Should I post some spam 30+ times in each comment thread advertising a piece of software that no one is asking for?
You can't prove him wrong
Like I said, APK, I am not even having a discussion with you about the merits of host files. I don't think anyone is, for that matter, I don't know why you think you're in some contest about being proven right vs. wrong. That's not what any of this is about. This is about you spamming Slashdot. That's all it's ever been about. You're so obsessed with whether or not your ideas about hosts files are right or wrong that you don't even notice that no one cares.
modding him constantly so he reposts
AKA, spamming. The community says, in a fairly loud voice, that we do not want to see your advertisements. People with mod points use them to deal with your malicious behavior. You respond by continuing your malicious behavior and trying to work around the blocking. That is what spammers do. You are a spammer, by definition. I'm legitimately at a loss to explain why if you don't understand that. I think you do understand what you are and you just don't care because, again, you think you're involved in some sort of right vs. wrong contest when people only want your spam to end.
he outsmarts you and beats you at your game every time
So, these days intelligence means posting your spam more times than people have mod points to spend? That's what passes for intelligence in your world? Yikes.
Posting days later to get the last word on your end is a joke too.
I like how this line is part of a message posted 3 days after the comment thread happened. This is what we call "irony".
Alexander Peter Kowalski is the single most prolific spammer on Slashdot. Go ahead and view this thread at the -1 threshold and scroll down and look at all of the wall-of-text comments he posts advertising his software that no one cares about. And if you dare respond to him, then watch as he comes back at you with all of his 13-year old emotional maturity. Then shudder as you realize that he's actually a man in his 50s. Feel free to also search online and find him exhibiting the exact same sociopathic behavior going back at least 15 years on various online forums, most notably Ars Technica. He's Slashdot's resident psychological case study.
Not a single person here is interested in trying to prove you wrong, including myself (go ahead, find a single instance where I've said anything about the validity of using a hosts file). The only thing I'm interested in regarding you is stopping your spam. That's all. You think you're playing some game with me or other people but you don't realize that you're the only one playing, you think that everyone is out to try and prove you wrong. No one gives a shit. Sorry to put it like that, but no one gives a shit about you APK. I'd love to see a Slashdot without the incessant ramblings of a proven spammer, that's all. You're clearly not interested in just not being a spammer though. Why? I have no idea, truly. I have no idea what possesses a spammer to spam. I don't understand the spammer mindset.
Sorry APK, but I have a policy of not responding to posts where you refer to yourself in the third person. You still think you're fooling someone and it's not even remotely amusing. Take care.
No, I don't pay $10 per month for a service where I still see ads in some places. That's not something that sounds valuable to me. I'll continue to pay nothing and have ads shown instead of paying to only see ads in some places.
To put that in context with my previous post:
Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free"... with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want.
Paying $10 per month in order to still see ads, but in fewer places, is not what I want from YouTube.
Looks like I did speak too soon. So, I'll follow up with this, in case anyone wants to help discourage the spam here.
APK includes this line in his spam:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe [link removed] ) hosts & recommends it [link removed]
He refers to this forum post, which is a complaint about his spam here on Slashdot, with the admin saying he would have a talk about the spam. The signature identifies the admin as Steven Burns, and lists it-mate.co.uk as a site he runs. The it-mate.co.uk contact link points to this form. Anyone seeing APK's spam here should contact Steven Burns through that form to let him know how his reputation is being used, and the fact that he is hosting the software of an obvious spammer. Do not paste whole URLs into the comment form, it will be rejected, instead remove the protocol (http://) from the URL before sending.
The only reason people like you like to claim that people are freeloading is because there isn't an alternative. I would gladly pay money for things that are valuable to me, but right now that isn't much of an option. Take NFL games, for example. I don't have a good way to just pay the NFL and then be able to watch the games live. I have to have cable subscription, which I don't want. So I can either get an antenna and then try to get the local channels over the air, or I can go to a sports bar or something, or I can try to find some site which is illegally streaming the games. If I could just pay the NFL $5 or whatever and watch the game, I would, but that's not an option. So, I do whatever else is available to me.
Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free" (in reality there is essentially no cost either way to the user) with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want. The option to pay for an ad-free experience often doesn't exist.
APK hasn't been spamming Slashdot lately, there's no reason to make fun of him at this point. If he has decided to stop posting his advertisements here then do your part and leave him alone. If he wants to make meaningful comments like other Slashdot users (stop laughing) then that's fine, let him. No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.
What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it. Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.
Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.
Don't be obtuse. The coffin of online advertising was designed, perfected, and manufactured by the advertisers. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Use of tools like Adblock is the inevitable conclusion to the abuses and overreach that online advertisers have been doing for the past couple decades. You might as well whine about popup blockers or spam filters. Once a technology like that gets abused, you can bet your ass that another technology is going to be developed to block it. If advertisers don't like that then they probably should have started their self-policing campaign before ad blockers really caught on. As it is, they're starting to realize that their tricks are going to be caught, and only now are they crying foul. They did this to themselves, if the attendees of the IAB's conference want to blame someone for the state of their industry and their business model all they have to do is look around the room. The most surprising part of this whole affair to me is that it took so long for ad blockers to become mainstream, but I'll chalk that up to the fact that IE did not have an ad blocker for so long. The rise of browsers supporting extensions has opened up the general public to ad blockers. Adblock Plus was released in 2006. Advertisers have had a decade to understand that people don't want to see ads and think about how they can co-exist peacefully, but instead they used that decade to figure out how to force more and more ads down peoples' throats. They made that decision, so now they get to deal with the consequences. I don't think you're going to see a lot of people shedding a tear for advertisers.
why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?
You would think advertisers would want to hear from the other side, particularly on ways they can come to a compromise. Apparently, you would be wrong.
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
Those assertions are laughable. Still. Blatantly wrong.
These environmentalists/leftists have been blaming humans the whole time, yet now it turns out that it's undersea volcanoes that are responsible, and not people.
Right, solid concrete proof that people have no impact, it's all volcanoes. Certain, undeniable proof that people are 100% blameless. Clear, unambiguous evidence that putting tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year has exactly zero impact on anything regarding the climate.
Let me get this straight. You think that the reason that the climate has been warming over the past couple decades has nothing to do with the fact that humans have been pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year at an increasing rate, but instead it's caused by volcanoes tens of thousands of feet below the surface of the oceans, because the magma is heating up the water at the point of eruption.
Tell me, what changed over the past couple decades to cause all of those volcanoes to become so much more active than they have been for the past several thousand years? Is that what you're suggesting, that there's some reason why all of these volcanoes are much more active lately? Or did the lava just get hotter for some other unknown reason? You're asserting that "a single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives", so I want to know exactly what the basis for your reasoning is.
Oh, so it's the CO2 from these volcanoes that causes the waters to warm?
No, it's CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing the climate to change, Mr. Anonymous Weatherman, not the volcanoes in mid-ocean ridges that have been erupting for the past few billion years, give or take. Those volcanoes are part of the relatively balanced system that is the reason why there is so much life on this planet to start with. What changed over the past century is not that all of the volcanoes got more active for some as-yet-unexplained reason, what changed is that people have pumped a ridiculous amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Here's another part of my post from October, where I was trying to respond to someone suggesting that global warming is fake because dinosaurs used to fart, therefore we can't do anything to the atmosphere. Are you that same guy, now come back to spout ridiculous uneducated shit anonymously?
Since the 1880s we've been burning coal, fuel oil, and natural gas for power, non-stop. Since the early 1900s we've been driving gas-powered cars, non-stop, and also been flying gas-powered planes, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've been driving CO2-emitting ships around, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've also been operating CO2-emitting trains, non-stop. That's several hundred years of steam ships, steam trains, power plants, cars, and planes, and if you crack open one of your history books you'll notice that since the introduction of those until today the usage has actually increased. They have gotten larger, hungrier, and more numerous.
If you want to know why the climate has warmed up, there's your answer. It has less to do with the volcanoes that have been erupting for all of human history, and more to do with actual human history. I wonder, did you even bother to read the actual article or did you act like people who think like you normally act and just read the summary, think to yourself "now I'm educated!", and post some stupid crap that you pull straight out of your ass?
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
Goddamnit, do I really have to go digging through my post history to find that data again?
Here, from all the way back in October, the last time I saw someone pull some stupid assertion out of their ass like you just did:
Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.
The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.
So, Mr. Fucking Genius, if you think that volcanoes would "of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do", tell me, is 255 million tons more or less than 30 billion tons? Because, and I'm not a math major or anything, but it sounds to me like we would need 117 times as many active volcanoes on the planet to reach the level of CO2 that is output by human activity. I'll post your assertion here again, just to highlight how goddamn stupid and completely uneducated it is:
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
At 30 billion tons per year, it takes an average of FOUR DAYS for us to emit more CO2 than all volcanoes do in a year.
As soon as I read the summary I knew that some idiot was going to post something about global warming, I didn't expect that the very first post would be some idiot saying "therefore, this explains everything."
My guess is that the grease is just a cover story, and the real purpose of the cameras is something else entirely.
That's my guess also.
The emails and things have a discussion about a camera near 23rd ave and Jackson, and one of the people in the emails guesses that it might have been placed on the pole by Walgreen's, to monitor their parking lot. Here is a link to Google Maps, centered right about the power pole in question. Here is a direct link to street view looking right at the camera mounted on the pole. If you look around, you'll notice that there are no drains on the street in that area where someone would pour grease. The closest drains are at the intersection of Jackson and 23rd, and there are poles that would have a much better view of those drains than the pole with the camera (and it's a little conspicuous to pour grease down the drain at an intersection with lights). The Google car drove around that parking lot, and if you wander around there you'll notice that the camera isn't on the pole in those shots. Directly in front of the Magic Dragon Chinese restaurant (next to Papa Murphy's pizza), there's a drain cover that does actually look a little bit stained (weird, I know). But there is a pole that is closer to that drain and restaurant, and still, why the hell would the ATF care about people dumping grease down a street drain?
If you go back to where the pole with the camera is in street view and look at the parking lot across Jackson, there are a couple women walking through the parking lot wearing hijabs. There's a store/restaurant back there called East African Imports, next to the Navy recruiting office, and it looks like there's also a marker for the Islamic Presentation and Invitation Center, which lists an address at 2301 S Jackson, which is that corner.
I bet the ATF/FBI is watching the Muslims instead of grease dumpers, but I should probably just get back to work.
Anyone could be a host, even someone immune to the effects of the disease. The reason we should stop calling them anti-vaxxers is because it's stupid to write 2 Xs. Anti-vaxer will work.
For this reason. He needs to pay a little less attention to the bible when it comes to things like women's health and civil rights, and a little more attention to things like Matthew 6:5.
Maybe. I think at this point, the only people willing to funnel money to Rubio are those who really believe in him.
Rubio is (was?) looking like the reasonable alternative to Trump. There are a lot of people who do not want to see Trump become president, but still want to see a Republican president. To those people Bush seems like a non-starter with a poor legacy, Cruz is right up there with Huckabee regarding how much they claim to be religious (people tend to get uneasy when someone very powerful makes decisions based on religious beliefs - and not too many people like politicians who talk about how pious they are), and then who are you left with? Carson? He thinks the pyramids were used to store grain and once tried to stab some kid. Fiorina? Hahaha, no. Kasich? There might be a few people outside of Ohio who have heard about him (note: I had to look up which state he governs). Chris Christie? Jim Gillmore? Rand Paul? How about Rick Santorum, is he going to finally pull his name up out of the "mud", as it were?
Rubio is the only pragmatic choice with a realistic chance of beating Trump, and when he's making statements like this it makes it pretty hard to support him. Every Republican candidate, with the possible exception of Trump, seems to have a niche that they pander to, a niche which doesn't work that well with the general public. Trump's niche appears to be the box marked "Other".
Anyway, back to my point - I think that most of the people funneling money to Rubio are the Republicans who really don't want to see Trump win the party. Rubio is the most-sane choice, but statements like these show that he's still willing to shoot himself in the foot.
That's now how I read the article. The article is about Gardasil specifically, not all vaccines generally. He doesn't sound like it would be ridiculous to assume that even Gardasil specifically might have serious negative side effects, he is refuting the claims that it is (not might be; that it actually is) directly related to death or other syndromes, where the evidence specifically shows that it is not related.
Yes, the data show that Gardasil isn't the cause of the various things some suspected of it. But that wasn't a foregone conclusion.
That's true, it was not a foregone conclusion. But the major problem with the anti-vax movement is that, once the data is known, and once the conclusions can be drawn, the anti-vax people tend to ignore it and continue with their "well maybe" campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
Do something as good as he has.
Should I post some spam 30+ times in each comment thread advertising a piece of software that no one is asking for?
You can't prove him wrong
Like I said, APK, I am not even having a discussion with you about the merits of host files. I don't think anyone is, for that matter, I don't know why you think you're in some contest about being proven right vs. wrong. That's not what any of this is about. This is about you spamming Slashdot. That's all it's ever been about. You're so obsessed with whether or not your ideas about hosts files are right or wrong that you don't even notice that no one cares.
modding him constantly so he reposts
AKA, spamming. The community says, in a fairly loud voice, that we do not want to see your advertisements. People with mod points use them to deal with your malicious behavior. You respond by continuing your malicious behavior and trying to work around the blocking. That is what spammers do. You are a spammer, by definition. I'm legitimately at a loss to explain why if you don't understand that. I think you do understand what you are and you just don't care because, again, you think you're involved in some sort of right vs. wrong contest when people only want your spam to end.
he outsmarts you and beats you at your game every time
So, these days intelligence means posting your spam more times than people have mod points to spend? That's what passes for intelligence in your world? Yikes.
Posting days later to get the last word on your end is a joke too.
I like how this line is part of a message posted 3 days after the comment thread happened. This is what we call "irony".
You're clearly an adblock shill and can't prove apk wrong going off topic calling him spammer and he's not.
"I'm not a spammer", said the spammer.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Alexander Peter Kowalski is the single most prolific spammer on Slashdot. Go ahead and view this thread at the -1 threshold and scroll down and look at all of the wall-of-text comments he posts advertising his software that no one cares about. And if you dare respond to him, then watch as he comes back at you with all of his 13-year old emotional maturity. Then shudder as you realize that he's actually a man in his 50s. Feel free to also search online and find him exhibiting the exact same sociopathic behavior going back at least 15 years on various online forums, most notably Ars Technica. He's Slashdot's resident psychological case study.
Not a single person here is interested in trying to prove you wrong, including myself (go ahead, find a single instance where I've said anything about the validity of using a hosts file). The only thing I'm interested in regarding you is stopping your spam. That's all. You think you're playing some game with me or other people but you don't realize that you're the only one playing, you think that everyone is out to try and prove you wrong. No one gives a shit. Sorry to put it like that, but no one gives a shit about you APK. I'd love to see a Slashdot without the incessant ramblings of a proven spammer, that's all. You're clearly not interested in just not being a spammer though. Why? I have no idea, truly. I have no idea what possesses a spammer to spam. I don't understand the spammer mindset.
Sorry APK, but I have a policy of not responding to posts where you refer to yourself in the third person. You still think you're fooling someone and it's not even remotely amusing. Take care.
No, I don't pay $10 per month for a service where I still see ads in some places. That's not something that sounds valuable to me. I'll continue to pay nothing and have ads shown instead of paying to only see ads in some places.
To put that in context with my previous post:
Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free" ... with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want.
Paying $10 per month in order to still see ads, but in fewer places, is not what I want from YouTube.
Don't just deal with it, report it.
Stop APK Spam
Stop APK Spam
Looks like I did speak too soon. So, I'll follow up with this, in case anyone wants to help discourage the spam here.
APK includes this line in his spam:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe [link removed] ) hosts & recommends it [link removed]
He refers to this forum post, which is a complaint about his spam here on Slashdot, with the admin saying he would have a talk about the spam. The signature identifies the admin as Steven Burns, and lists it-mate.co.uk as a site he runs. The it-mate.co.uk contact link points to this form. Anyone seeing APK's spam here should contact Steven Burns through that form to let him know how his reputation is being used, and the fact that he is hosting the software of an obvious spammer. Do not paste whole URLs into the comment form, it will be rejected, instead remove the protocol (http://) from the URL before sending.
The only reason people like you like to claim that people are freeloading is because there isn't an alternative. I would gladly pay money for things that are valuable to me, but right now that isn't much of an option. Take NFL games, for example. I don't have a good way to just pay the NFL and then be able to watch the games live. I have to have cable subscription, which I don't want. So I can either get an antenna and then try to get the local channels over the air, or I can go to a sports bar or something, or I can try to find some site which is illegally streaming the games. If I could just pay the NFL $5 or whatever and watch the game, I would, but that's not an option. So, I do whatever else is available to me.
Don't confuse the fact that people are blocking ads and using sites "for free" (in reality there is essentially no cost either way to the user) with trying to argue that people will never be willing to pay for what they want. The option to pay for an ad-free experience often doesn't exist.
APK hasn't been spamming Slashdot lately, there's no reason to make fun of him at this point. If he has decided to stop posting his advertisements here then do your part and leave him alone. If he wants to make meaningful comments like other Slashdot users (stop laughing) then that's fine, let him. No reason to poke him if he's not spamming.
What's "Adblock, Inc"?
What? So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it. Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.
Adblock plus is literally in the process of destroying the business of online advertising.
Don't be obtuse. The coffin of online advertising was designed, perfected, and manufactured by the advertisers. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Use of tools like Adblock is the inevitable conclusion to the abuses and overreach that online advertisers have been doing for the past couple decades. You might as well whine about popup blockers or spam filters. Once a technology like that gets abused, you can bet your ass that another technology is going to be developed to block it. If advertisers don't like that then they probably should have started their self-policing campaign before ad blockers really caught on. As it is, they're starting to realize that their tricks are going to be caught, and only now are they crying foul. They did this to themselves, if the attendees of the IAB's conference want to blame someone for the state of their industry and their business model all they have to do is look around the room. The most surprising part of this whole affair to me is that it took so long for ad blockers to become mainstream, but I'll chalk that up to the fact that IE did not have an ad blocker for so long. The rise of browsers supporting extensions has opened up the general public to ad blockers. Adblock Plus was released in 2006. Advertisers have had a decade to understand that people don't want to see ads and think about how they can co-exist peacefully, but instead they used that decade to figure out how to force more and more ads down peoples' throats. They made that decision, so now they get to deal with the consequences. I don't think you're going to see a lot of people shedding a tear for advertisers.
why would a group of advertisers want to have anything to do with them?
You would think advertisers would want to hear from the other side, particularly on ways they can come to a compromise. Apparently, you would be wrong.
That's true, and also about maps and geography.
Here's the base, based on the shadows under the tail sections I think those are 3 Reapers on the flight line.
Sold my stash a years ago after the big plunge.
You're doing it wrong.
Sure, buddy. I'll just leave these here:
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
Those assertions are laughable. Still. Blatantly wrong.
These environmentalists/leftists have been blaming humans the whole time, yet now it turns out that it's undersea volcanoes that are responsible, and not people.
Right, solid concrete proof that people have no impact, it's all volcanoes. Certain, undeniable proof that people are 100% blameless. Clear, unambiguous evidence that putting tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year has exactly zero impact on anything regarding the climate.
This isn't going anywhere, this isn't productive. You're going to continue making false claims regardless of what myself or anyone else says.
Let me get this straight. You think that the reason that the climate has been warming over the past couple decades has nothing to do with the fact that humans have been pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year at an increasing rate, but instead it's caused by volcanoes tens of thousands of feet below the surface of the oceans, because the magma is heating up the water at the point of eruption.
Tell me, what changed over the past couple decades to cause all of those volcanoes to become so much more active than they have been for the past several thousand years? Is that what you're suggesting, that there's some reason why all of these volcanoes are much more active lately? Or did the lava just get hotter for some other unknown reason? You're asserting that "a single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives", so I want to know exactly what the basis for your reasoning is.
Oh, so it's the CO2 from these volcanoes that causes the waters to warm?
No, it's CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing the climate to change, Mr. Anonymous Weatherman, not the volcanoes in mid-ocean ridges that have been erupting for the past few billion years, give or take. Those volcanoes are part of the relatively balanced system that is the reason why there is so much life on this planet to start with. What changed over the past century is not that all of the volcanoes got more active for some as-yet-unexplained reason, what changed is that people have pumped a ridiculous amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Here's another part of my post from October, where I was trying to respond to someone suggesting that global warming is fake because dinosaurs used to fart, therefore we can't do anything to the atmosphere. Are you that same guy, now come back to spout ridiculous uneducated shit anonymously?
Since the 1880s we've been burning coal, fuel oil, and natural gas for power, non-stop. Since the early 1900s we've been driving gas-powered cars, non-stop, and also been flying gas-powered planes, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've been driving CO2-emitting ships around, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've also been operating CO2-emitting trains, non-stop. That's several hundred years of steam ships, steam trains, power plants, cars, and planes, and if you crack open one of your history books you'll notice that since the introduction of those until today the usage has actually increased. They have gotten larger, hungrier, and more numerous.
If you want to know why the climate has warmed up, there's your answer. It has less to do with the volcanoes that have been erupting for all of human history, and more to do with actual human history. I wonder, did you even bother to read the actual article or did you act like people who think like you normally act and just read the summary, think to yourself "now I'm educated!", and post some stupid crap that you pull straight out of your ass?
And *I'm* the idiot. Riiiiiight...
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
Goddamnit, do I really have to go digging through my post history to find that data again?
Here, from all the way back in October, the last time I saw someone pull some stupid assertion out of their ass like you just did:
Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.
The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.
So, Mr. Fucking Genius, if you think that volcanoes would "of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do", tell me, is 255 million tons more or less than 30 billion tons? Because, and I'm not a math major or anything, but it sounds to me like we would need 117 times as many active volcanoes on the planet to reach the level of CO2 that is output by human activity. I'll post your assertion here again, just to highlight how goddamn stupid and completely uneducated it is:
A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.
When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.
At 30 billion tons per year, it takes an average of FOUR DAYS for us to emit more CO2 than all volcanoes do in a year.
As soon as I read the summary I knew that some idiot was going to post something about global warming, I didn't expect that the very first post would be some idiot saying "therefore, this explains everything."
My guess is that the grease is just a cover story, and the real purpose of the cameras is something else entirely.
That's my guess also.
The emails and things have a discussion about a camera near 23rd ave and Jackson, and one of the people in the emails guesses that it might have been placed on the pole by Walgreen's, to monitor their parking lot. Here is a link to Google Maps, centered right about the power pole in question. Here is a direct link to street view looking right at the camera mounted on the pole. If you look around, you'll notice that there are no drains on the street in that area where someone would pour grease. The closest drains are at the intersection of Jackson and 23rd, and there are poles that would have a much better view of those drains than the pole with the camera (and it's a little conspicuous to pour grease down the drain at an intersection with lights). The Google car drove around that parking lot, and if you wander around there you'll notice that the camera isn't on the pole in those shots. Directly in front of the Magic Dragon Chinese restaurant (next to Papa Murphy's pizza), there's a drain cover that does actually look a little bit stained (weird, I know). But there is a pole that is closer to that drain and restaurant, and still, why the hell would the ATF care about people dumping grease down a street drain?
If you go back to where the pole with the camera is in street view and look at the parking lot across Jackson, there are a couple women walking through the parking lot wearing hijabs. There's a store/restaurant back there called East African Imports, next to the Navy recruiting office, and it looks like there's also a marker for the Islamic Presentation and Invitation Center, which lists an address at 2301 S Jackson, which is that corner.
I bet the ATF/FBI is watching the Muslims instead of grease dumpers, but I should probably just get back to work.
we know it's you, sexconker
Anyone could be a host, even someone immune to the effects of the disease. The reason we should stop calling them anti-vaxxers is because it's stupid to write 2 Xs. Anti-vaxer will work.
Cruz is scary for what reason?
For this reason. He needs to pay a little less attention to the bible when it comes to things like women's health and civil rights, and a little more attention to things like Matthew 6:5.
Maybe. I think at this point, the only people willing to funnel money to Rubio are those who really believe in him.
Rubio is (was?) looking like the reasonable alternative to Trump. There are a lot of people who do not want to see Trump become president, but still want to see a Republican president. To those people Bush seems like a non-starter with a poor legacy, Cruz is right up there with Huckabee regarding how much they claim to be religious (people tend to get uneasy when someone very powerful makes decisions based on religious beliefs - and not too many people like politicians who talk about how pious they are), and then who are you left with? Carson? He thinks the pyramids were used to store grain and once tried to stab some kid. Fiorina? Hahaha, no. Kasich? There might be a few people outside of Ohio who have heard about him (note: I had to look up which state he governs). Chris Christie? Jim Gillmore? Rand Paul? How about Rick Santorum, is he going to finally pull his name up out of the "mud", as it were?
Rubio is the only pragmatic choice with a realistic chance of beating Trump, and when he's making statements like this it makes it pretty hard to support him. Every Republican candidate, with the possible exception of Trump, seems to have a niche that they pander to, a niche which doesn't work that well with the general public. Trump's niche appears to be the box marked "Other".
Anyway, back to my point - I think that most of the people funneling money to Rubio are the Republicans who really don't want to see Trump win the party. Rubio is the most-sane choice, but statements like these show that he's still willing to shoot himself in the foot.
That's now how I read the article. The article is about Gardasil specifically, not all vaccines generally. He doesn't sound like it would be ridiculous to assume that even Gardasil specifically might have serious negative side effects, he is refuting the claims that it is (not might be; that it actually is) directly related to death or other syndromes, where the evidence specifically shows that it is not related.
Yes, the data show that Gardasil isn't the cause of the various things some suspected of it. But that wasn't a foregone conclusion.
That's true, it was not a foregone conclusion. But the major problem with the anti-vax movement is that, once the data is known, and once the conclusions can be drawn, the anti-vax people tend to ignore it and continue with their "well maybe" campaign.