The easy way. go to a junkyard and buy the registration and Vin plate from a car to be crushed or the frame/body of one.. Yes you can do this.
Attach the vin plate to your car, register the car with the old title you had signed over to you.
It's listed as a "salvage title" but who cares. It's how I got my sand rail on the road legally without all the stupid safety engineering testing that Michigan has for experimental vehicle registration. IT was registered as a VW bug.
Who cares? Your insurance company cares. They won't insure a vehicle with a salvage title.
The 5th amendment does not protect you from being required to provide subpoenaed materials. It just means you dont have to testify or speak out about maters which may incriminate you. I can easily see how supplying a password or decryption key would not be covered. But it would be a hard call to make in my opinion.
You're fucking retarded, just like the judge.
"Did you kill your husband?" "No." "Sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for, go to jail until you tell us what we want to hear."
"Give us your password." "No." "Sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for, go to jail until you tell us what we want to hear."
Water ice is 7/8 the density of liquid water. Even at depth, this remains true. Therefore, if all the Arctic ice, which sits on an ocean, were to melt, then that 1/8 difference would be absorbed by the 7/8 if the ice that sits below sea level and global sea levels would actually *FALL* by 7/8 of the total original amount of Arctic sea ice divided by the surface area of the oceans. Shot in the dark number: -7 feet.
Sorry, wrong.
Wrong twice in fact.
Floating ice won't raise the level of fresh water - yes, it's less dense - that's why some of it is above the water line. But, per Archimedes, it displaces exactlt it's own weight of water - so when it melts back to denser water it fills exactly the same below water-level volume.
But ice is fresh water and the sea is salt water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so when it melts it takes up more volume than the volume of salt water it displaces.
Hence melting floating ice will cause sea level rise. (Not much, just a little).
See "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level", Noerdlinger, Geophysical Journal International.
You're an idiot. The bolded part is particularly retarded.
If frozen liquid displaces X amount of liquid in a container, that means it weighs the same as X amount of the liquid it's sitting in. If that frozen liquid is lifted out of the container, then that volume of X will be filled by the liquid in the container, and the level of liquid in the container will drop by X/S, where S is the surface area of the container.
If that frozen liquid is then melted, it will yield a volume of liquid Y. Since the frozen liquid was floating, we know that the frozen liquid was less dense than the liquid it was sitting in. In fact, we know that it weighed exactly as much as X amount of the liquid it was sitting in. If you knew the relative densities, you could calculate the relative volumes, and Y would be greater than X.
But that volume of Y will mix with the rest of the liquid in the container, lowering the overall density of the liquid in the container to equilibrium. While the level of liquid in the container has increased by an amount equal to (Y-X)/S, the decrease in density means it has more capacity (in terms of salinity).
If you take this and apply it to the ocean, you'll see that: Because the salinity has dropped, the freezing of the water has increased, so it is now easier for water to freeze and stay frozen. And of course, the temperature exchange that caused the melting in the first place lowers the temperature of the ocean. And of course, if the sea level rises, the planet cools.
It's a global cycle that takes far longer than any election campaign.
ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.
So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?
Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.
Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA
As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
ISPs aren't common carriers. In other news, the "24 hour evaluation period" WaReZ sites talked about in 1996 is also bullshit.
OK, I looked it up. The exact phrase is 'privileged from arrest'. 'Arrest' has several meanings. One is what the police do when hauling one off to jail. It can also just be a more generic meaning of stopping someone, and I'm pretty sure that's the more important definition. The purpose of this clause is to keep political opponents from preventing representatives getting to official meetings, not to keep them out of jail for legit crimes.
Arrest has one meaning - stoppage. You can be arrested in many ways. Being detained is a form of being arrested. They just call it being detained so people don't see the word "arrested" and start to think they have rights.
My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.
I think this might be a Shamylan moment for you, but... WIkipedia is stealing the text from those sites, not the other way around!
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
No, the issue is about the state's interest in enforcing abortion laws vs. the individual's rights to be secure from undue searches and seizures. Roe vs. Wade was not about a right to an abortion, it was not about a right to privacy, it was about the state being unable to show admissable evidence that the law had been broken. The evidence they had was deemed inadmissable because they had no right to obtain it. They had no right to obtain it because they were unable to convince the justices that the state's interest in ensuring fetuses become babies was more important than the 4th amendment.
What amazes me is that people think we can't affect the climate when we just recently formed large holes in the ozone later, passed policies to stop it, and those policies worked and mitigated the ozone hole at the poles. Clearly, the actions of humans can have global impacts.
What amazes me is that morons like you still think correlation is actionable science. DDT was strongly correlated to the thinning of Peregrine falcon eggs. So we banned DDT. What happened? Crops were ravaged by insects because we stopped using an effective pesticide, and the eggs kept thinning. But keep hugging that correlation. Maybe one day you'll get a model that can actually predict changes in climate to back up your hypothesis. (You won't.)
I'm not really qualified to be talking about it, but the explanations given by those who are sound reasonable to me. The question then is, why do you think you know better?
Pseudo-science is morons on the internet spouting off about how much they know that real scientists do not.
Then why do you keep talking about it? You've posted 4 times on this story. You're one of those morons on the internet spouting off, you just happen to be spouting off about how everyone else is just spouting off.
One of the things that has always bothered me about the global the warming/climate change thesis that its advocates predict nothing but negative consequences.
You are confusing two different groups of people.
Climate scientists are pointing out that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases the temperature, and that this is well known, although the amount still has large error bars-- about plus or minus fifty percent, actually. These aren't "advocates;" this is science: ordinary, messy, plodding, data-intensive, science.
For saying this, however, climate scientists are being attacked relentlessly. It's a politically driven argument, not a scientific argument, which means that it can't be refuted by any amount of data.
There is another question, which is, what will the effects of this warming be? Since the deniers won't even credit that carbon dioxide has a warming effect at all, the odd result is that the ONLY people discussing the effects of temperature increase are the ones looking at negative effects. It's a one-sided debate because the other side has abdicated. They find it easier to attack the scientists than actually look at what the effects will be.
I do predict, however, that eventually the terms of the debate will change, and the deniers will start changing their argument to "well, we may be increasing the temperature, but that's a good thing. We want to increase the temperature."
Actually, I'm looking forward to that shift. First, I really would like to see both sides looking at effects. But, mainly, iI\t's a lot better than the "scientists are frauds and scientific results are a hoax and global warming is a scam" that is currently the argument.
It's only a "one sided "debate"" because you brand anyone who questions any of the spurious data as a "denier" and then ignore the side that recognizes the changing temperature but says "So fucking what?".
So let me put it to you this way: The Earth's temperature is rising. So fucking what? It has been much higher in the past. Life not only survived - it kicked ass.
Although some people might benefit by the changes, there will probably be more losers than winners.
Our society has been optimized based on the way things were. People farm where crops grow well. Ports are built at sea level near the places where comodities come from.
Rising sea levels are going to cause problems for people who live near old coast lines. I think this will outweigh any other gains.
As always, it is a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand.
VAST, SUDDEN CHANGES in climate will affect lots of people because lots of people are stupid and choose to live in overcrowded urban centers, right on the beach, and under the water table.
Luckliy, we won't have VAST, SUDDEN CHANGES, and those stupid people can sell their property to stupid people who have less money, and buy property 100 feet inland and 1 foot up. Farmers will build farms wherever the soil and climate are good for farming, just as they always have. And we'll ship that food around the world.
DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards are not the best for sound and PC displays do not have more then 2 speakers any ways.
Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?
Every single display (tvs and monitors) I've ever seen will only pass out a stereo signal over an unencrypted connection (including S/PDIF), regardless of what is in the HDMI signal.
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of a God.
Perhaps you can provide evidence that disproves the existence of leprechauns.
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
It's not a court of law. The burden of proof falls on no one. This is the most tired, most misguided "argument" against religion in the book.
It is logically impossible to disprove the exisctence of a god. By definition, gods are supernatural, and can act outside of our perceivable universe. It is logically impossible to disprove the existence of leprechauns. By definition, leprechauns are magical, and can act outside of our perceivable universe.
There's a reason religion deals with faith and belief and not evidence and proof. It's up to YOU to decide if that reason is because the religion is correct and there are supernatural deities that exist and act outside of our perceivable universe, or if that reason is because it's bullshit.
Religious people and Atheists have exactly the same amount of evidence for their arguments. Zero.
How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?
Oh look, it's another internet atheist who shits on religion without understanding it. Deuteronomy is from the Old Testament. Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Christians DO get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. There are core beliefs that all Christians hold (such as the Genesis story, the flood story), and core tenets they must follow (such as the ten commandments).
You absolutely can be a Christian and ignore all of the kill this, don't eat this, don't fuck that, etc. from the Bible. Christ's teachings were extremely hippie-like, and the differences between the sects about the belief/following/interpretation of Christ's teachings are miniscule to the differences concerning the Old Testament, or parts of the New Testament that aren't about Jesus.
And even if this wasn't the case, what would your point be? That Christians should stone their children to death when they misbehave? If you want to shit on a religion or religious people, you might want to reflect on the fact that you are the one telling them to stone children, while they consider that to be adbsurd. Christianity is not what you think it is, but iternet atheists like you are every bit the ignorant assholes everyone thinks them to be.
I am not religious, but morons like you make it so I can't say I'm an atheist. I can't say I'm agnostic because then EVERYONE tries to convert you.
I changed the bluetooth ID of my car's hands-free unit to "POLICE" and whenever I'm stopped in rush-hour traffic I try connecting my "car" to people I see nearby who are (illegally here) holding their cell phones to their ears. Fun times. The reactions I get are priceless.
Probably I should stop doing that...
Probably you should stop bullshitting. What phone has bluetooth always on AND always in discovery mode AND pops up discovery alerts when the user is on a call?
Yeah the problem is directly and linearly related to the head count of GHG molecules in the atmosphere.
So Step 1- reduce GHG molecules as much as possible.
Step one pretty much means YOU do everything YOU can do .
As to China and India, The US is pretty good at getting other countries to go along with us when we want to be, aren't we?
We need to reduce GHG emissions NOW and RADICALLY. As it happens we either are number one or two. That pretty much means what we do matters and in fact decides the earth's fate. If we continue, we're all fucked, It's enough to know that. We can prevail on China and India at the same time and we'll have more clout AFTER WE TAKE NEEDED STEPS.
Because if people in the US do as people like you recommend, and people in China and India don't, our economy would collapse (and I'm not talking 2008, I'm talking 1929).
There are plenty of good ideas for cleaning up our act, but the environmentalists hate every single one. Shifting from coal to nuclear and hydroelectric power is the most obvious change, yet no one wants to touch it. Instead we put corn in our gas, add shitty solar panels and lithium batteries to our cars, and build "clean" coal factories by the dozen.
Cap and trade on carbon emissions? Gee, that's an actual solution and is in no way just going to end up being a tax that's passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices before politicians skim off the top to fund their pork projects.
If you want to lower emissions you absolutely have to enforce such legislation GLOBALLY, otherwise the emissions just move to where it's cheaper to emit.
become an informed citizen- and then come back to us with the "debate that is being stifled" argument.
The classic "You disagree with me, and haven't read and chosen to believe the same things I have read and chosen to believe. Therefore, you are ignorant." attack.
If you can't point to evidence of a claim yourself, then you are uninformed. Posting a link to something isn't evidence. Posting "read this and get some lernin'" is not evidence. Actual data along with a model and predictable, repeatable results is evidence. This does not exist, of course.
Look at the dataset used for the project. The vast majority of data is manually adjusted, "corrected", estimated, or otherwise fucked around with. It's a pathetic farce, yet everyone thinks the "data" is sacred, and everyone thinks that the data has been "reviewed" when in fact all the reviews have centered around the stastical modelling applied to the bad data.
And of course, there's the complete lack of a usable model.
It's not science, it's politics. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron who has never done a lick of science in their lives and never will.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the hard way.
The easy way. go to a junkyard and buy the registration and Vin plate from a car to be crushed or the frame/body of one.. Yes you can do this.
Attach the vin plate to your car, register the car with the old title you had signed over to you.
It's listed as a "salvage title" but who cares. It's how I got my sand rail on the road legally without all the stupid safety engineering testing that Michigan has for experimental vehicle registration. IT was registered as a VW bug.
Who cares? Your insurance company cares. They won't insure a vehicle with a salvage title.
C&C = Command And Conquer, CNC = Computer Numerically Controlled. Hate to be a grammar nazi, but that one really bugged me... lol.
Kane lives in death!
That is why a search warrant would be required.
But how can they get a warrant without knowing what's on the computer, what they're looking for, why it's deserving of a warrant, etc?
(They can't. But they'll lock your ass up and shit on your rights anyway.)
The 5th amendment does not protect you from being required to provide subpoenaed materials. It just means you dont have to testify or speak out about maters which may incriminate you. I can easily see how supplying a password or decryption key would not be covered. But it would be a hard call to make in my opinion.
You're fucking retarded, just like the judge.
"Did you kill your husband?"
"No."
"Sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for, go to jail until you tell us what we want to hear."
"Give us your password."
"No."
"Sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for, go to jail until you tell us what we want to hear."
Are you joking?
Windows: F1, type, enter.
Yeah. Especially that it's winter now.
(just can't stop myself) [Citation needed]
(duck)
Citation here.
Water ice is 7/8 the density of liquid water. Even at depth, this remains true. Therefore, if all the Arctic ice, which sits on an ocean, were to melt, then that 1/8 difference would be absorbed by the 7/8 if the ice that sits below sea level and global sea levels would actually *FALL* by 7/8 of the total original amount of Arctic sea ice divided by the surface area of the oceans. Shot in the dark number: -7 feet.
Sorry, wrong.
Wrong twice in fact.
Floating ice won't raise the level of fresh water - yes, it's less dense - that's why some of it is above the water line. But, per Archimedes, it displaces exactlt it's own weight of water - so when it melts back to denser water it fills exactly the same below water-level volume.
But ice is fresh water and the sea is salt water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so when it melts it takes up more volume than the volume of salt water it displaces.
Hence melting floating ice will cause sea level rise. (Not much, just a little).
See "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level", Noerdlinger, Geophysical Journal International.
You're an idiot. The bolded part is particularly retarded.
If frozen liquid displaces X amount of liquid in a container, that means it weighs the same as X amount of the liquid it's sitting in.
If that frozen liquid is lifted out of the container, then that volume of X will be filled by the liquid in the container, and the level of liquid in the container will drop by X/S, where S is the surface area of the container.
If that frozen liquid is then melted, it will yield a volume of liquid Y. Since the frozen liquid was floating, we know that the frozen liquid was less dense than the liquid it was sitting in. In fact, we know that it weighed exactly as much as X amount of the liquid it was sitting in. If you knew the relative densities, you could calculate the relative volumes, and Y would be greater than X.
But that volume of Y will mix with the rest of the liquid in the container, lowering the overall density of the liquid in the container to equilibrium.
While the level of liquid in the container has increased by an amount equal to (Y-X)/S, the decrease in density means it has more capacity (in terms of salinity).
If you take this and apply it to the ocean, you'll see that:
Because the salinity has dropped, the freezing of the water has increased, so it is now easier for water to freeze and stay frozen.
And of course, the temperature exchange that caused the melting in the first place lowers the temperature of the ocean.
And of course, if the sea level rises, the planet cools.
It's a global cycle that takes far longer than any election campaign.
ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.
Well, they aren't.
Alarms always go off when someone tells me that.
Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."
"I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
"All I do is satisfy a public demand."
Both are quotes from Al Capone
Sluts also satisfy a public demand, but without a Venn diagram I do not know if Al Capone was a slut or not.
So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?
Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.
Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA
As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
ISPs aren't common carriers.
In other news, the "24 hour evaluation period" WaReZ sites talked about in 1996 is also bullshit.
OK, I looked it up. The exact phrase is 'privileged from arrest'. 'Arrest' has several meanings. One is what the police do when hauling one off to jail. It can also just be a more generic meaning of stopping someone, and I'm pretty sure that's the more important definition. The purpose of this clause is to keep political opponents from preventing representatives getting to official meetings, not to keep them out of jail for legit crimes.
Arrest has one meaning - stoppage.
You can be arrested in many ways. Being detained is a form of being arrested. They just call it being detained so people don't see the word "arrested" and start to think they have rights.
Just like taxes, fees, and fines.
My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.
I think this might be a Shamylan moment for you, but... WIkipedia is stealing the text from those sites, not the other way around!
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
No, the issue is about the state's interest in enforcing abortion laws vs. the individual's rights to be secure from undue searches and seizures.
Roe vs. Wade was not about a right to an abortion, it was not about a right to privacy, it was about the state being unable to show admissable evidence that the law had been broken. The evidence they had was deemed inadmissable because they had no right to obtain it. They had no right to obtain it because they were unable to convince the justices that the state's interest in ensuring fetuses become babies was more important than the 4th amendment.
What amazes me is that people think we can't affect the climate when we just recently formed large holes in the ozone later, passed policies to stop it, and those policies worked and mitigated the ozone hole at the poles. Clearly, the actions of humans can have global impacts.
What amazes me is that morons like you still think correlation is actionable science.
DDT was strongly correlated to the thinning of Peregrine falcon eggs. So we banned DDT. What happened? Crops were ravaged by insects because we stopped using an effective pesticide, and the eggs kept thinning. But keep hugging that correlation. Maybe one day you'll get a model that can actually predict changes in climate to back up your hypothesis. (You won't.)
I'm not really qualified to be talking about it, but the explanations given by those who are sound reasonable to me. The question then is, why do you think you know better?
Pseudo-science is morons on the internet spouting off about how much they know that real scientists do not.
Then why do you keep talking about it? You've posted 4 times on this story.
You're one of those morons on the internet spouting off, you just happen to be spouting off about how everyone else is just spouting off.
One of the things that has always bothered me about the global the warming/climate change thesis that its advocates predict nothing but negative consequences.
You are confusing two different groups of people.
Climate scientists are pointing out that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases the temperature, and that this is well known, although the amount still has large error bars-- about plus or minus fifty percent, actually. These aren't "advocates;" this is science: ordinary, messy, plodding, data-intensive, science.
For saying this, however, climate scientists are being attacked relentlessly. It's a politically driven argument, not a scientific argument, which means that it can't be refuted by any amount of data.
There is another question, which is, what will the effects of this warming be? Since the deniers won't even credit that carbon dioxide has a warming effect at all, the odd result is that the ONLY people discussing the effects of temperature increase are the ones looking at negative effects. It's a one-sided debate because the other side has abdicated. They find it easier to attack the scientists than actually look at what the effects will be.
I do predict, however, that eventually the terms of the debate will change, and the deniers will start changing their argument to "well, we may be increasing the temperature, but that's a good thing. We want to increase the temperature."
Actually, I'm looking forward to that shift. First, I really would like to see both sides looking at effects. But, mainly, iI\t's a lot better than the "scientists are frauds and scientific results are a hoax and global warming is a scam" that is currently the argument.
It's only a "one sided "debate"" because you brand anyone who questions any of the spurious data as a "denier" and then ignore the side that recognizes the changing temperature but says "So fucking what?".
So let me put it to you this way: The Earth's temperature is rising. So fucking what? It has been much higher in the past. Life not only survived - it kicked ass.
Although some people might benefit by the changes, there will probably be more losers than winners.
Our society has been optimized based on the way things were. People farm where crops grow well. Ports are built at sea level near the places where comodities come from.
Rising sea levels are going to cause problems for people who live near old coast lines. I think this will outweigh any other gains.
As always, it is a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand.
VAST, SUDDEN CHANGES in climate will affect lots of people because lots of people are stupid and choose to live in overcrowded urban centers, right on the beach, and under the water table.
Luckliy, we won't have VAST, SUDDEN CHANGES, and those stupid people can sell their property to stupid people who have less money, and buy property 100 feet inland and 1 foot up. Farmers will build farms wherever the soil and climate are good for farming, just as they always have. And we'll ship that food around the world.
DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards are not the best for sound and PC displays do not have more then 2 speakers any ways.
Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?
Every single display (tvs and monitors) I've ever seen will only pass out a stereo signal over an unencrypted connection (including S/PDIF), regardless of what is in the HDMI signal.
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of a God.
Perhaps you can provide evidence that disproves the existence of leprechauns.
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
It's not a court of law. The burden of proof falls on no one. This is the most tired, most misguided "argument" against religion in the book.
It is logically impossible to disprove the exisctence of a god. By definition, gods are supernatural, and can act outside of our perceivable universe.
It is logically impossible to disprove the existence of leprechauns. By definition, leprechauns are magical, and can act outside of our perceivable universe.
There's a reason religion deals with faith and belief and not evidence and proof.
It's up to YOU to decide if that reason is because the religion is correct and there are supernatural deities that exist and act outside of our perceivable universe, or if that reason is because it's bullshit.
Religious people and Atheists have exactly the same amount of evidence for their arguments. Zero.
I know, right? Every time I see a stubborn and rebellious child in public, I inform the parent that it is their religious duty as Christians to bring him to the elders so that he or she may be stoned to death, but I always get such odd looks...
How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?
Oh look, it's another internet atheist who shits on religion without understanding it.
Deuteronomy is from the Old Testament.
Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Christians DO get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. There are core beliefs that all Christians hold (such as the Genesis story, the flood story), and core tenets they must follow (such as the ten commandments).
You absolutely can be a Christian and ignore all of the kill this, don't eat this, don't fuck that, etc. from the Bible. Christ's teachings were extremely hippie-like, and the differences between the sects about the belief/following/interpretation of Christ's teachings are miniscule to the differences concerning the Old Testament, or parts of the New Testament that aren't about Jesus.
And even if this wasn't the case, what would your point be? That Christians should stone their children to death when they misbehave?
If you want to shit on a religion or religious people, you might want to reflect on the fact that you are the one telling them to stone children, while they consider that to be adbsurd. Christianity is not what you think it is, but iternet atheists like you are every bit the ignorant assholes everyone thinks them to be.
I am not religious, but morons like you make it so I can't say I'm an atheist. I can't say I'm agnostic because then EVERYONE tries to convert you.
(which, besides Jews, includes a lot of other groups
Including, ironically, many of the same Arabs who Israelis are so fond of calling anti-Semitic.
That's not ironic, that's awesome!
Actually, that is ironic.
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that, is, irony!
I changed the bluetooth ID of my car's hands-free unit to "POLICE" and whenever I'm stopped in rush-hour traffic I try connecting my "car" to people I see nearby who are (illegally here) holding their cell phones to their ears. Fun times. The reactions I get are priceless.
Probably I should stop doing that...
Probably you should stop bullshitting.
What phone has bluetooth always on AND always in discovery mode AND pops up discovery alerts when the user is on a call?
Yeah the problem is directly and linearly related to the head count of GHG molecules in the atmosphere.
So Step 1- reduce GHG molecules as much as possible.
Step one pretty much means YOU do everything YOU can do .
As to China and India, The US is pretty good at getting other countries to go along with us when we want to be, aren't we?
We need to reduce GHG emissions NOW and RADICALLY. As it happens we either are number one or two. That pretty much means what we do matters and in fact decides the earth's fate. If we continue, we're all fucked, It's enough to know that. We can prevail on China and India at the same time and we'll have more clout AFTER WE TAKE NEEDED STEPS.
Because if people in the US do as people like you recommend, and people in China and India don't, our economy would collapse (and I'm not talking 2008, I'm talking 1929).
There are plenty of good ideas for cleaning up our act, but the environmentalists hate every single one.
Shifting from coal to nuclear and hydroelectric power is the most obvious change, yet no one wants to touch it. Instead we put corn in our gas, add shitty solar panels and lithium batteries to our cars, and build "clean" coal factories by the dozen.
Cap and trade on carbon emissions? Gee, that's an actual solution and is in no way just going to end up being a tax that's passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices before politicians skim off the top to fund their pork projects.
If you want to lower emissions you absolutely have to enforce such legislation GLOBALLY, otherwise the emissions just move to where it's cheaper to emit.
Yeah this is a lie. The science debate is what was going for 30 years before anyone notified you.
The CATO institute is funded through the Koch brothers who make money by the release of carbon.
Read The Merchants of Doubt -
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109
become an informed citizen- and then come back to us with the "debate that is being stifled" argument.
The classic "You disagree with me, and haven't read and chosen to believe the same things I have read and chosen to believe. Therefore, you are ignorant." attack.
If you can't point to evidence of a claim yourself, then you are uninformed. Posting a link to something isn't evidence. Posting "read this and get some lernin'" is not evidence. Actual data along with a model and predictable, repeatable results is evidence. This does not exist, of course.
A better link than HuffPo is straight from the horses mouth:
http://berkeleyearth.org/
In particular look at the findings page.
Look at the dataset used for the project. The vast majority of data is manually adjusted, "corrected", estimated, or otherwise fucked around with.
It's a pathetic farce, yet everyone thinks the "data" is sacred, and everyone thinks that the data has been "reviewed" when in fact all the reviews have centered around the stastical modelling applied to the bad data.
And of course, there's the complete lack of a usable model.
It's not science, it's politics. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron who has never done a lick of science in their lives and never will.