If it helps to get the retards to pay $100 per year for a set of services they can get elsewhere for free,
How long does it take you to find those services? To integrate them all to the convenience level provided by.me? To manage them?
I currently bill out at $100/hr, which makes.me a cost of exactly 1 hour of my time. Strikes me as a good deal less than I'd sink into replicating it with "free" services.
If you're not worth that much, or if you choose to not optimize your time as sensible people do -- that being the only absolutely limited resource there is! -- I respectfully submit that it is you, and not worthwhile people, who is the retard.
I haven't seen a job that listed objective-c as a requirement in, um, well ever.
That's funny... every single job I've looked at in the last two years had it as a requirement.
On the other hand, not a single job I've looked at listed Java, C#, or.NET as a requirement.
By your logic, then, those three technologies I list are a "career no go".
Either that, or you have your head up your ass so far you can't figure out that a particular tool set is required for jobs it is appropriate for, and not for ones it isn't appropriate for. I think I'll take "thermain is an ntiwit" for $200 here, Alex!
Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account? That's either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect.
Errrm... no, there's a third option. Namely, "they've actually read the IPCC reports".
Not only do climate scientists not take this into account, they actively conduct witch hunts on anybody who does attempt to even research it.
Read "The Chilling Stars" for an absolutely horrifying -- if you have any respect for the scientific method at all -- chronicle of how the rather plausible Svensmark theories on linkage of solar activity with cosmic rays and therefore cloud formation and therefore climate change -- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how the historically low amount of clouds in the late 20th C. could very well be responsible for ALL the observed warming relegating C02 to an irrelevance -- was and still is, on the whole, treated with rather less respect and integrity than the Catholic Church gave Gailileo.
Because that apparent relative success is due to Obama gaming the primary selection process, most spectacularly by leveraging the blatant sillinesses of those states that hold caucuses rather than anything resembling an actual election. Effectiveness there is not a guide to performance in the general election. Note that if the Democrats had primary rules that actually reflected the rules of the Electoral College like the Republicans do -- and since, y'know, that's where they're intending to compete, it kinda makes sense to follow similar rules -- Clinton would have sewn this contest up in a cakewalk. Wouldn't even be close. But since the Democrats have selection methods which overweight the preferences of people whose districts' electoral results are a foregone conclusion one way or another, and underweight the preferences of people who represent those states which will actually be battlegrounds in the real election, and Obama worked those for all they're worth, he's the nominee.
But it's quite possible you are indeed correct. Let's pick this thread up again in five and a half months and hindsight my prognostications then, shall we?
Whatever justification that was used to attack Iraq in the Gulf War does not apply to the war going on here and now.
Yes it does, because this is the same war. The ceasefire that was in effect was terminated because Saddam refused to live up to its terms.
gone. We are the unprovoked aggressors,
How so? You claim that Saddam was not violating the terms of the ceasefire? That is not in accord with reality.
a convenient excuse to justify an otherwise illegal and morally reprehensible war.
How is it illegal? There was a ceasefire in a war authorized by the UN, as legal as a war can get, its terms were violated, that is not factually disputable, so the ceasefire was rescinded. Open, shut.
Do you deny that the terms of the ceasefire were in fact being violated -- that UN inspectors were indeed detained and forbidden entry contrary to its provisions, and that unallowable missiles were indeed found? If you deny that, well sorry dude, I'm taking the word of the UN over your word. Check reality.
Or if you don't deny that, you must be denying that a ceasefire was in effect. Alrighty then -- when and where was the peace treaty signed? Or even an armistice? There is certainly no record of it in anywhere in the reality inhabited by sane people.
If you deny neither, and quite honestly I can't see how anybody that claims any grounding in reality can; well then where does this "illegal" bit come from?
I've been asking people like you who toss off this emotional nonsense sprinkled with "illegal" for what seems like years now -- oh, that's right, it IS years now!! -- and so far none has pointed me at what legal statute it is which this law is in violation of, nor refuted what seems to me to be a very simple progression buttressed by more UN resolutions and hard cold evidence than any war that I can think of, well, ever. I await in joyous anticipation you becoming the first.
Well, ok, I lie. I expect either no reply, or emotional frothing at the mouth which completely ignores the fact that ending a ceasefire for proven violations of its terms is not illegal. But hey, one never knows, perhaps I will be surprised!
Hitler himself didn't want to fight either England or the US, he wanted their allegiance in an anti-Communist alliance. Which would make for a more interesting alternative history series than the Turtledove books, I'm sure.
and assorted offenses against Turkmens, Shi'a, and every other non-Sunni-Arab religion/ethnicity in the region.
How are they comparable?
That's a good question. But for the exact opposite reason you ask it. The genocidal offenses documented above are much more than anything Hitler was known to have done at the time the U.S. declared war on Germany despite never being attacked by Germany, only by a *very* loosely allied country on the completely opposite side of the globe.
From any humanist -- OR pragmatic -- perspective, war to remove Saddam Hussein was unquestionably far more justified than declaring war on Germany was.
I don't think it's actual voting intentions that are the real -- and almost universally overlooked -- problem now for the Democrats.
No, the real issue that they should be sincerely scared of is the effect on *volunteers*.
A modern political campaign requires vast amounts of unpaid bodies to work phones, pass out signs, coordinate GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, yadayadayada -- and although I'm not aware of any formal studies that have been done, anybody who's actually been part of a successful campaign can tell you that the overwhelming majority of actual work is accomplished by middle-to-upper aged white women.
And that is the *exact* demographic that's most bitter and angry that a half-measure of melanin trumps The Glorious Sisterhood in the victimization sweepstakes which Democratic politics has been pretty much reduced to these days (not taking a position here, just channeling their pain) and therefore even if they hold their nose and vote Obama, are not going to be anywhere near as likely to put anywhere near as much or as effective volunteer time if Hillary was the nominee. Assuming she doesn't end up the VP, but even then, there'll still be some of this effect I suspect.
Whether this effect is as strong as I suspect, or strong enough to offset all the other massive advantages Any Generic Democratic Party Candidate has going for them this particular year, who knows, but I think it's going to be a pretty darn interesting point to watch how volunteer turnout this year compares to the last couple of elections for the Democrats.
The sites and publications of all of these organizations.. state the same things.
Not quite as cut and dried as that, but generally yes. The problem is that only organizations that spout that particular line get funding and recognition, which is provided unconditionally. There is no mainstream funding or recognition available for those with contrarian evidence or alternative theories. A particularly horrifying book to read if you have any respect for the scientific method is "The Chilling Stars" about the travails of getting any acknowledgement whatsoever for the Svensmark cosmic ray cloud formation theories.
But hey, you're probably right, I mean I bet all those scientists believe in the moon landings too. Lemmings.
Then they would be idiots, because the moon landing disbelievers have no evidence that cannot be trivially proven to be unfounded. On the other hand, there is absolutely zero direct evidence supporting AGW theories, and the late-20th-century correlation between C02 levels and temperatures which is purported to prove such is contradicted by records both from before 1970 and after 1998. And the models that produce this correlation do not match observations in the Southern Hemisphere, do not match observations of trophospheric temperatures, and have actually got the sign wrong on water vapour feedback effects, since it's clear now that clouds in the real world actually act precisely the opposite of the positive feedback effects that are assumed in those models with absolutely zero proof whatsoever. Meanwhile, real scientists that are actually trying to advance basic knowledge in areas like current shifting, cloud formation, and insolation effects -- in most cases, from a base of absolute zero knowledge -- are not only ignored but are actively denied of tenure, funding, and are hounded as "deniers" in the media for simply thinking that advancing knowledge is a superior alternative to taking completely unfounded assumptions and prostrating to them as the Revealed Will Of God.
This is not science. This is religion. And witch-hunting religion at that.
Well, first off, your choice is not whether to believe me, your choice is whether to believe the actual facts as observed by satellite. I'll leave that up to you.
And, um, wikipedia may be a even-handed resource for some things, but climate change is not one of them. Indeed, in any academic setting, their conduct would amount to actionable dishonesty. Here, let us relate a first hand account of specifically contrafactual editing on their part:... I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop parried: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.
By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists...
A less reliable source of information would be harder to imagine, friend. Even if you refuse to look at the actual facts as I do and I suggest everyone else does, you really need to find an authority to mindlessly follow -- since that's your thing and all -- that at least makes some pretension to actual scientific process.
Nope. Ice shelves break, that's what they do, even in Ice Ages. That there was a 400 km^2 chunk break off recently is really of no great consequence against the overall 1,000,000 km^2 positive anomaly. I suppose it's 0.04% supported, but it's 99.96% not supported. Not being oafish, that seems to me to be pretty clearly in the "not supported" column.
When you see the red line on that graph go below the long term average so that the total amount of ice is actually decreasing instead of increasing, that would contradict the above statements. A chunk here, a chunk there, that's almost certainly due to the wind and wave action of that particular area, not the temperature. If we had daily maps of the thickness of the entire ice cover, then we could see the dynamics of this progress in action and actually know why; however, as we do not have that information, we have to go with the most quantitative factual information we have, which is the graph above, which tells us that ice cover is growing.
Carjacking is theft. Downloading is copyright violation.
The difference is that theft deprives the owner of use of the original.. Copyright violation does not.
An unfalse analogy would be "Should someone who constructs a fibreglass replica of my Lamborighini, violating Lambo's design copyright, be treated less harshly than a carjacker of my Lamborghini, because he never would have actually bought the car at market value?" To which the answer, to any sane person, is "Well, duh."
I don't know many people who just wear whatever the fuck they want. It's sad.
No, that's actually a good thing. Most people look pretty horrible wearing whatever the fuck they want, which is their most worn out and therefore comfortable pair of underwear and nothing else.
Um, actually, that exact thing DID happen to me in 1997, I applied for a job that required 5 years programming in Java on Mac OS, and I pointed out to them in my cover letter that it hadn't been released for that long.
Since I was the only one out of the entire applicant pool that called them on it, I got the job, too:)
So St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates checking up on the people waiting to enter Heaven, and asks the next one in line "So, who are you, and what did you do on Earth?"
So the fellow says "I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be elected President of the United States."
St. Peter says "The U.S.? A black President? You gotta be shittin' me! When did this happen?!?"
In the sense of the word as it is actually used, agnostic means that God is unknowable, or more precisely, that one *believes* that God is unknowable.
No, the word agnostic is actually used with the two distinct meanings of personal ignorance and intrinsic unknowability in the same context. They are distinguished when necessary with a qualifier.
WEAK agnosticism: I have no fucking idea who fucked this shit up. STRONG agnosticism: Nobody has any fucking idea who fucked this shit up.
There is a certain confusion with weak atheism which could (and frequently does) arise, but that is properly reserved for the category of theological noncognitivists,
WEAK atheism: What the fuck do you mean with this God shit? STRONG atheism: Didn't take any God to fuck this shit up.
which is different again from weak theism.
WEAK theism: Somebody fucked this shit up. STRONG theism: God fucked this shit up.
An interesting cross-categorical theological belief not easily represented above is
For instance, all real conservatives value the rights of the individual over rights of the corporation.
D00d...
A real conservative has no truck with that "corporation" nonsense at all. A man is FULLY responsible for his actions. Creeping corporatism is the slippery slope to fascism!
Here in British Columbia the courts have held that a signed non-compete agreement can only be enforced for as long as the company pays the full termination salary of the non-competee. If they won't pony that up, then they can't stop you earning a living with your skills as you see fit.
Far as I'm concerned, that's the PERFECT legal interpretation of a non-compete agreement. You can pay me full salary to do nothing, or you can piss off and stay out of my way; hey, sure, take your pick, ex-boss!
Slashdot Mirror
If it helps to get the retards to pay $100 per year for a set of services they can get elsewhere for free,
.me? To manage them?
.me a cost of exactly 1 hour of my time. Strikes me as a good deal less than I'd sink into replicating it with "free" services.
How long does it take you to find those services? To integrate them all to the convenience level provided by
I currently bill out at $100/hr, which makes
If you're not worth that much, or if you choose to not optimize your time as sensible people do -- that being the only absolutely limited resource there is! -- I respectfully submit that it is you, and not worthwhile people, who is the retard.
I haven't seen a job that listed objective-c as a requirement in, um, well ever.
... every single job I've looked at in the last two years had it as a requirement.
.NET as a requirement.
That's funny
On the other hand, not a single job I've looked at listed Java, C#, or
By your logic, then, those three technologies I list are a "career no go".
Either that, or you have your head up your ass so far you can't figure out that a particular tool set is required for jobs it is appropriate for, and not for ones it isn't appropriate for. I think I'll take "thermain is an ntiwit" for $200 here, Alex!
Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account? That's either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect.
... no, there's a third option. Namely, "they've actually read the IPCC reports".
Errrm
Not only do climate scientists not take this into account, they actively conduct witch hunts on anybody who does attempt to even research it.
Read "The Chilling Stars" for an absolutely horrifying -- if you have any respect for the scientific method at all -- chronicle of how the rather plausible Svensmark theories on linkage of solar activity with cosmic rays and therefore cloud formation and therefore climate change -- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how the historically low amount of clouds in the late 20th C. could very well be responsible for ALL the observed warming relegating C02 to an irrelevance -- was and still is, on the whole, treated with rather less respect and integrity than the Catholic Church gave Gailileo.
Because that apparent relative success is due to Obama gaming the primary selection process, most spectacularly by leveraging the blatant sillinesses of those states that hold caucuses rather than anything resembling an actual election. Effectiveness there is not a guide to performance in the general election. Note that if the Democrats had primary rules that actually reflected the rules of the Electoral College like the Republicans do -- and since, y'know, that's where they're intending to compete, it kinda makes sense to follow similar rules -- Clinton would have sewn this contest up in a cakewalk. Wouldn't even be close. But since the Democrats have selection methods which overweight the preferences of people whose districts' electoral results are a foregone conclusion one way or another, and underweight the preferences of people who represent those states which will actually be battlegrounds in the real election, and Obama worked those for all they're worth, he's the nominee.
But it's quite possible you are indeed correct. Let's pick this thread up again in five and a half months and hindsight my prognostications then, shall we?
Whatever justification that was used to attack Iraq in the Gulf War does not apply to the war going on here and now.
Yes it does, because this is the same war. The ceasefire that was in effect was terminated because Saddam refused to live up to its terms.
gone. We are the unprovoked aggressors,
How so? You claim that Saddam was not violating the terms of the ceasefire? That is not in accord with reality.
a convenient excuse to justify an otherwise illegal and morally reprehensible war.
How is it illegal? There was a ceasefire in a war authorized by the UN, as legal as a war can get, its terms were violated, that is not factually disputable, so the ceasefire was rescinded. Open, shut.
Do you deny that the terms of the ceasefire were in fact being violated -- that UN inspectors were indeed detained and forbidden entry contrary to its provisions, and that unallowable missiles were indeed found? If you deny that, well sorry dude, I'm taking the word of the UN over your word. Check reality.
Or if you don't deny that, you must be denying that a ceasefire was in effect. Alrighty then -- when and where was the peace treaty signed? Or even an armistice? There is certainly no record of it in anywhere in the reality inhabited by sane people.
If you deny neither, and quite honestly I can't see how anybody that claims any grounding in reality can; well then where does this "illegal" bit come from?
I've been asking people like you who toss off this emotional nonsense sprinkled with "illegal" for what seems like years now -- oh, that's right, it IS years now!! -- and so far none has pointed me at what legal statute it is which this law is in violation of, nor refuted what seems to me to be a very simple progression buttressed by more UN resolutions and hard cold evidence than any war that I can think of, well, ever. I await in joyous anticipation you becoming the first.
Well, ok, I lie. I expect either no reply, or emotional frothing at the mouth which completely ignores the fact that ending a ceasefire for proven violations of its terms is not illegal. But hey, one never knows, perhaps I will be surprised!
The US DID NOT declare war on Germany in WWII.
"America declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 and upon Germany two days later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II
You're not saying that wikipedia could possibly be in any way fallible, are you?
Leaving that aside, it's quite clear that Roosevelt had been waging an undeclared war hidden from the public.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html
Hitler himself didn't want to fight either England or the US, he wanted their allegiance in an anti-Communist alliance. Which would make for a more interesting alternative history series than the Turtledove books, I'm sure.
A war fighting a country that has not attacked us, nor attacked any other country...
Well, I suppose that someone could consider that statement not palpably idiotic, for some value of "any other" that excludes the country of Iran,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
the country of Kuwait,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
genocide of the ethnic nation of Kurdistan,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm
genocide of the ethnicity of Marsh Arabs,
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html
and assorted offenses against Turkmens, Shi'a, and every other non-Sunni-Arab religion/ethnicity in the region.
How are they comparable?
That's a good question. But for the exact opposite reason you ask it. The genocidal offenses documented above are much more than anything Hitler was known to have done at the time the U.S. declared war on Germany despite never being attacked by Germany, only by a *very* loosely allied country on the completely opposite side of the globe.
From any humanist -- OR pragmatic -- perspective, war to remove Saddam Hussein was unquestionably far more justified than declaring war on Germany was.
I don't think it's actual voting intentions that are the real -- and almost universally overlooked -- problem now for the Democrats.
No, the real issue that they should be sincerely scared of is the effect on *volunteers*.
A modern political campaign requires vast amounts of unpaid bodies to work phones, pass out signs, coordinate GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, yadayadayada -- and although I'm not aware of any formal studies that have been done, anybody who's actually been part of a successful campaign can tell you that the overwhelming majority of actual work is accomplished by middle-to-upper aged white women.
And that is the *exact* demographic that's most bitter and angry that a half-measure of melanin trumps The Glorious Sisterhood in the victimization sweepstakes which Democratic politics has been pretty much reduced to these days (not taking a position here, just channeling their pain) and therefore even if they hold their nose and vote Obama, are not going to be anywhere near as likely to put anywhere near as much or as effective volunteer time if Hillary was the nominee. Assuming she doesn't end up the VP, but even then, there'll still be some of this effect I suspect.
Whether this effect is as strong as I suspect, or strong enough to offset all the other massive advantages Any Generic Democratic Party Candidate has going for them this particular year, who knows, but I think it's going to be a pretty darn interesting point to watch how volunteer turnout this year compares to the last couple of elections for the Democrats.
Actually, the Vancouver job market is getting pretty simple these days. Sod the recruiters, pretty much all the jobs show up here.
... hmm, well, actually, that's pretty much all you really need to get along fine in Vancouver. See ya soon, mate.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/
Seriously.
One other address you may find useful: This can be helpful with getting your place furnished while you're waiting to actually have money.
http://www.freecycle.org/group/CA/British%20Columbia/Vancouver
And
The sites and publications of all of these organizations .. state the same things.
Not quite as cut and dried as that, but generally yes. The problem is that only organizations that spout that particular line get funding and recognition, which is provided unconditionally. There is no mainstream funding or recognition available for those with contrarian evidence or alternative theories. A particularly horrifying book to read if you have any respect for the scientific method is "The Chilling Stars" about the travails of getting any acknowledgement whatsoever for the Svensmark cosmic ray cloud formation theories.
But hey, you're probably right, I mean I bet all those scientists believe in the moon landings too. Lemmings.
Then they would be idiots, because the moon landing disbelievers have no evidence that cannot be trivially proven to be unfounded. On the other hand, there is absolutely zero direct evidence supporting AGW theories, and the late-20th-century correlation between C02 levels and temperatures which is purported to prove such is contradicted by records both from before 1970 and after 1998. And the models that produce this correlation do not match observations in the Southern Hemisphere, do not match observations of trophospheric temperatures, and have actually got the sign wrong on water vapour feedback effects, since it's clear now that clouds in the real world actually act precisely the opposite of the positive feedback effects that are assumed in those models with absolutely zero proof whatsoever. Meanwhile, real scientists that are actually trying to advance basic knowledge in areas like current shifting, cloud formation, and insolation effects -- in most cases, from a base of absolute zero knowledge -- are not only ignored but are actively denied of tenure, funding, and are hounded as "deniers" in the media for simply thinking that advancing knowledge is a superior alternative to taking completely unfounded assumptions and prostrating to them as the Revealed Will Of God.
This is not science. This is religion. And witch-hunting religion at that.
So what you're saying is that 2.5% of 7.3M is more than 3% of 15M (numbers from the links you posted)?
No, I'm saying that 18% of 7.3M is more than 2.7% of 15M. Current actual numbers, not trend lines.
This must be the "new math" I keep hearing about!
I'm pretty sure that the "old math" would back me up on this one too.
Well, first off, your choice is not whether to believe me, your choice is whether to believe the actual facts as observed by satellite. I'll leave that up to you.
... I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
And, um, wikipedia may be a even-handed resource for some things, but climate change is not one of them. Indeed, in any academic setting, their conduct would amount to actionable dishonesty. Here, let us relate a first hand account of specifically contrafactual editing on their part:
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop parried: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.
By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists...
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1
A less reliable source of information would be harder to imagine, friend. Even if you refuse to look at the actual facts as I do and I suggest everyone else does, you really need to find an authority to mindlessly follow -- since that's your thing and all -- that at least makes some pretension to actual scientific process.
Nope. Ice shelves break, that's what they do, even in Ice Ages. That there was a 400 km^2 chunk break off recently is really of no great consequence against the overall 1,000,000 km^2 positive anomaly. I suppose it's 0.04% supported, but it's 99.96% not supported. Not being oafish, that seems to me to be pretty clearly in the "not supported" column.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
When you see the red line on that graph go below the long term average so that the total amount of ice is actually decreasing instead of increasing, that would contradict the above statements. A chunk here, a chunk there, that's almost certainly due to the wind and wave action of that particular area, not the temperature. If we had daily maps of the thickness of the entire ice cover, then we could see the dynamics of this progress in action and actually know why; however, as we do not have that information, we have to go with the most quantitative factual information we have, which is the graph above, which tells us that ice cover is growing.
It's now almost certain that the world's ice shelves are melting
... only for some value of "certain" which equates to "certainly not" is that a defensible statement, methinks.
Funny, that's not what the actual facts show. We're at the highest ever recorded ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere right now:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html
which already more than balances out the Northern Hemisphere's recent decline,
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html
and now that the PDO has entered a cool phase,
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
it's as certain as anything to do with climate is that you're going to see that trend smartly reverse itself as well.
Soooooo
For your sake, I hope your company doesn't have any trade secrets.
For your sake, I hope you're not stupid enough to think that your company's trade secrets are safe in email that doesn't go through gmail...
Care to tell me exactly what the user of GPL software is not free to do?
Eat.
Because that requires being able to make money at what you're doing.
False analogy.
Carjacking is theft. Downloading is copyright violation.
The difference is that theft deprives the owner of use of the original.. Copyright violation does not.
An unfalse analogy would be "Should someone who constructs a fibreglass replica of my Lamborighini, violating Lambo's design copyright, be treated less harshly than a carjacker of my Lamborghini, because he never would have actually bought the car at market value?" To which the answer, to any sane person, is "Well, duh."
I don't know many people who just wear whatever the fuck they want. It's sad.
No, that's actually a good thing. Most people look pretty horrible wearing whatever the fuck they want, which is their most worn out and therefore comfortable pair of underwear and nothing else.
Um, actually, that exact thing DID happen to me in 1997, I applied for a job that required 5 years programming in Java on Mac OS, and I pointed out to them in my cover letter that it hadn't been released for that long.
:)
Since I was the only one out of the entire applicant pool that called them on it, I got the job, too
Well, um, Messr. Fidel was the only sitting head of state to attend Pierre Trudeau's funeral, you know.
I'd say the "strong allies" impression counts as a fair cop.
So St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates checking up on the people waiting to enter Heaven, and asks the next one in line "So, who are you, and what did you do on Earth?"
So the fellow says "I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be elected President of the United States."
St. Peter says "The U.S.? A black President? You gotta be shittin' me! When did this happen?!?"
And Obama says "About twenty seconds ago."
In the sense of the word as it is actually used, agnostic means that God is unknowable, or more precisely, that one *believes* that God is unknowable.
No, the word agnostic is actually used with the two distinct meanings of personal ignorance and intrinsic unknowability in the same context. They are distinguished when necessary with a qualifier.
WEAK agnosticism: I have no fucking idea who fucked this shit up.
STRONG agnosticism: Nobody has any fucking idea who fucked this shit up.
There is a certain confusion with weak atheism which could (and frequently does) arise, but that is properly reserved for the category of theological noncognitivists,
WEAK atheism: What the fuck do you mean with this God shit?
STRONG atheism: Didn't take any God to fuck this shit up.
which is different again from weak theism.
WEAK theism: Somebody fucked this shit up.
STRONG theism: God fucked this shit up.
An interesting cross-categorical theological belief not easily represented above is
DEISM: God set this shit up and it fucked itself.
And of course, theological Slashdotism,
SOVIET RUSSIA: This shit fucks YOU up!
For instance, all real conservatives value the rights of the individual over rights of the corporation.
...
D00d
A real conservative has no truck with that "corporation" nonsense at all. A man is FULLY responsible for his actions. Creeping corporatism is the slippery slope to fascism!
Here in British Columbia the courts have held that a signed non-compete agreement can only be enforced for as long as the company pays the full termination salary of the non-competee. If they won't pony that up, then they can't stop you earning a living with your skills as you see fit.
Far as I'm concerned, that's the PERFECT legal interpretation of a non-compete agreement. You can pay me full salary to do nothing, or you can piss off and stay out of my way; hey, sure, take your pick, ex-boss!
Why, thank you. Doesn't look like a bad site, but my attitude toward the utility of firearms is more in line with these fine fellows.
http://www.pinkpistols.com/