ISIS no longer a major threat? And that being down to Trump? You are too funny. US economy having anything at all to do with Trump, given lag effects? Stop, you're killing me. N Korea? Let's save the jubilation till after they've met and avoided killing us all shall we?
The exhaust from modern cars doesn't really pollute?! Where on earth did you get that idea? CO levels may no longer be high enough to commit suicide, but there's plenty of NOx, HCs, VOCs and particulates to do some serious damage.
And even sadder that you use the word riffraff in an attempt to insult. Can you really imagine anyone being insulted by that term today? It's not the 1950s any more, so there's no value writing like a cut-price version of Boris Johnson.
I know jack shit about him other than *his own words and deeds*, many of which are in the public domain, and which are enough to come to an informed view of him.
But let's just say you were right and I knew "Jack Shit [sic] about him". What more would you know, then? Nothing more than me, correct? So what makes *your* original post qualify as "thinking for yourself" vs mine? Just the fact that you agree with your own views and felt the urgent need to defend yourself. That reflex reaction to defend -- that's not thinking for yourself. Thinking for yourself would have involved a step back, reflecting on what I wrote, and responding in a positive and constructive way.
I feel no such compunction to do any of that in my first response. I was content to point out the (obvious) flaws in your position. But then, I didn't need to, as I'm not the one lecturing other people on how they ought to argue online, so I wasn't the person at risk of being shown to be a hypocrite.
Just for this shits and giggles, and not at all because we'd all like to laugh as you try to spell out a position that is not, in your phrasing, "demonstrably weak", how about you spell out why raves are immoral?
This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.
If you can't characterise the problem effectively, you'll waste your time sneering at a strawman, which is exactly what you've done.
You're right that only the Republicans had the power to make this bill happen, or stop it. All the Democrats could do was to go through the motions: casting a vote and sending a signal. So why the fuck send a signal of support? Are they out of their tiny minds? Did none of their staffers bother to go through this and say "this bill doesn't do what you'd want it to do, despite what it's called. It's a bad bill. Vote no."?
FFS. There are no *meaningful* safeguards. They didn't fail -- they worked as designed by the NRA. They are designed to allow everyone who wants a gun to get a gun.
He has no other principles, but he does have other *needs*. And one of those needs is adulation. The value of adulation from his base in not accepting his salary is less than the value of the salary for Trump. Especially as he can make orders of magnitude more money out of the presidency through other methods, such as officials of other nations and of companies staying at his properties to curry favour.
Well, we *could* monitor everyone's posts to see the ones who are saying dodgy things. Or we could, I dunno, make it more difficult to buy a fucking gun. That might work.
I don't understand the point you're making. The adoption curve for specific technologies within each piece of kit, whether car, house, smartphone or tablet, is sometimes driven by improvements within a core tech type such as Li-ion batteries, and sometimes accelerates with a jump from one form of tech type to another, such as CRT to LCD or LCD to OLED. There's no case where such tech types have meant that we've not adopted anything while we wait for these improvements to be finished. Indeed, the improvements drive mass adoption which creates scale economies and profits that enable the next generation of innovation.
And yes, sometimes the improvements with a core tech type or the adoption of new tech types enables use cases that were previously infeasible, and that changes the market dynamics. But so what? That's par for the course for tech adoption too.
1. How do you know this about Apple's environmental practices? 2. Which smartphone / tablet / computer company are you recommending as better on environmental practices?
Slashdot Mirror
ISIS no longer a major threat? And that being down to Trump? You are too funny.
US economy having anything at all to do with Trump, given lag effects? Stop, you're killing me.
N Korea? Let's save the jubilation till after they've met and avoided killing us all shall we?
There is no credit due. None.
Spot on.
He'd need to do something positive first.
https://blog.moneysavingexpert...
Ouch! That's gotta hurt...elegantly put
The exhaust from modern cars doesn't really pollute?! Where on earth did you get that idea? CO levels may no longer be high enough to commit suicide, but there's plenty of NOx, HCs, VOCs and particulates to do some serious damage.
And even sadder that you use the word riffraff in an attempt to insult. Can you really imagine anyone being insulted by that term today? It's not the 1950s any more, so there's no value writing like a cut-price version of Boris Johnson.
Why thank you!
Your first sentence may or may not be true. But it's really sad that you think it's somehow linked to your second sentence.
I know jack shit about him other than *his own words and deeds*, many of which are in the public domain, and which are enough to come to an informed view of him.
But let's just say you were right and I knew "Jack Shit [sic] about him". What more would you know, then? Nothing more than me, correct? So what makes *your* original post qualify as "thinking for yourself" vs mine? Just the fact that you agree with your own views and felt the urgent need to defend yourself. That reflex reaction to defend -- that's not thinking for yourself. Thinking for yourself would have involved a step back, reflecting on what I wrote, and responding in a positive and constructive way.
I feel no such compunction to do any of that in my first response. I was content to point out the (obvious) flaws in your position. But then, I didn't need to, as I'm not the one lecturing other people on how they ought to argue online, so I wasn't the person at risk of being shown to be a hypocrite.
You think raves are immoral? Raves?
Just for this shits and giggles, and not at all because we'd all like to laugh as you try to spell out a position that is not, in your phrasing, "demonstrably weak", how about you spell out why raves are immoral?
This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.
If you can't characterise the problem effectively, you'll waste your time sneering at a strawman, which is exactly what you've done.
You're right that only the Republicans had the power to make this bill happen, or stop it. All the Democrats could do was to go through the motions: casting a vote and sending a signal. So why the fuck send a signal of support? Are they out of their tiny minds? Did none of their staffers bother to go through this and say "this bill doesn't do what you'd want it to do, despite what it's called. It's a bad bill. Vote no."?
I see your ability to infer accurately is as your spelling.
Come back to me with your wit when you can write the term "rubber stamping" without making an error.
FFS. There are no *meaningful* safeguards. They didn't fail -- they worked as designed by the NRA. They are designed to allow everyone who wants a gun to get a gun.
There *are* no government safeguards against a crazy person getting a gun. Apart from that, you got everything else wrong too. Well done!
More than, not less than. Whoops
He has no other principles, but he does have other *needs*. And one of those needs is adulation. The value of adulation from his base in not accepting his salary is less than the value of the salary for Trump. Especially as he can make orders of magnitude more money out of the presidency through other methods, such as officials of other nations and of companies staying at his properties to curry favour.
Well, we *could* monitor everyone's posts to see the ones who are saying dodgy things. Or we could, I dunno, make it more difficult to buy a fucking gun. That might work.
I don't understand the point you're making. The adoption curve for specific technologies within each piece of kit, whether car, house, smartphone or tablet, is sometimes driven by improvements within a core tech type such as Li-ion batteries, and sometimes accelerates with a jump from one form of tech type to another, such as CRT to LCD or LCD to OLED. There's no case where such tech types have meant that we've not adopted anything while we wait for these improvements to be finished. Indeed, the improvements drive mass adoption which creates scale economies and profits that enable the next generation of innovation.
And yes, sometimes the improvements with a core tech type or the adoption of new tech types enables use cases that were previously infeasible, and that changes the market dynamics. But so what? That's par for the course for tech adoption too.
Maybe. But Tesla / Elon is explicit: solar + car + powerwall form a three-part closed loop system.
We didn't do that for smartphones, computers, screens, or virtually any other tech. Why would it be a sensible strategy here?
Hence the powerwall
1. How do you know this about Apple's environmental practices?
2. Which smartphone / tablet / computer company are you recommending as better on environmental practices?