Doug Morris

Authors of the study in the CIDRAP article: Lead author Oliver Watson, PhD, Co-first author Gregory Barnsley, MSc. The study AIER criticized was led by Neil Ferguson. Why assume that what applies to one would apply to the other?

Assuming the article you posted is correct, how is this relevant to the articles Boydstun posted from other sources than Imperial College, or to the quality or reliability of Lancet?

Another reason omniscience is impossible is that knowledge is gained by a process, and no one can process everything. If we define infallibility as immunity from making mistakes, we have a different question from the one DavidOdden answered. I still think the answer is no, but I'm not ready right now to give a good explanation.

So what? Death rates among the vaccinated were a lot less than among the unvaccinated. This applies both to the earlier rates when nobody had been vaccinated and to the later rates among the people who remained unvaccinated. Total covid deaths after the roll out is not a very meaningful statistic because a lot of people remained unvaccinated.

I don't like to spend a lot of time watching videos, but I watched a little over 19 minutes. This doesn't fit very well with the actual experience using the vaccines, which saved a lot of lives, so I'm skeptical.

What are your grounds for this statement?

There are legitimate reasons for the military to be involved in preventing and treating disease.

How many SARs were filed against the Trump Crime Family? Is it possible to engage in extensive financial activity without generating SARs?

The contents of their brain can spread to others; there's no telling how far this will go. The contents of anyone's brain may well affect their actions; there's no telling how far the consequences will go. There's an open-ended potential for this to come around and affect our interests.

It still puts the documents at risk and still interferes with any legitimate use that might be needed. It's still criminal. Did any of the investigators or prosecutors say it was money?

This requires a more detailed analysis. Lviv is pretty far west.

Your map needs work. You could start by showing Lviv, the path of the Russian missile, and where the countermissile was fired from.

Where the economy was the main issue, Republicans did well. Where abortion or the stolen-election lie was the main issue, Democrats did well. All three can be interpreted as people voting for freedom, although perhaps we should be cautious in drawing conclusions about what is in the minds of most voters.

That there are still a lot of people who blindly follow Trump and vote in Republican primaries, but not enough for Trump's stolen election nonsense to fly in the general election.

If there is a dispute about who won the bet, how will it be adjudicated? Is it possible that an irrational person who thinks they've won will try to take those winnings by force? Is it possible that someone has gone to a lot of trouble to trick you with a fantastic setup? For a million dollars, they might consider it worth it. *************** Probably not meant literally. When we were kids, a friend of my brother's would say "I'll bet you a nickle and a doughnut." On one episode of classic Star Trek, a non-regular character said "I'll bet you credits to Navy beans we can make a dent in it." *************** I once read that if you get an extremely good poker hand, you should fold, because "a gentleman never bets on a sure thing."

Self-interest covers a lot of territory. It is to at least some extent in my self-interest for the people around me to be happy as long as this does not come at too high a price, even if there are many of them I am unlikely to interact with and even if some of them are Nazis. I was just looking at a news feed including pictures of some plants and horses on the other side of the country from me, and not all that close to anyone in my family; it is probably to at least some extent in my self-interest for those plants and horses to flourish as long as this does not come at too high a price, even if I never see or hear anything of them again.

Could it be argued that it is against a person's self-interest to treat someone else rottenly? Could it be argued that it is in a person's self-interest to have some concern for the interest of others? Isn't politics a branch of ethics?

What is the definition of "ontology" here?

A new article in the NPR news feed, SPACE The International Space Station had to move to dodge space junk Facebook Twitter Flipboard Email October 26, 20225:00 AM ET includes the following links among others: NASA says the maneuver increased the ISS' altitude between 0.2 and 0.8 of a mile. Without the move, the satellite debris would have come within about 3 miles of the space station. The fragment in question was from Russia's Cosmos 1408 satellite. Russia destroyed it with a missile in November 2021, creating 1,500 pieces of debris, according to NASA. U.S. officials condemned the anti-satellite missile test, saying it would create hundreds of thousands more pieces of debris in the coming years. "It is of particular risk to the United States because the United States is probably the most space-dependent power around," said Saadia Pekkanen, director of the Space Law, Data and Policy program at the University of Washington, in an interview with NPR earlier this year. "Relative to other powers, if anything happens to those satellites, it does affect the civilian, commercial and military capabilities of the United States."

Do we need to distinguish between nursery schools labeled "progressive" and a more general progressive education movement?

It could be argued that it's one thing to be told abstractly about the danger of strangers, and another to get direct experience of how people can be bad. To me, the most important counter-argument would have to do with the damage that could be done by even some exposure to the progressive nursery school environment.

As I understand it, you have a limited amount of time in which to edit your post, and once that expires, there is nothing you can do. You could try saying you'd like the moderators to fix it, and specifying just what you want to change it to, and see if they're able and willing to fix it.

Any info on likely causes? Such as a spike in violence?

She was working at a fast food place. I don't know what sort of college she was attending. I think she was thinking more of the effect on the student than of any question of who was responsible to pay.

In another conversation I once had, someone expressed the view that all students should have to work their way through college. She didn't say who should impose this requirement.