Actually, while Canada does not need Keystone XL to ship oil to the USA, that is not because enough pipelines exist, but because they can, and do, ship it by rail. As a matter of fact, it appears that one of the reasons that the Obama Administration will not make a decision one way or the other on Keystone XL is because several major contributors to his campaigns (and their successor organization, OFA) own large chunks of the railroads which are currently shipping that oil. If the Obama Administration flat out said that they would reject the pipeline, Canada would begin work on a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the oil directly to China.
As to the reason they want to build the pipeline, it is not particularly to export the oil. There is no reason to ship the oil to the Gulf of Mexico just to export it. They could (and will if the pipeline is rejected) ship the oil to Vancouver for export. The reason for shipping it to the Gulf is because the refineries along the Gulf are among the few already built which can process the oil.
You do realise that 'Gulf War I' was an unjust war too, right?
Well, that is one viewpoint. Good luck convincing most people that it would have been a good idea to allow Saddam to conquer any neighboring country whose military was too weak to stop him.
(the Bush admin meant Uranium-fulled weapons like nukes)
If they had meant only nuclear weapons, they would have SAID nuclear weapons. They meant WMDs, including chemical weapons. The Bush Administration was condemned because they said Saddam had WMDs, and supposedly none were found when the U.S. invaded. Yet, now ISIS is reported to have WMDs they obtained from storage facilities in Iraq.
Of course, all of this overlooks the fact that the primary reason which the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam was egregiously violating almost every aspect of the agreement which ended Gulf War I.
eerily similar to the claims made by Cheney that there WMDs in Iraq. We're still looking for those.
You appear to have missed recent news reports stating that ISIS is using chemical weapons they obtained from storage locations in Iraq, where they had been put by the Saddam regime.
A DMCA takedown request is a statement that the person submitting the request owns the copyright on the material in question and that they have not given permission for it to be shared at the location in question. Most false takedown requests are submitted by someone other than the copyright owner, which means the person submitting them is falsely claiming to be the copyright owner.
Actually, it does not matter that it was not called for. The key fact is that, without the hard drive, there is no evidence that there was a crime committed. Or to word it another way, the plaintiff was unable to prove that there was any evidence to destroy.
Indeed, if I were in the market for a car and had $30k, I'd buy a driverless car without really any thinking involved.
So, if you had $30K and were in the market for a car, you would buy a driverless car that cost a lot more than $30K?
I think what you are really saying is that if there were driverless cars available, you would not buy one, since you are not in the market for a car, and you cannot afford a car....which is more or less what the writer of the article said.
How much would you pay for that driverless car? $100,000 for one which, other than being driverless, had the same characteristics as one you could get for $20,000?
No, Sony is getting right on securing PSN as soon as it is economically rewarding to do so. Medical care providers on the other hand have a wide spectrum of motivations. While all of them are motivated to some degree or another by economic self-interest (as is every one else), the primary motivation varies widely. Some are primarily motivated by what they believe is best for their patients. Some are primarily motivated by ego, they want to be seen as great care givers (or other aspect of the field). And some of them are motivated primarily by greed.
Besides that, the interest in technology mirrors the educated populace in general. Some are early adopters, some are even computer geeks. And some intensely dislike computers.
That is not true. There were medical care providers who were making the transition to EMR. The problem was that not enough were making the transition as fast as the companies which had decided to make a business out of transitioning them to EMR had anticipated. Since the people who had invested in these companies based on that anticipated rate of transition were politically connected the government was used to speed up the transition.
Yes, EMR was a "thing" before it was mandated by law. The key difference was/is that without the government mandate it would have happened as medical care providers found it economically valuable. That is, they would have seen value in making the transition and would have been invested in making the change. Instead we have a system where they have to do it and do not see the value in doing so. This means that instead of something which they see as being a way to improve either their bottom line, or improve patient care, or otherwise something of value to themselves, they see it as an imposition.
I just re-read the article. It says that the eruptions began before the "extinction event", but do not say when the asteroid struck relative to either the eruptions or the "extinction event."
Studies have shown that the more polite a society, the more seething rage develops inside it.
Actually, studies have shown that those who truly control their temper are less likely to get angry and less likely to suffer the negative consequences of anger (And this was not the ones that are inflicted by others, but the negative changes which happen to the body as a result of anger).
The key innovation that the article refers to is in the summary, "keep it frozen long enough to ship halfway around the world. " I was aware that there were ice houses long before the ice trade was developed, but I am unaware of anyone developing a trade in it where they shipped it a long distance and then sold it. My recollection is that Persian kings sent servants out to harvest the ice and put it in his ice pits for his use when temperatures got hot, and that rulers in that part of the world did the same for some time into the future. However, I do not recall any reference to merchants selling ice.
The problem is that your recollection does NOT contradict the comment you replied to: from Wikipedia: "Unreliable and expensive at first, plant ice began to successfully compete with natural ice in Australia and India during the 1850s and 1870s respectively, until, by the outbreak of World War I in 1914, more plant ice was being produced in the U.S. each year than naturally harvested ice."
So, both the comment you replied to and the facts you recollect appear to be true...one of the places where it was impractical to harvest natural ice was, as the comment you replied to stated, Australia. Southern California it turns out was supplied by natural ice from Alaska.
Actually, my experience is that humans who spend a lot of time outdoors in all types of weather get pretty good at knowing when to take cover as well. The degree to which this is a product of direct (detecting that a low/high pressure front is coming and similar) or indirect (observing the behavior of animals) is hard to determine since most of the time their prognostication is based on putting together various barely noticed clues.
That was my thought as well...did the eruptions pre-date the asteroid impact? If not, then it is reasonable to believe that the asteroid impact triggered the massive eruptions.
The actions of all of the major players in this story make no sense based on the known facts. The threat by the hackers to cause a 9/11 style attack if the film was released had no credible support (at least known to me). I know lawyers are risk adverse, but it is hard for me to imagine how Sony could legitimately be a target of lawsuits if the attack actually happened (not that such suits would not be filed, merely that Sony should be able to easily get them all bundled into a few cases and dismissed).
The conspiracy theories which have been created to explain it fail to do so. The motivation they ascribe to those making the hard to explain actions are believable, but it is hard to believe that the actions taken would have the desired results.
What you say would be true if we were talking about sample letters put out by organizations funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer, but these are not like those. No, these sample letters were put together by organizations which got a small amount of money from organizations which got a small amount of money from the Koch brothers. Everybody knows that the Koch brothers are truly evil, unlike George Soros, who unrepentantly collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager, and everything with even a remote connection to them is therefore evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, while Canada does not need Keystone XL to ship oil to the USA, that is not because enough pipelines exist, but because they can, and do, ship it by rail. As a matter of fact, it appears that one of the reasons that the Obama Administration will not make a decision one way or the other on Keystone XL is because several major contributors to his campaigns (and their successor organization, OFA) own large chunks of the railroads which are currently shipping that oil. If the Obama Administration flat out said that they would reject the pipeline, Canada would begin work on a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the oil directly to China.
As to the reason they want to build the pipeline, it is not particularly to export the oil. There is no reason to ship the oil to the Gulf of Mexico just to export it. They could (and will if the pipeline is rejected) ship the oil to Vancouver for export. The reason for shipping it to the Gulf is because the refineries along the Gulf are among the few already built which can process the oil.
You do realise that 'Gulf War I' was an unjust war too, right?
Well, that is one viewpoint. Good luck convincing most people that it would have been a good idea to allow Saddam to conquer any neighboring country whose military was too weak to stop him.
(the Bush admin meant Uranium-fulled weapons like nukes)
If they had meant only nuclear weapons, they would have SAID nuclear weapons. They meant WMDs, including chemical weapons. The Bush Administration was condemned because they said Saddam had WMDs, and supposedly none were found when the U.S. invaded. Yet, now ISIS is reported to have WMDs they obtained from storage facilities in Iraq. Of course, all of this overlooks the fact that the primary reason which the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam was egregiously violating almost every aspect of the agreement which ended Gulf War I.
eerily similar to the claims made by Cheney that there WMDs in Iraq. We're still looking for those.
You appear to have missed recent news reports stating that ISIS is using chemical weapons they obtained from storage locations in Iraq, where they had been put by the Saddam regime.
A DMCA takedown request is a statement that the person submitting the request owns the copyright on the material in question and that they have not given permission for it to be shared at the location in question. Most false takedown requests are submitted by someone other than the copyright owner, which means the person submitting them is falsely claiming to be the copyright owner.
Actually, it does not matter that it was not called for. The key fact is that, without the hard drive, there is no evidence that there was a crime committed. Or to word it another way, the plaintiff was unable to prove that there was any evidence to destroy.
Perhaps not, but should someone get fired because people think a word they used is related to a racial epitaph, when it isn't?
Your story would be believable, except for the fact that strawberries do not grow on trees.
No, "political correctness" is a thing. It is where someone gets in trouble for using the word "niggardly" because it sounds like another word.
Indeed, if I were in the market for a car and had $30k, I'd buy a driverless car without really any thinking involved.
So, if you had $30K and were in the market for a car, you would buy a driverless car that cost a lot more than $30K? I think what you are really saying is that if there were driverless cars available, you would not buy one, since you are not in the market for a car, and you cannot afford a car....which is more or less what the writer of the article said.
How much would you pay for that driverless car? $100,000 for one which, other than being driverless, had the same characteristics as one you could get for $20,000?
No, Sony is getting right on securing PSN as soon as it is economically rewarding to do so. Medical care providers on the other hand have a wide spectrum of motivations. While all of them are motivated to some degree or another by economic self-interest (as is every one else), the primary motivation varies widely. Some are primarily motivated by what they believe is best for their patients. Some are primarily motivated by ego, they want to be seen as great care givers (or other aspect of the field). And some of them are motivated primarily by greed.
Besides that, the interest in technology mirrors the educated populace in general. Some are early adopters, some are even computer geeks. And some intensely dislike computers.
That is not true. There were medical care providers who were making the transition to EMR. The problem was that not enough were making the transition as fast as the companies which had decided to make a business out of transitioning them to EMR had anticipated. Since the people who had invested in these companies based on that anticipated rate of transition were politically connected the government was used to speed up the transition.
Yes, EMR was a "thing" before it was mandated by law. The key difference was/is that without the government mandate it would have happened as medical care providers found it economically valuable. That is, they would have seen value in making the transition and would have been invested in making the change. Instead we have a system where they have to do it and do not see the value in doing so. This means that instead of something which they see as being a way to improve either their bottom line, or improve patient care, or otherwise something of value to themselves, they see it as an imposition.
I just re-read the article. It says that the eruptions began before the "extinction event", but do not say when the asteroid struck relative to either the eruptions or the "extinction event."
Studies have shown that the more polite a society, the more seething rage develops inside it.
Actually, studies have shown that those who truly control their temper are less likely to get angry and less likely to suffer the negative consequences of anger (And this was not the ones that are inflicted by others, but the negative changes which happen to the body as a result of anger).
Haven't they already published several of his books?
The key innovation that the article refers to is in the summary, "keep it frozen long enough to ship halfway around the world. " I was aware that there were ice houses long before the ice trade was developed, but I am unaware of anyone developing a trade in it where they shipped it a long distance and then sold it. My recollection is that Persian kings sent servants out to harvest the ice and put it in his ice pits for his use when temperatures got hot, and that rulers in that part of the world did the same for some time into the future. However, I do not recall any reference to merchants selling ice.
The problem is that your recollection does NOT contradict the comment you replied to: from Wikipedia: "Unreliable and expensive at first, plant ice began to successfully compete with natural ice in Australia and India during the 1850s and 1870s respectively, until, by the outbreak of World War I in 1914, more plant ice was being produced in the U.S. each year than naturally harvested ice."
So, both the comment you replied to and the facts you recollect appear to be true...one of the places where it was impractical to harvest natural ice was, as the comment you replied to stated, Australia. Southern California it turns out was supplied by natural ice from Alaska.
It would have been nice if the article had actually said that.
Actually, my experience is that humans who spend a lot of time outdoors in all types of weather get pretty good at knowing when to take cover as well. The degree to which this is a product of direct (detecting that a low/high pressure front is coming and similar) or indirect (observing the behavior of animals) is hard to determine since most of the time their prognostication is based on putting together various barely noticed clues.
That was my thought as well...did the eruptions pre-date the asteroid impact? If not, then it is reasonable to believe that the asteroid impact triggered the massive eruptions.
The actions of all of the major players in this story make no sense based on the known facts. The threat by the hackers to cause a 9/11 style attack if the film was released had no credible support (at least known to me). I know lawyers are risk adverse, but it is hard for me to imagine how Sony could legitimately be a target of lawsuits if the attack actually happened (not that such suits would not be filed, merely that Sony should be able to easily get them all bundled into a few cases and dismissed).
The conspiracy theories which have been created to explain it fail to do so. The motivation they ascribe to those making the hard to explain actions are believable, but it is hard to believe that the actions taken would have the desired results.
What you say would be true if we were talking about sample letters put out by organizations funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer, but these are not like those. No, these sample letters were put together by organizations which got a small amount of money from organizations which got a small amount of money from the Koch brothers. Everybody knows that the Koch brothers are truly evil, unlike George Soros, who unrepentantly collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager, and everything with even a remote connection to them is therefore evil.
You obviously have never heard of the Amish, or of those who make money offering carriage rides.