"but if that temperature is going up, that is a fact"
And would be described by a specific set of number, i.e, "in the past 10 years mean global temperature has increased x degrees celsius". It would not be "global warming"
"The mechanism for that temperature increase may be a theory."
And is know collqially as "global warming", which is exactly what the OP insisted was a "fact".
So you have demonstrated quite effectively why OP was wrong, and why you are as well.
Except the Red Cross agreed that they would not use J&J's trademark over a hundred years ago, and have now violated that agreement.
It doesn't mean squat who recognizes the red cross as what, what matters in this case is US law, and the Red Cross violated it, and their original agreement.
So being "late to the game" means NOTHING in light of the fact that the parties had a previous, legally binding agreement.
RTFA, it's good for you and you won't make mistakes like this again.
"Except, how can a corporation trademark a symbol that's already in use by a non-profit, and has been in use for 23 years before said corporation was even founded? You know they had to have picked that symbol just because there were charities in Europe already using it."
So what? As of right now, they have a valid trademark. The Red Cross had a chance when they negotiated with J&J over a hundered years ago, so questioning how it came about over a century after it happened is pointless, it happened.
"Except... the Red Cross is who was originally using it. They renamed themselves the International Committee of the Red Cross after a few decades when they were officially reorganized and recognized by the Geneva Convention, but they were doing work and using the symbol long before then."
Except... they then signed an agreement with J&J over the use of the symbol. Despite the fact that you don't like it, there was a reason for it. Perhaps you should look into that reason before yo continue ranting about things that are irrelevant.
"Not only that, their symbol is protected by international law"
You keep saying this like it makes a difference. Want to know a secret? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "INTERNATIONAL LAW", so stop with that crap. International Law is just a series of agreement to abide by a standard of conduct, with NO METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT WHATSOEVER.
From wiki: "As a result of the notion of sovereignty, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, it is thought by many international academics that most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, "international law cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of international relations".[2]
Breaches of international law raise difficult questions for lawyers. Since international law has no established compulsory judicial system for the settlement of disputes or a coercive penal system, it is not as straightforward as managing breaches within a domestic legal system."
You keep acting like the Geneva Convention has some great, powerful authority, but look around guy, people ignore it whenever they want. With no repercussions beyond ill will.
"Non profits and charities CAN sell things."
Not when you sign legally binding agreement not to like the Red Cross did.
"The problem with hydrogen today is that most of it is made from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, so the process of making pure hydrogen releases CO2."
No, it doesn't. It creates surplus CO2, which can be used for industrial applications or sequestered, as it is centralized and easily stored.
I suggest you research the subject more thoroughly, as you seem to have a number of misconceptions and outright incorrect ideas about hydrogen as a fuel.
I bring this up every time hydrogen as a fuel source is discussed, but for some reason it never gets any love.
The short of it is, this process produces synthetic fuels (that we can use in our cars now) and hydrogen (that we can use in cars in the near future) and allows for a bridge between the two fuel sources.
It also has the potential to be carbon neutral, although currently the main source of material for the process is coal.
From wiki "biomass gasification technology offers a carbon-neutral alternative. Biomass-powered synthetic fuel plants are one of the most technologically and economically convincing energy possibilities for a carbon-neutral economy, according to the paper Carbon cycle management with increased photo-synthesis and long-term sinks, from a recent climate change conference sponsored by the Royal Society Of New Zealand."
The Governor of Montana proposed building a refinery a couple years ago as well, but I don't think it wen anywhere.
"I can understand if you don't want to talk about the atrocious event that is causing your pain"
No I'll talk about it. I read your first post and it scarred me for life, that kind of stupidity isn't something that one can overcome easily.
"I now know what you say isn't personal."
It wasn't until you lied and called me a liar when it was you who was too stupid to actually read my comments in context. Now, having incorrectly accused of lying by you, I'd very much smack the fuck out of you if given the opportunity.
Still waiting on that apology, has your reading comprehension gotten any better, or are you still blaming others for your inability to read effectively?
"Neither did I. I got my point across without any of that,"
That was in reply to your statement
"But I'm not the one that's had to resort to name calling, personal attacks and baseless assumptions to get their point across"
Now, think about what you wrote, and what I wrote, and how you admitted you understood my point BEFORE I called you any names, and you'll realize that I did NOT HAVE TO resort to name calling, as you had already gotten my point without it and you admitted as much.
I'll patiently await your apology, and next time, make sure you have someone smarter than you to read things for you so you don't jump to moronic conclusions based on your own gross lack of reading comprehension.
I wonder what makes you think lying about your being a hard up loser who can't get any being a choice is worthy of posting on a web board.
Face it guy, you're a flabby fucking nerd who settled, and is pretending he didn't because he thinks he can pull it off on an anonymous forum. Save the lies for someone who doesn't know the truth about you.
And while you're futilely thinking of a way to get back at me for telling the truth about you, I'll be fucking a hot teacher. Or maybe the real estate agent. Of course that little piece of white trash is cute too..
Have fun with your "relationship" guy, no one wants what you've got, they just claim they do because their self esteem can't survive the truth.
"Freedom of Speech: China has an even worse problem with it, and they are decided a non-religious country. Heck, by definition through Marxism they are all atheists!"
Go ahead and tell me Marxism isn't a religion. I'll wait while you make a futile attempt to concoct an argument.
"Homophobia: And this isn't a huge issue in America?"
No, actually it isn't. It is an issue, but huge? No. Gays have legal protection. They are increasingly becoming integrated, and attitudes are improving. Some time in the near future gay weddings will be as normal as any other kind. Saying it's a "huge" issue is not accurate. As well, murdering gays, no matter your position on homosexuality, is not societally acceptable in the US, while that is not true in other places. I'll take name calling and "gay=bad" all fucking day over being stoned to death. (and I would really not like to hear someone chime in about living with oppression being worse than death. I have no intention of listening to that nonsense until you've personally tried both options)
"Religious Law: Yes... and gay marriage is banned in almost all the US states because of UNreligious law?"
Please list the states where gay marriage is specifically bannedas you claim. I know many states have no codified gay marriage as being legal, but I also know that most of them have not gone out of their way to ban it outright either. The mindset required to ban something is different than that required to fail to legalize it.
You make some decent points (especially about circumcision, that hypocrisy infuriates me) but distorting the reality of the situation in order to draw your comparisons is counter productive.
Now, you can make the argument that this isn't about religion, but when you engage in an activity that requires you to accept things at face value, then claiming that the activity doesn't have some culpability when you accept other more offensive and reprehensible things at face value, is absurd.
"Here in the US, in *most* (but not all) places, homosexuality is illegal. It's a technical matter that no one is ever prosecuted on, of course, but that doesn't make it legal -- there are sodomy laws all over the books here."
Because, despite the fact that you claim it as so, it is not so.
Those laws that you think make being homosexual illegal were declared unconstitutional. Four years ago.
The rest of your post is just as ignorant, but the part about honor killing was especially grievous. Simply put, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
A woman can be killed because she was raped, and in allowing herself to be raped, dishonored the family. It takes a a special kind of ignorant to equate that with capital punishment in the US.
"The message is pretty clear, if you know of anything illegal done by the feds, better have all your ducks in a row and follow every single legal requirement of whistle blowing to the letter, or you're braking the law and must fear retribution."
There, I fixed your post to more accurately reflect reality.
This is obviously a vendetta, but at the same time, this guy had well defined procedures he could have followed to insulate himself against police action, and failed to exercise them. He appears to have broken the law. Should he get a pass when so many others haven't just because, this time the particular abuse is important enough to you? These procedures exist to protect everyone,and by refusing to avail himself of them, he acted incredibly irresponsibly.
By the way, that's never been adequately explained. If this information was so vital, so important that he felt he needed to expose it, why open yourself up for retaliation by deliberately avoiding the proper procedure for whistle blowing? Why give the people who are going to pick your facts apart more ammunition?
Slashdot Mirror
"but if that temperature is going up, that is a fact"
And would be described by a specific set of number, i.e, "in the past 10 years mean global temperature has increased x degrees celsius". It would not be "global warming"
"The mechanism for that temperature increase may be a theory."
And is know collqially as "global warming", which is exactly what the OP insisted was a "fact".
So you have demonstrated quite effectively why OP was wrong, and why you are as well.
"In short, you fail."
Ironic considering you proved his point for him.
"Granite is hard" "Water is soft" "Non-saline water freezes at 32 degrees celcius under 15 atmospheres of pressure".
The first two are subjective, and so are in no way, by any measurement, facts. Is granite hard compared to diamond?
"No, you're guilty when a jury determines that you were impaired."
No, you're guilty if you did it. The jury only decides if the state has enough evidence to demonstrate such beyond a reasonable doubt.
"What I will do is offer my sincere and humble apologies for not being the angry uncivil person you *need* me to be."
Too late, you already accused me of lying with no evidence. Then you did it again, after you were told why you were wrong.
I would call deliberately lying about me in the face of definitive proof to be quite uncivil.
I like the "sensitve to your pain" thing you're trying, it's a nice way to deflect attention from the fact that I destroyed you.
But it doesn't change that I destroyed you, or that you blamed your lack of reading ability on me.
"I understand why you feel the need to attack and call me names and then lie about it. "
Please post the quote where I lied.
You attempted to, and after I explained why you were wrong, you repeated the same wrong accusation that I had just destroyed.
So post the quote or STFU. Just saying "you lied" is a lie on your part, and you know it.
Except the Red Cross agreed that they would not use J&J's trademark over a hundred years ago, and have now violated that agreement.
It doesn't mean squat who recognizes the red cross as what, what matters in this case is US law, and the Red Cross violated it, and their original agreement.
So being "late to the game" means NOTHING in light of the fact that the parties had a previous, legally binding agreement.
RTFA, it's good for you and you won't make mistakes like this again.
"Except, how can a corporation trademark a symbol that's already in use by a non-profit, and has been in use for 23 years before said corporation was even founded? You know they had to have picked that symbol just because there were charities in Europe already using it."
So what? As of right now, they have a valid trademark. The Red Cross had a chance when they negotiated with J&J over a hundered years ago, so questioning how it came about over a century after it happened is pointless, it happened.
"Except... the Red Cross is who was originally using it. They renamed themselves the International Committee of the Red Cross after a few decades when they were officially reorganized and recognized by the Geneva Convention, but they were doing work and using the symbol long before then."
Except... they then signed an agreement with J&J over the use of the symbol. Despite the fact that you don't like it, there was a reason for it. Perhaps you should look into that reason before yo continue ranting about things that are irrelevant.
"Not only that, their symbol is protected by international law"
You keep saying this like it makes a difference. Want to know a secret? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "INTERNATIONAL LAW", so stop with that crap. International Law is just a series of agreement to abide by a standard of conduct, with NO METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT WHATSOEVER.
From wiki: "As a result of the notion of sovereignty, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, it is thought by many international academics that most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, "international law cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of international relations".[2]
Breaches of international law raise difficult questions for lawyers. Since international law has no established compulsory judicial system for the settlement of disputes or a coercive penal system, it is not as straightforward as managing breaches within a domestic legal system."
You keep acting like the Geneva Convention has some great, powerful authority, but look around guy, people ignore it whenever they want. With no repercussions beyond ill will.
"Non profits and charities CAN sell things."
Not when you sign legally binding agreement not to like the Red Cross did.
"The Red Cross is non-profit. All of the money they make for licensing goes to help sick and dying people around the world"
The first sentence in no way means that the second sentence is true.
Non-profits are notorious for being wasteful and inefficient with their donations, and the Red Cross is no exception.
"This HAS to be protected. Period. There is no discussion on this matter -- the sanctity of the Red Cross / Crystal / Crescent is beyond paramount."
Then tell the Red Cross to stop selling it to the highest bidder.
"The problem with hydrogen today is that most of it is made from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, so the process of making pure hydrogen releases CO2."
No, it doesn't. It creates surplus CO2, which can be used for industrial applications or sequestered, as it is centralized and easily stored.
I suggest you research the subject more thoroughly, as you seem to have a number of misconceptions and outright incorrect ideas about hydrogen as a fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch
/ 05/news/wyoming/a1e43e1a89d9fab0872571fc00012378.t xt
I bring this up every time hydrogen as a fuel source is discussed, but for some reason it never gets any love.
The short of it is, this process produces synthetic fuels (that we can use in our cars now) and hydrogen (that we can use in cars in the near future) and allows for a bridge between the two fuel sources.
It also has the potential to be carbon neutral, although currently the main source of material for the process is coal.
From wiki "biomass gasification technology offers a carbon-neutral alternative. Biomass-powered synthetic fuel plants are one of the most technologically and economically convincing energy possibilities for a carbon-neutral economy, according to the paper Carbon cycle management with increased photo-synthesis and long-term sinks, from a recent climate change conference sponsored by the Royal Society Of New Zealand."
The Governor of Montana proposed building a refinery a couple years ago as well, but I don't think it wen anywhere.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/10
http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp
"I can understand if you don't want to talk about the atrocious event that is causing your pain"
No I'll talk about it. I read your first post and it scarred me for life, that kind of stupidity isn't something that one can overcome easily.
"I now know what you say isn't personal."
It wasn't until you lied and called me a liar when it was you who was too stupid to actually read my comments in context. Now, having incorrectly accused of lying by you, I'd very much smack the fuck out of you if given the opportunity.
Still waiting on that apology, has your reading comprehension gotten any better, or are you still blaming others for your inability to read effectively?
I won.
"Neither did I. I got my point across without any of that,"
That was in reply to your statement
"But I'm not the one that's had to resort to name calling, personal attacks and baseless assumptions to get their point across"
Now, think about what you wrote, and what I wrote, and how you admitted you understood my point BEFORE I called you any names, and you'll realize that I did NOT HAVE TO resort to name calling, as you had already gotten my point without it and you admitted as much.
I'll patiently await your apology, and next time, make sure you have someone smarter than you to read things for you so you don't jump to moronic conclusions based on your own gross lack of reading comprehension.
I won.
"Except I'm not defending it."
We saw your post. Don't tell us you weren't doing something when you obviously were, it's insulting.
Like calling you an idiot, except I'm right.
"However, that's as uncommon as loosing a penis to male circumcision."
The fact that any male infant at all "looses" his penis to a completely unnecessary elective surgery is unacceptable.
By defending it you verified my initial impression about you.
"Can't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to equate female circumcision to male circumcision."
That's nothing, I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to endorse elective surgery on an infant's genitalia at all.
"The worst side effect to male circumcision is that..." the surgery goes bad and you lose your penis.
Frankly, sir, you're an idiot.
"I disagree fundamentally in your attempt to blame it on sharia or Islam as a religion."
I never did any such thing. If you plan to respond, respond to what I typed and not what you incorrectly inferred.
I wonder what makes you think lying about your being a hard up loser who can't get any being a choice is worthy of posting on a web board.
Face it guy, you're a flabby fucking nerd who settled, and is pretending he didn't because he thinks he can pull it off on an anonymous forum. Save the lies for someone who doesn't know the truth about you.
And while you're futilely thinking of a way to get back at me for telling the truth about you, I'll be fucking a hot teacher. Or maybe the real estate agent. Of course that little piece of white trash is cute too..
Have fun with your "relationship" guy, no one wants what you've got, they just claim they do because their self esteem can't survive the truth.
But that doesn't make it any less true.
At least if I told you how old I was, my response would be true.
The same cannot be said about you, based on your history.
As an aside, it always gives me a chuckle when someone like you acts like an immature ass then attempts to portray someone else as immature.
So now you're a hypocrite and a liar. But you were already.
"Freedom of Speech: China has an even worse problem with it, and they are decided a non-religious country. Heck, by definition through Marxism they are all atheists!"
Go ahead and tell me Marxism isn't a religion. I'll wait while you make a futile attempt to concoct an argument.
"Homophobia: And this isn't a huge issue in America?"
No, actually it isn't. It is an issue, but huge? No. Gays have legal protection. They are increasingly becoming integrated, and attitudes are improving. Some time in the near future gay weddings will be as normal as any other kind. Saying it's a "huge" issue is not accurate. As well, murdering gays, no matter your position on homosexuality, is not societally acceptable in the US, while that is not true in other places. I'll take name calling and "gay=bad" all fucking day over being stoned to death. (and I would really not like to hear someone chime in about living with oppression being worse than death. I have no intention of listening to that nonsense until you've personally tried both options)
"Religious Law: Yes... and gay marriage is banned in almost all the US states because of UNreligious law?"
Please list the states where gay marriage is specifically bannedas you claim. I know many states have no codified gay marriage as being legal, but I also know that most of them have not gone out of their way to ban it outright either. The mindset required to ban something is different than that required to fail to legalize it.
You make some decent points (especially about circumcision, that hypocrisy infuriates me) but distorting the reality of the situation in order to draw your comparisons is counter productive.
Now, you can make the argument that this isn't about religion, but when you engage in an activity that requires you to accept things at face value, then claiming that the activity doesn't have some culpability when you accept other more offensive and reprehensible things at face value, is absurd.
What is your source for this comment?
"Here in the US, in *most* (but not all) places, homosexuality is illegal. It's a technical matter that no one is ever prosecuted on, of course, but that doesn't make it legal -- there are sodomy laws all over the books here."
Because, despite the fact that you claim it as so, it is not so.
Those laws that you think make being homosexual illegal were declared unconstitutional. Four years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
The rest of your post is just as ignorant, but the part about honor killing was especially grievous. Simply put, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killings
A woman can be killed because she was raped, and in allowing herself to be raped, dishonored the family. It takes a a special kind of ignorant to equate that with capital punishment in the US.
"you decided to add lying to your repertoire"
Um, no I didn't, and that's another lie from you. I DEFY YOU TO FIND A LIE IN MY POST.
Post the "lie" or admit you can't liar.
"Or have I so utterly destroyed your argument"
I don't think muttering "yes huh" over and over while I crush you is "destroying my argument".
"you have to convince yourself that calling me dumb, stupid and a moron on numerous occasions does not constitute a personal attack?"
It's an observation of reality. Call it a personal attack if you want, it's true either way.
"Inches from a tantrum?"
Yup. And your denial just proves it.
"I guess that makes you an intellectual gimp."
Which still makes me smarter than you, and I'm not a liar.
But you are.
Right here
p rotection_for_whistleblowers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Legal_
"The message is pretty clear, if you know of anything illegal done by the feds, better have all your ducks in a row and follow every single legal requirement of whistle blowing to the letter, or you're braking the law and must fear retribution."
There, I fixed your post to more accurately reflect reality.
This is obviously a vendetta, but at the same time, this guy had well defined procedures he could have followed to insulate himself against police action, and failed to exercise them. He appears to have broken the law. Should he get a pass when so many others haven't just because, this time the particular abuse is important enough to you? These procedures exist to protect everyone,and by refusing to avail himself of them, he acted incredibly irresponsibly.
By the way, that's never been adequately explained. If this information was so vital, so important that he felt he needed to expose it, why open yourself up for retaliation by deliberately avoiding the proper procedure for whistle blowing? Why give the people who are going to pick your facts apart more ammunition?