"The AEC rejected the FOI application, citing section 45 of the FOI Act, which exempts "documents that disclose trade secrets"."
You don't expect that trade secrets should be made public, do you? Look the code is not open source and is valuable intellectual property... so I hope I don't get my ass sued off for revealing it here:
"At mature software companies hundreds of non-programmers are telling the programmers what to do, and it only gums up the works. "
And the other option is.... Linux! Where the programmers design everything with no consideration of what non-programmers want/need. LOL! [fyi Linux is unusable for anybody who is not a programmer].
The guy at Microsoft who wrote the fantastic Charms Bar and Start Tile Screen that pops up whenever you are in the middle of something, forcing you to stop and press the "Windows Key" to get back to the desktop where you were doing something useful. He should remain anonymous for his own protection!
It is irrelevant to write "Google engineer Jon Skeet".
He currently is listed as working for google as an engineer, but before he joined Google he already had the highest stack overflow reputation already. Listing him as Google Engineer makes it sound as though Google had something to do with it. What if you photograph him licking an ice cream? Are you going to write "Ice Cream Licker Jon Skeet"?
Scientists have conducted simulations using super computers and whole bunch of formulas to test the impact that these devices might have on climate. Their research was inconclusive due to lack of funding but they say that it could lead to devastating planetary dryness and eventually global catastrophe. They are requesting another $10bn annually to continue the important research and have begun to lobby for Al Gore to become their fund raising spokesperson. Meanwhile a base of deniers is building who deny that these devices will cause any harm. They are all funded by big oil though and their opinions do not count.
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years"
That is the dumbest statement I have read all day. You are taking 3 data points at the end of a 204 datapoint series, where each datapoint has massive error bars - one which contains seasonalities of several frequencies, and claiming that those 3 datapoints puts to bed a 'fact' which is based on the 204 data points!
Not to mention the issues surrounding the measurements (Urban Heat Island Effect, most readings were taken in the Northern Hemisphere, hardly any reading over the most of the Oceans which comprise 2/3 of the area, measurements become very sparse as we go back in time, etc...). But hey! You have 3 data points which vaguely support your beliefs and so they must "put to bed" any doubts.
The fact is that we do not know whether the temperature will now rise in the manner suggested by the IPCC, even though they got it wrong for decades, or whether it will continue along the plateau or whether, shock horror, it might fall. It is very difficult to predict the temperature over more than a few weeks/months.
The fact is, that the IPCC predictions in the past of temperatures were a lot higher than they turned out to be. They got it wrong over, and over again. But hey! You have 3 data points which are slightly high, not within any significance above the error in the measurement, but hey, it does support your belief. But is it science?
You have 3 data points with huge error bars. Have you got a Ph.D. in Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data? If you have then you should ask for a refund.
Do these Jews, many of them dual citizens of Israel, do they have American or Israeli/Jewish interests at heart when they decide to continue funding their own racist nation of Israel where only Jewish immigrant are welcome? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"The NIH invests nearly $30.1* billion annually in medical research for the American people." http://www.nih.gov/about/budge......and they spend $1,000 Bn on a fleet of planes to kill Arabs for Israel.
FYI "The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. " http://www.nature.com/news/egy...
"Haplogroup I2 is the most common paternal lineage in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Sardinia, and a major lineage in most Slavic countries. Its maximum frequencies are observed in Bosnia (55%, including 71% in Bosnian Croats), Sardinia (39.5%), Croatia (38%), Serbia (33%), Montenegro (31%), Romania (28%), Moldova (24%), Macedonia (24%), Slovenia (22%), Bulgaria (22%), Belarus (18.5%), Hungary (18%), Slovakia (17.5%), Ukraine (13.5%), and Albania (13.5%). It is found at a frequency of 5 to 10% in Germanic countries." http://www.eupedia.com/europe/...
Why don't you grow some balls, get an account and post a criticism of the content rather than hiding behind Anonymous Coward, calling me an asshole, and accusing me of trying to cover-up with a claim of sarcasm.
If you read what I wrote (assuming you are able to read more than a single sentence in one sitting) then you will see that I wrote "you will discover that there is a sense of sarcasm in my writing there". That is not a claim that it was entirely sarcastic just that there was a sense of sarcasm.
And then I said: But since you want to discuss it - let's discuss.
Not at all. I have nothing to cover up. The fact is that my original post was sarcastic as you can see from the tone of the thread. But my argument is a serious one. I have hidden nothing - Anonymous Coward! Oh, the irony!
1. If you read the tone of the thread then you will discover that there is a sense of sarcasm in my writing there. The idea that as a Christian nation we should not help people who are dying of thirst, no matter who they are or how they came to be thirsty, does certainly deserve some sarcasm.
2. Since you raised several points, let's discuss:
a) "Besides the obviously racist connotation" Well you can't discuss planetary thirst and how thirsty people became thirsty without discussing Black people since they are mainly the ones who are thirsty and you can't discuss Black people as a group without having a "racist connotation".
A digression: Do you believe in Freedom Of Speech, or not? What does it mean to "believe" in something? It means that you will promote it and not discourage it. Well your actions in trying to call me a "racist" are an action which attempt to discourage free speech. So think about it before you go around throwing labels at people you disagree with. Think about what you are doing: You are saying, "I do not believe in your right to speak freely and will try to shame you into not speaking your mind by calling you a racist, which I know is a loaded word that works in 99% of cases to completely close down any discussion".
It is about time that you, and many others, learnt to allow people to discuss a topic that you find uncomfortable without trying to close down the discussion by screaming "racist", "hater", "homophobe", "sexist", "anti semite" etc... Words which are designed with one purpose in mind: To close down any discussion. To deny truly free speech by attempting to add a bad social stigma to your adversary. So that people who might agree with my side but do not have the guts to withstand being called a "racist" will just be silent and deny themselves the right to speak freely. Well, bucko, I do have the right to free speech and you trying to attach stigma words to me is not going to shut me up.
Have you heard of the saying? If you want to know what a Liberal thinks about free speech, say something they disagree with and you will find out from their Lawyers!
End digression.
b) "They didn't "figure" it out because they didn't have to. " Well, as evidenced by their current thirst it appears that they did have to!... er, but didn't.
c)"They survived millions of years because they developed appropriate technology for their needs." Technology? Please show us the link to the AfroFone which was on the African market millions of years ago. "Technology". Come on. Pull the other one. When Africa was discovered by Whites, what did they find? Did they find civilized Blacks who had built transport systems, commerce, education, hospitals, publishing, legal systems, well trained armies, a navy, an airforce etc..? No. They did not. You just said yourself that they didn't do anything like that, with the excuse that it was because they did not have to due to their "forgiving environment".
But was their environment really so forgiving? No. It was not. Let's go and live in the jungle, you and I will go there tomorrow completely naked, in Africa and see how forgiving we find it. I find it incredible that you think that Africa is a forgiving environment. Have you ever gone into the jungles in Congo by yourself without supplies and tried to survive for even a week?
Also, the different tribes were fighting against each other all of the time. That presents a need for advancements in weaponry and warfare education etc... but they developed none of that in the millions of years that you refer to. It is often said that whites developed technology in modern times mainly to win wars. I don't accept that, but that is the common lore. Well how come the Blacks in Africa did not do the same? Or the Aborigines in Oceania? Or the First Nation people in Canada? Or the North American Indians? They were all constantly at war amongst themselves. They were not a peaceful people living in harmony with nature as the propaganda suggests. Life was a
Okay. That's a good point. I change my mind:-). The article is about people who decide to get rid of their phone altogether though. Easiest way it just smash it up and throw it in the river.
Not at all. If fact I am a very emotionally unpleasant person. My personal view is that we should not do any charity apart from domestically. Including supplying water. Let's face it, most people who die of thirst/famine are black and have never in 100,000's years done anything to build a technology to help them to survive. It is not my problem that they are too stupid to figure out how to obtain a continuous and adequate supply of clean water!
So like I wrote before: "Just let them die of thirst then."
Obama might find a way to stay around. Or his handlers might. He is the most useful idiot they have had so far.
Actually scratch that, you know what we need? A woman! Last time around I voted for the black guy, this time I'm voting for a woman. Gooooooo ME! I am like, so liberated! After that I will vote for a gay guy. And then a lesbian.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no. There was a world before Google, I lived in it, I learnt in it.
1. What you wrote was called speculation then, and it is called speculation now.
2. You are a bit late to the party! By about 5 days.
"The AEC rejected the FOI application, citing section 45 of the FOI Act, which exempts "documents that disclose trade secrets"."
You don't expect that trade secrets should be made public, do you? Look the code is not open source and is valuable intellectual property... so I hope I don't get my ass sued off for revealing it here:
int voteCount = votes.Count();
"At mature software companies hundreds of non-programmers are telling the programmers what to do, and it only gums up the works. "
And the other option is.... Linux! Where the programmers design everything with no consideration of what non-programmers want/need. LOL! [fyi Linux is unusable for anybody who is not a programmer].
The guy at Microsoft who wrote the fantastic Charms Bar and Start Tile Screen that pops up whenever you are in the middle of something, forcing you to stop and press the "Windows Key" to get back to the desktop where you were doing something useful. He should remain anonymous for his own protection!
It is irrelevant to write "Google engineer Jon Skeet".
He currently is listed as working for google as an engineer, but before he joined Google he already had the highest stack overflow reputation already. Listing him as Google Engineer makes it sound as though Google had something to do with it. What if you photograph him licking an ice cream? Are you going to write "Ice Cream Licker Jon Skeet"?
Scientists have conducted simulations using super computers and whole bunch of formulas to test the impact that these devices might have on climate. Their research was inconclusive due to lack of funding but they say that it could lead to devastating planetary dryness and eventually global catastrophe. They are requesting another $10bn annually to continue the important research and have begun to lobby for Al Gore to become their fund raising spokesperson. Meanwhile a base of deniers is building who deny that these devices will cause any harm. They are all funded by big oil though and their opinions do not count.
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years"
That is the dumbest statement I have read all day. You are taking 3 data points at the end of a 204 datapoint series, where each datapoint has massive error bars - one which contains seasonalities of several frequencies, and claiming that those 3 datapoints puts to bed a 'fact' which is based on the 204 data points!
Not to mention the issues surrounding the measurements (Urban Heat Island Effect, most readings were taken in the Northern Hemisphere, hardly any reading over the most of the Oceans which comprise 2/3 of the area, measurements become very sparse as we go back in time, etc...). But hey! You have 3 data points which vaguely support your beliefs and so they must "put to bed" any doubts.
The fact is that we do not know whether the temperature will now rise in the manner suggested by the IPCC, even though they got it wrong for decades, or whether it will continue along the plateau or whether, shock horror, it might fall. It is very difficult to predict the temperature over more than a few weeks/months.
The fact is, that the IPCC predictions in the past of temperatures were a lot higher than they turned out to be. They got it wrong over, and over again. But hey! You have 3 data points which are slightly high, not within any significance above the error in the measurement, but hey, it does support your belief. But is it science?
You have 3 data points with huge error bars. Have you got a Ph.D. in Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data? If you have then you should ask for a refund.
That is all there is to say. F-U-C-K Y-O-U!
I don't have time to educate you today.
Incorrect.
Whites or Jews?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...
Do these Jews, many of them dual citizens of Israel, do they have American or Israeli/Jewish interests at heart when they decide to continue funding their own racist nation of Israel where only Jewish immigrant are welcome?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"The NIH invests nearly $30.1* billion annually in medical research for the American people." ...and they spend $1,000 Bn on a fleet of planes to kill Arabs for Israel.
http://www.nih.gov/about/budge...
FYI
"The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. "
http://www.nature.com/news/egy...
"Haplogroup I2 is the most common paternal lineage in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Sardinia, and a major lineage in most Slavic countries. Its maximum frequencies are observed in Bosnia (55%, including 71% in Bosnian Croats), Sardinia (39.5%), Croatia (38%), Serbia (33%), Montenegro (31%), Romania (28%), Moldova (24%), Macedonia (24%), Slovenia (22%), Bulgaria (22%), Belarus (18.5%), Hungary (18%), Slovakia (17.5%), Ukraine (13.5%), and Albania (13.5%). It is found at a frequency of 5 to 10% in Germanic countries."
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/...
Why don't you grow some balls, get an account and post a criticism of the content rather than hiding behind Anonymous Coward, calling me an asshole, and accusing me of trying to cover-up with a claim of sarcasm.
If you read what I wrote (assuming you are able to read more than a single sentence in one sitting) then you will see that I wrote "you will discover that there is a sense of sarcasm in my writing there". That is not a claim that it was entirely sarcastic just that there was a sense of sarcasm.
And then I said: But since you want to discuss it - let's discuss.
Now, either grow a pair or fuck off.
Not at all. I have nothing to cover up. The fact is that my original post was sarcastic as you can see from the tone of the thread. But my argument is a serious one. I have hidden nothing - Anonymous Coward! Oh, the irony!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Discuss!
"James Harris Simons was born to a Jewish family"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
So you want him to spend the money in Israel?
I certainly do not despise him. He is the one of the most successful algo traders in history.
You are a twat.
1. If you read the tone of the thread then you will discover that there is a sense of sarcasm in my writing there. The idea that as a Christian nation we should not help people who are dying of thirst, no matter who they are or how they came to be thirsty, does certainly deserve some sarcasm.
2. Since you raised several points, let's discuss:
a) "Besides the obviously racist connotation"
Well you can't discuss planetary thirst and how thirsty people became thirsty without discussing Black people since they are mainly the ones who are thirsty and you can't discuss Black people as a group without having a "racist connotation".
A digression:
Do you believe in Freedom Of Speech, or not? What does it mean to "believe" in something? It means that you will promote it and not discourage it. Well your actions in trying to call me a "racist" are an action which attempt to discourage free speech. So think about it before you go around throwing labels at people you disagree with. Think about what you are doing: You are saying, "I do not believe in your right to speak freely and will try to shame you into not speaking your mind by calling you a racist, which I know is a loaded word that works in 99% of cases to completely close down any discussion".
It is about time that you, and many others, learnt to allow people to discuss a topic that you find uncomfortable without trying to close down the discussion by screaming "racist", "hater", "homophobe", "sexist", "anti semite" etc... Words which are designed with one purpose in mind: To close down any discussion. To deny truly free speech by attempting to add a bad social stigma to your adversary. So that people who might agree with my side but do not have the guts to withstand being called a "racist" will just be silent and deny themselves the right to speak freely. Well, bucko, I do have the right to free speech and you trying to attach stigma words to me is not going to shut me up.
Have you heard of the saying? If you want to know what a Liberal thinks about free speech, say something they disagree with and you will find out from their Lawyers!
End digression.
b) "They didn't "figure" it out because they didn't have to. " ... er, but didn't.
Well, as evidenced by their current thirst it appears that they did have to!
c)"They survived millions of years because they developed appropriate technology for their needs."
Technology? Please show us the link to the AfroFone which was on the African market millions of years ago. "Technology". Come on. Pull the other one. When Africa was discovered by Whites, what did they find? Did they find civilized Blacks who had built transport systems, commerce, education, hospitals, publishing, legal systems, well trained armies, a navy, an airforce etc..? No. They did not. You just said yourself that they didn't do anything like that, with the excuse that it was because they did not have to due to their "forgiving environment".
But was their environment really so forgiving? No. It was not. Let's go and live in the jungle, you and I will go there tomorrow completely naked, in Africa and see how forgiving we find it. I find it incredible that you think that Africa is a forgiving environment. Have you ever gone into the jungles in Congo by yourself without supplies and tried to survive for even a week?
Also, the different tribes were fighting against each other all of the time. That presents a need for advancements in weaponry and warfare education etc... but they developed none of that in the millions of years that you refer to. It is often said that whites developed technology in modern times mainly to win wars. I don't accept that, but that is the common lore. Well how come the Blacks in Africa did not do the same? Or the Aborigines in Oceania? Or the First Nation people in Canada? Or the North American Indians? They were all constantly at war amongst themselves. They were not a peaceful people living in harmony with nature as the propaganda suggests. Life was a
Okay. That's a good point. I change my mind :-). The article is about people who decide to get rid of their phone altogether though. Easiest way it just smash it up and throw it in the river.
Not at all. If fact I am a very emotionally unpleasant person. My personal view is that we should not do any charity apart from domestically. Including supplying water. Let's face it, most people who die of thirst/famine are black and have never in 100,000's years done anything to build a technology to help them to survive. It is not my problem that they are too stupid to figure out how to obtain a continuous and adequate supply of clean water!
So like I wrote before: "Just let them die of thirst then."
Obama might find a way to stay around. Or his handlers might. He is the most useful idiot they have had so far.
Actually scratch that, you know what we need? A woman! Last time around I voted for the black guy, this time I'm voting for a woman. Gooooooo ME! I am like, so liberated! After that I will vote for a gay guy. And then a lesbian.
Policies? Oh, who cares about policies!
It would be incongruous with the idea of saving the planet from the evils of Carbon to launch spacecrafts.
Oh. Just let them die of thirst then.
That's nice for the Nepalese people.