildren are being brainwashed by a deep green environmental curriculum which fills their heads with “confusion, ignorance and fear”, says a new study by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The report, by science writer Andrew Montford and statistician John Shade, finds that “eco-activism” has been given free rein within schools for at least three decades. Children are being encouraged to become “little political activists” with a duty to “save the planet” not least by putting pressure on their parents.

This agenda can be found in teaching across the board – not just in obviously relevant subjects like science and geography but even in unrelated areas like French, Maths and English. It affects everything from field trips (often with an environmental theme, such as “sustainability”) to projects and film screenings (An Inconvenient Truth; The Age Of Stupid; The Day After Tomorrow) and even how well children perform in exams (with marks given automatically to children who “correctly” identify Carbon Dioxide as a major environmental threat).

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/04/Education-reducedportrait-5.pdf

"Saving his butt"? He was never going to be a target from the pink mafia. Ever.

If coming from feminists aborting, about a factor of 0.7 thanks to the extra flammable toxic hot gas inside...

Saving the planet from climate change is ‘beyond our ability’ and we should stop wasting time trying to tackle global warming, a leading scientist has claimed

James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become inhabitable.

Lovelock, who has just published his latest book A Rough Ride To The Future, claims we should be ‘strengthening our defences and making a sustainable retreat.’

“We’re reaching an age in history where you can no longer predict the future with any hope of success.

“We should give up vainglorious attempts to save the world.

“Britain is no longer a world power and we need to leave such schemes to the USA, Japan or China. We should spend out efforts adapting Britain to fight climate change.”

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to say the world will need a ‘Plan B’ because it is unlikely countries will reduce carbon emissions in time.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10752606/We-should-give-up-trying-to-save-the-world-from-climate-change-says-James-Lovelock.html

Murder is a crime only if the mother decided to change her mind from calling the fetus a "baby".

Here are the arguments for it:

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ as Newborns ‘Are Not Persons’



Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” as opposed to “infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions
Francesca Minerva (Photo: Academia.edu)
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why a fetus is fuel good enough for heating buildings.

FSB officials next walking the plank like Anna Chapman? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman

I never did.

Someone at salon.com did
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/