Smoking serves a useful social and evolutionary function by tweaking the process of natural selection to target individuals prone to addictive behavior.
However, due to latency, it would be more effective in this role if either smoking behavior were encouraged at an earlier age, or accelerating substances were introduced into the tobacco to enhance its effects.
The only genuine "science" involved in the Global Warming scam is the science of economics. Grant money goes to those who support the scam. And those who don't are ridiculed and ruined economically.
Einstein was a fraud. He wasn't a scientist, a physicist, or even a mathematician. He was a low level clerk in a patent office.
He failed entrance exams to enter university engineering studies several times.
He did however marry a genuine physicist. And when they divorced, for some reason, she demanded (and got) his nobel prize as part of their settlement agreement.
By 1904, everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published by genuine scientists and mathematicians such as James Maxwell, Hendrik Lorentz, Hermann Minkowski, Joseph Larmor, Henri Poincaré, George Fitzgerald, Olinto De Pretto, and others.
But when the work of these genuine scientists was collected and re-published in Einstein's name in 1905 (with no credit given to the real authors) the Zionist controlled world press began to catapult Einstein into the limelight as some sort of supposed intellectual superstar.
Einstein was awarded a nobel prize in not for his papers on relativity, for which he could in no way claim full authorship, but for a relatively minor paper concerning the photo-voltaic effect.
However at the award ceremony, and in direct contradiction to the rules of the Nobel prize, he spoke only about relativity and never even mentioned the work for which the prize had been given. And the press presented it as if the prize had been given for his papers on relativity.
Einstein could not explain how he had come by the stolen equations cited in his papers, nor could he offer any notes or calculations to show how he had arrived at the equations himself. In fact he claimed that he had done all of the calculations in his head without writing them down.
However, even years after he became famous, he clearly didn't understand, and couldn't defend what were supposedly his own groundbreaking theories.
In one incident after addressing a class of graduate students at a university he made the mistake of allowing questions about his theories.
It quickly became evident to everyone in the room that the graduate students understood the basic principals of Einstein's theories better than he did himself.
Thereafter Einstein avoided graduate students like the plague and limited his comments to vague generalities rather than specific scientific points that might be disputed.
He is more famous for his various quips than for any sort of genuine scientific work.
As you point out here. Nobody understands Einstein's theories. One reason is that they are incorrect. Einstein himself even later admitted that he had been seriously wrong on many points. Although his erroneous theories are still taught as fact. It seems it is more important to maintain the myth than to set the record straight.
Nicola Tesla's theories have been proven to be far more correct than Einstein's. Particularly Tesla's concept of an "ether" in space as opposed to Einstein's theory that empty space had no nature at all of its own but could nonetheless somehow be curved by gravity.
According to Tesla's theories all of Einstein's most famous doctrines about relativity (time paradoxes, wormholes, etc) are inherently untrue. Time paradoxes disappear because the same forces that distort time also distort the ether of space in ways that cancel out the paradoxes.
There are a couple more verses to the poem that often get left out in the children's editions. The moral of the story being that reindeer steak is just as red, lean, and tasty regardless of the color of the deer's nose or its status in the local reindeer society.
Since when do we need a "tsar" to oversee our parenting. What makes this idiot an expert and allows him to invade our families and impose his dictates.
In times past public servants served the citizenry. But now it seems the situation has been reversed. We have unelected tsars and commissars appointed to rule over us even for family matters. Sounds rather Soviet in nature if you ask me.
I doubt if the mobile phone companies do. But the NSA and Echelon certainly do.
Report to the European Parliament about the spying activities of the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand upon worldwide communications using the Echelon system of satellites and computers.
That would only if they did it on purpose. And I don't think that's usually the case.
The procedure of this study was so weird and unscientific that I looked up the Royal Economic Society and found out that it promotes the theories of John Maynard Keynes.
That explains it all. You can't expect logic from lunatics.
Let's face it. Tattoos and piercings and other deliberate affectations of appearance are meant to be seen, and to generate a mental response.
If we wear a uniform of any kind, be it a shaved head, biker colors, designer clothes, backwards baseball cap, religious symbols, or whatever, it's always going to illicit some sort of perceptual bias. That's even why we do it in the first place.
We want to make a statement of some sort. And every statement begs a response.
It is a behavioral choice and any aversion or attraction that it may provoke is not exactly "bias" against the individual. It's a reaction to the visual statement.
I know a guy with ratty looking tattoos all over his face, neck arms, hands, chest, back.... Nothing artistic or nice. Really trashy stuff. When he was a young biker, he wanted attention and he got it. And now that he's neither young nor a biker any more, he doesn't want the attention, but he still gets it.
He can hardly expect people not to notice or not to make certain assumptions about his personality.
Of course people judge him by his appearance without knowing him. I certainly did.
But when I got to know him I found out my initial judgement was right on the money.
Judging by appearance can be wrong. But it's all we have to go on at first. And it's better to have admittedly fallible judgement than no judgement at all.
The part in italics below should have shown as a quote from the OP in my post above.
Forum Post: When deciding whether to make an online purchase, skin color matters to some consumers, new research finds.
A study recently published in the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society discovered that online shoppers are less likely to purchase a product if a black person or someone with a tattoo is selling it.
As part of the study, researchers conducted a yearlong experiment selling iPods in about 1,200 online classified ads placed in more than 300 locales throughout the United States, ranging from small towns to major cities. They tested for racial bias among buyers by featuring photographs of the Apple iPod — all of which were silver, 8GB "current models" of the iPod nano digital media player, described as new in an unopened box, and for sale because the seller did not need it — held by a man's hand that was black, white, or white with a wrist tattoo....
The stated findings are invalid because only one product was involved. A high-tech product designed for wealthier more educated people.
If they had run the same study pushing tennis shoes the black guy would have been the most successful. And if they were pushing big motorcycles the guy with the tattoos would have likely come out ahead.
You can't make generalizations about bias from the results of a study using only one product. Especially a product that targets a particular market niche. And any serious market researcher would know this.
Clearly this study was specifically designed to get the results it got.
The stated findings are invalid because only one product was involved. A high-tech product designed for wealthier more educated people.
If they had run the same study pushing tennis shoes the black guy would have been the most successful. And if they were pushing big motorcycles the guy with the tattoos would have likely come out ahead.
You can't make generalizations about bias from the results of a study using only one product. Especially a product that targets a particular market niche. And any serious market researcher would know this.
Clearly this study was specifically designed to get the results it got.
RayfromUSA Forum Posts (6,611)
RE: stigma of tabacco smoking
Smoking serves a useful social and evolutionary function by tweaking the process of natural selection to target individuals prone to addictive behavior.However, due to latency, it would be more effective in this role if either smoking behavior were encouraged at an earlier age, or accelerating substances were introduced into the tobacco to enhance its effects.
Or both.