swansont

Again, I think this is getting into the game too late. If you grow up poor the system is stacked against you all the way through your youth. A company can hire a middle/upper-middle class worker just by virtue of the fact that they are likely to have better credentials. They can afford to have gone to better schools, gotten tutors to help, and been able to afford a low-paying internship to get experience, because they are supported by their family. It's hard to show that an employer harmed candidate A if they can show candidate B (whom they hired) has a better resumé. Or harm to candidate C, who had to drop out and work to support a family, without getting to go to college. That's not the fault of Acme Products Inc. I think what you really need is to have programs that level the playing field from the start.

I disagree with your position that socioeconomic class should be a protected class. Not because there is no discrimination, though. Classism is a problem. Some people are snobs. The problem as I see it is that protected classes are groups of people who are trapped in their group (though they might not agree with my wording of being trapped, and I don't mean any disrespect by it) What I mean is that if you are of a particular race or skin color, or are a woman, or you follow a particular religion, or are above a certain age, etc. there is no way (other than via extraordinary means for one or two categories) out of being in that category. That's not so with socioeconomics. It's not easy, but it's possible to go from being poor to being middle class, and you can go from middle to upper class. And you can go in the other direction with poor planning or bad luck. Further, the solution of applying this to hiring practices is too small. The friction of being poor happens continually, and isn't just an issue of when someone is hired. My issue here is not so much that I disagree with the broader thesis about classism (because I don't) as that I think you aren't making a good argument for assigning protected class status for hiring purposes.

Smartphones, or any phone with good video, storage and bandwidth to send video didn't exist back in 1995, so my point holds - a decision made when cellphone cameras were not ubiquitous might be ignored by the court, especially if the court is hell-bent on changing the rules. Furthermore, Fordyce wasn't charged with interfering with police, so I have to wonder if it would even be considered relevant.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks and slurs such as this will not be tolerated. Stick to discussing the subject

I don’t see the relevance. I didn’t claim that anything was eradicated. I didn’t claim that all modern medicine is new knowledge, only that some of it is. Can we dispense with the straw man now?

Perhaps it's because I said no such thing. The only people to mention ruble/rubles in this thread before now are you, iNow and The Vat (assuming the search function is to be trusted)

It sort of coincided with the industrial revolution. Which predates Dalton, so I don't know that there were chemical formulas to burn. But I'm pretty sure that they didn't know about e.g. mRNA, so some vaccines we have today are definitely not some re-imagination of a folk cure for COVID.

and the connection to my post is...what?

Which is not the point. Nobody has claimed otherwise. There have been breakthrough drugs/treatments that are not distillations of remedies that existed before modern medicine.

There are a lot of treatments that are not based on traditional medicine.

AndaleAndale banned as a sockpuppet of Buai and Noice..gui

It probably is used less, though. If you get sick, some people will use modern medicine if such treatment is available to them, which means they are not using "traditional" medicine. The ones who partake of modern medicine will try other approaches if the original treatment fails.

Russia has engaged before, so their targets don’t seem to think so. Is there a shortage of planes? They won’t do any good if there are no pilots to fly them. It’s not like you can train up a pilot quickly, compared to getting someone basic skills in shooting a weapon.

So according to your conjecture a clock that constructed on earth will not experience time dilation when launched into space?

After they shot missiles at the US consulate?

The connection with Ukraine is…?

I think part of the story is that there’s no patent protection for existing treatments, unless you can isolate some unique compound. So no incentive to go through the expense of clinical trials. You can sell it as a supplement but it’s a bit like selling a generic after patents expire.

! Moderator Note Not the preferred nomenclature. It would be best not to cross this line again.

! Moderator Note This is not the place to be advancing this thesis. That’s for speculations, and would have to follow the rules of that section. Paranormal is not mainstream science, and this farce is ended. Don’t introduce this again.

And you’re missing the point. You won’t be able to easily find documentation from the 21st century of people saying Elvis didn’t exist, even if people claimed it.

And you’re better off pointing to evidence that exists than trying to prove a negative.

Too many of them are invested in fossil fuels to pass the appropriate legislation.

So not much different than asking a random person on the street. No, not so much. There are very few scientists in the relevant field who are saying it's not anthropogenic. You increase those numbers slightly when you get to other fields of science, but you have to be careful about the ones who have been paid for their denial. It's a false balance, such as you are using here, that is advanced by some of the bad actors in the conversation. And, frankly, I would expect a retired physicist to be taking a more critical view of the issue than talking to an explorer and settling for "he said, she said" reporting.

The deepest we've ever drilled is about 12 km, and you need to go about 2900 km to get to the outer core. As you and Phi point out, you don't have to do that to tap into geothermal energy.

1. As far as we know how far is that 2. Paperwork? Paper didn't exist at that time. The literacy rate was what, 15%? Would the average person have been aware? How much documentation exists about any action from that era?