The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health came out in 1964. It clearly and undeniably showed the evidence that smoking was harmful. Now, 50 years later, only about 1/2 of the states have actually banned smoking in enclosed public spaces.
Have you ever actually bothered to read said report? I have, and I can tell you, referring to the "science" within as flawed is speaking quite generously. "Outright lies" would be a more accurate measure of most of what's contained within (but don't take my word for it, read it, objectively, for yourself).
Why does anyone expect America to respond to AGW any quicker or more effectively?
Well, I would say that it's because most people don't want to legislate behavior based on bad science, but that's obviously not true...
I bought my house and went crazy upside down on it. I'm in the better part of nation for climate predictions. Looks like my property value is set to skyrocket once everyone else runs out of water/food.
I'm thinking about putting some signs along the northern border of Arkansas that read, "Beachfront community coming soon - development begins 2025 - 2050!"
Knowing how folks around here are, I question how many of them will get the 'joke...'
Personally, I think the sad thing is that he actually has a pretty solid point.
Like the Serenity prayer says, "Grant me the strength to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Downside: You'll go down in history as being a part of the problem rather than the solution. Your descendants will wonder what the hell you were thinking.
I doubt OP has enough power and clout to "go down in history" for anything of note.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much his point - we could all forsake technology, sell our cars, move into electricity-less mud huts, and farm all our own food using sustainable means, and the difference our actions will make equate to fuck-all, thanks to energy company exec and national powers. Might as well enjoy life and not sweat the (relatively) small stuff.
The dark humor side of me also wants to add, I live on the Ozark Plateau; worst comes to worst, I'll end up with beach-front property.
...in any case taking expensive (by whatever measure) local actions while they burn coal by the tonne in China is spitting in the wind...
FYI, that's the only thing you said that was really worth saying, and it makes an excellent point - no matter how much Joe Treehugger in Plantlove, WA curbs his carbon output, unless nations and energy corporations lead the charge, there will be no notable change in the direction we're heading.
Now granted, I'm not about to intentionally release CFCs into the atmosphere or anything like that, but spending time, money, and energy on being "green" seems a moot point, other than the fiscal freedom that energy independence has to offer.
There is exactly zero evidence that the US or EU played any part in the Maiden movement. If there is I challenge you to provide it.
There are two sides to this story: 1. The Russian side (what you're repeating, partially) 2. The truth
There are 3 sides to every story - his side, her side, and the truth, which lies somewhere in between.
We in the west have a legitimate free press. It may be imperfect, it may be incompetent, but it's legitimately free to report what it wants and no single government has any controls to stop it.
That would be funny, if the reality of it wasn't so damn sad.
FYI, the "free" press you speak of? For sale to the highest bidder. Unless, of course, you're referring to the "press" in the Constitutional sense, which would refer to a printing press, which yes, would still be considered "free," since anyone can print anything they want, provided they have the time and materials.
Getting folks to listen is another story altogether.
Citation please? There IS fraud in US elections, no question about that, but not enough to call them "rigged". (And I'm a right wing type who's side has been loosing elections a lot lately.)
IMO:
"None of the Above" isn't an option; ergo, rigged.
Yeah man, it's much harder to believe this than the originally posted results.
Are you kidding me?
I don't see where OP ever said that this claim was "harder to believe" than the previous one; rather, they merely pointed out that, due to the media's role as 'unofficial propaganda outlets' for whatever regime happens to be footing the bill this week, anything that's claimed but not verified is suspect information. And he's right about that.
Of course, it seems you've already decided which "truth" you're going to believe, facts (or lack thereof) be damned.
And that's why you're part of the problem, not the solution.
One last thing that just about no one knows about. All of the major news outlets proclaimed Florida to Gore before voting was finished in Florida. Florida resides in two time zones and the northwest "handle" of Florida is heavily Republican. Many voters left lines while voting was open once Florida was called for Gore. IF that hadn't have happened, the recount wouldn't have been close at all.
If that's really true, well, those folks who walked out have nobody to blame but themselves.
By that same logic, the people who boycotted the Crimean vote being discussed here also have no one to blame but themselves for the result, right?
Personally, until "None of the Above" is considered a viable option in an election, I'm going to continue to consider the whole fucking process rigged.
You do realize stopping the flow of gas to Europe would hurt Europe more than it would Russia, don't you? That is why there are only economic sanctions going on and not the stopping of gas purchases because Europe needs that gas. And Russia knows this.
Indeed; they also know that the only way to ensure that Russia sells their oil to Europe would be to start a land war in Asia, and as we all should well know, you never want to be involved in a land war in Asia.
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Puh-LEEZ.
You're not cool unless you own a bag phone like this one.
... Which I do, thankyouverymuch. [insert cocky, derisive hipster laugh]
I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.
It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.
its true, though, that the republicans are the main force in the 'culture of fear' that we are stuck in the middle of.
Democrats use fear just as much as Republicans do, albeit in regards to different issues; using people's natural fear of mass-killings to try and diminish our right to self-armament, for example.
republicans are the owners of the military machine. that exists only when there is fear in us of some foreign boogeyman.
I'd bet dollars against pesos that if you did a little research, you'd find just as many names with a D next to them that are getting rich off the MIC as you'd see names with an R.
the dems are in the pockets of entertainment (as a contrast) and that's not that much of a fear-based business (other than the threat of suits from mpaa/riaa).
FEAR your neighbor, he might own a gun!
FEAR all the bad that will happen due to your your lack of health insurance, and sign up for Obamacare!
FEAR your district being taken over by a Republican, he'll take away your right to make your own medical decisions*!
Shall I go on? As I pointed out before, Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for playing off people's fears to garner support.
* Ironic, juxtaposed against the previous statement, isn't it?
fear of terrorism is mostly an invention of the republicans, though. they love to see us all cower and do whatever they say.
Ever hear of a lady named Diane Feinstein? She's built a career out of convincing the (very wealthy) people in her district that those of us who are not (very wealthy and) in her district are a bunch of gun-toting terrorists who need to be disarmed - you know, for our own good.
dems are shit-fucks, too; but their main business is not about controlling people by fear of terrorism. there is some of that, but its not their main party platform like it is for the R's.
I'll give you that both parties suck shit so bad, we need to dissolve them both. but one is most certainly a lot more evil than the other.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Don't know if you're an ignorant American or an EU pacifist, but we tried doing nothing before (see Jimmy Carter presidency).
Oh, well, gee Wally, I didn't realize that we only had 2 options here - killing large numbers of innocents in order to "get" one guy, or doing nothing. How silly of me to think there might be something else that can be done that doesn't involve murdering children and turning them against us.
A couple of years ago, Darren Kitchen of Hak5 interviewed Amal Graafstra, who had an RFID implanted in his hand for accessing his office building and starting his motorcycle. Neat stuff.
I like the standard keys. And really, just because one manufacturer happened to use a defective part, we lose them? Key switches have been around for decade and are reliable. Just fix the reliability issue in that one model and that's it.
It isn't one manufacturer. There have been over 20 million recalled vehicles due to ignition switch problems, from basically every manufacturer, over the last 30 years.
That doesn't qualify as "reliable" in my book.
Right, because it's not like there's ever been, nor ever will be an issue with push-button ignitions that may incite a recall of millions of vehicles, right?
FYI, contrary to the summary's baseless contention, "Electrical" is not always greater than "mechanical." Otherwise, parking brakes wouldn't still be engaged with steel cables.
In a newer engine, the computer controls all aspects of starting and running; timing, spark intensity, fuel quantity, mixture, etc. Holding down the key and cranking is no longer everything needed to start a cranky engine.
No, but sometimes it is an effective and useful diagnostic tool.
Oh, right, we're not supposed to work on our own vehicles anymore, how silly of me to forget.
Just like how Bush Sr didn't come up with the phrase, "no new taxes," but when I hear that phrase he immediately springs to mind... or rather, Dana Carvey's dead-on impression of him.
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
But that is precisely what is going on.
Since Obama came on the scene, I've learned that when a politician prefaces a statement with, "let me be clear," chances are good that he's going to be anything but.
Slashdot Mirror
BSD - Blowing Shit up with Drones
Because the efforts are global, and the feed into other anti-vaxxers, as well as fund them.
Right, because misogynistic societies like Pakistan and Syria have a long history of giving a fuck what women have to say...
Oh, not just women, but hedonistic Western women. Who became famous for sexual exploits.
Yea, sure, that's the ticket...
The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health came out in 1964. It clearly and undeniably showed the evidence that smoking was harmful. Now, 50 years later, only about 1/2 of the states have actually banned smoking in enclosed public spaces.
Have you ever actually bothered to read said report? I have, and I can tell you, referring to the "science" within as flawed is speaking quite generously. "Outright lies" would be a more accurate measure of most of what's contained within (but don't take my word for it, read it, objectively, for yourself).
Why does anyone expect America to respond to AGW any quicker or more effectively?
Well, I would say that it's because most people don't want to legislate behavior based on bad science, but that's obviously not true...
I bought my house and went crazy upside down on it. I'm in the better part of nation for climate predictions. Looks like my property value is set to skyrocket once everyone else runs out of water/food.
I'm thinking about putting some signs along the northern border of Arkansas that read, "Beachfront community coming soon - development begins 2025 - 2050!"
Knowing how folks around here are, I question how many of them will get the 'joke...'
Personally, I think the sad thing is that he actually has a pretty solid point.
Like the Serenity prayer says, "Grant me the strength to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Now, how 'bout that beer?
Downside: You'll go down in history as being a part of the problem rather than the solution. Your descendants will wonder what the hell you were thinking.
I doubt OP has enough power and clout to "go down in history" for anything of note.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much his point - we could all forsake technology, sell our cars, move into electricity-less mud huts, and farm all our own food using sustainable means, and the difference our actions will make equate to fuck-all, thanks to energy company exec and national powers. Might as well enjoy life and not sweat the (relatively) small stuff.
The dark humor side of me also wants to add, I live on the Ozark Plateau; worst comes to worst, I'll end up with beach-front property.
...in any case taking expensive (by whatever measure) local actions while they burn coal by the tonne in China is spitting in the wind...
FYI, that's the only thing you said that was really worth saying, and it makes an excellent point - no matter how much Joe Treehugger in Plantlove, WA curbs his carbon output, unless nations and energy corporations lead the charge, there will be no notable change in the direction we're heading.
Now granted, I'm not about to intentionally release CFCs into the atmosphere or anything like that, but spending time, money, and energy on being "green" seems a moot point, other than the fiscal freedom that energy independence has to offer.
The smart money is on assuming all editorials lack fact-checking. Otherwise they wouldn't be called 'editorials.'
There is exactly zero evidence that the US or EU played any part in the Maiden movement. If there is I challenge you to provide it.
There are two sides to this story:
1. The Russian side (what you're repeating, partially)
2. The truth
There are 3 sides to every story - his side, her side, and the truth, which lies somewhere in between.
We in the west have a legitimate free press. It may be imperfect, it may be incompetent, but it's legitimately free to report what it wants and no single government has any controls to stop it.
That would be funny, if the reality of it wasn't so damn sad.
FYI, the "free" press you speak of? For sale to the highest bidder. Unless, of course, you're referring to the "press" in the Constitutional sense, which would refer to a printing press, which yes, would still be considered "free," since anyone can print anything they want, provided they have the time and materials.
Getting folks to listen is another story altogether.
Citation please? There IS fraud in US elections, no question about that, but not enough to call them "rigged". (And I'm a right wing type who's side has been loosing elections a lot lately.)
IMO:
"None of the Above" isn't an option; ergo, rigged.
Yeah man, it's much harder to believe this than the originally posted results.
Are you kidding me?
I don't see where OP ever said that this claim was "harder to believe" than the previous one; rather, they merely pointed out that, due to the media's role as 'unofficial propaganda outlets' for whatever regime happens to be footing the bill this week, anything that's claimed but not verified is suspect information. And he's right about that.
Of course, it seems you've already decided which "truth" you're going to believe, facts (or lack thereof) be damned.
And that's why you're part of the problem, not the solution.
If that's really true, well, those folks who walked out have nobody to blame but themselves.
By that same logic, the people who boycotted the Crimean vote being discussed here also have no one to blame but themselves for the result, right?
Personally, until "None of the Above" is considered a viable option in an election, I'm going to continue to consider the whole fucking process rigged.
You do realize stopping the flow of gas to Europe would hurt Europe more than it would Russia, don't you? That is why there are only economic sanctions going on and not the stopping of gas purchases because Europe needs that gas. And Russia knows this.
Indeed; they also know that the only way to ensure that Russia sells their oil to Europe would be to start a land war in Asia, and as we all should well know, you never want to be involved in a land war in Asia.
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Puh-LEEZ.
You're not cool unless you own a bag phone like this one.
... Which I do, thankyouverymuch. [insert cocky, derisive hipster laugh]
I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.
It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.
On our dime, no less.
its true, though, that the republicans are the main force in the 'culture of fear' that we are stuck in the middle of.
Democrats use fear just as much as Republicans do, albeit in regards to different issues; using people's natural fear of mass-killings to try and diminish our right to self-armament, for example.
republicans are the owners of the military machine. that exists only when there is fear in us of some foreign boogeyman.
I'd bet dollars against pesos that if you did a little research, you'd find just as many names with a D next to them that are getting rich off the MIC as you'd see names with an R.
the dems are in the pockets of entertainment (as a contrast) and that's not that much of a fear-based business (other than the threat of suits from mpaa/riaa).
FEAR your neighbor, he might own a gun!
FEAR all the bad that will happen due to your your lack of health insurance, and sign up for Obamacare!
FEAR your district being taken over by a Republican, he'll take away your right to make your own medical decisions*!
Shall I go on? As I pointed out before, Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for playing off people's fears to garner support.
* Ironic, juxtaposed against the previous statement, isn't it?
fear of terrorism is mostly an invention of the republicans, though. they love to see us all cower and do whatever they say.
Ever hear of a lady named Diane Feinstein? She's built a career out of convincing the (very wealthy) people in her district that those of us who are not (very wealthy and) in her district are a bunch of gun-toting terrorists who need to be disarmed - you know, for our own good.
dems are shit-fucks, too; but their main business is not about controlling people by fear of terrorism. there is some of that, but its not their main party platform like it is for the R's.
I'll give you that both parties suck shit so bad, we need to dissolve them both. but one is most certainly a lot more evil than the other.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Don't know if you're an ignorant American or an EU pacifist, but we tried doing nothing before (see Jimmy Carter presidency).
Oh, well, gee Wally, I didn't realize that we only had 2 options here - killing large numbers of innocents in order to "get" one guy, or doing nothing. How silly of me to think there might be something else that can be done that doesn't involve murdering children and turning them against us.
uhm, voting republican?
Are we not done pretending that any actionable difference exists between the two faces of the One Party?
The old "one party good, 'other' party bad" nonsense is just tiresome at this point.
I am so ready for all new vehicles with fob starters to come with three fob sets, by default.
Are you kidding? Hell, I'm having a hard enough time figuring out how to use the three shells...
A couple of years ago, Darren Kitchen of Hak5 interviewed Amal Graafstra, who had an RFID implanted in his hand for accessing his office building and starting his motorcycle. Neat stuff.
Can't remember if it was this episode or this one, but here's a clip of the system in action.
Remember the days when the manual version of most cars was cheaper, and you paid a premium for the automatic?
How times have changed...
I like the standard keys. And really, just because one manufacturer happened to use a defective part, we lose them? Key switches have been around for decade and are reliable. Just fix the reliability issue in that one model and that's it.
It isn't one manufacturer. There have been over 20 million recalled vehicles due to ignition switch problems, from basically every manufacturer, over the last 30 years.
That doesn't qualify as "reliable" in my book.
Right, because it's not like there's ever been, nor ever will be an issue with push-button ignitions that may incite a recall of millions of vehicles, right?
Wrong.
FYI, contrary to the summary's baseless contention, "Electrical" is not always greater than "mechanical." Otherwise, parking brakes wouldn't still be engaged with steel cables.
In a newer engine, the computer controls all aspects of starting and running; timing, spark intensity, fuel quantity, mixture, etc. Holding down the key and cranking is no longer everything needed to start a cranky engine.
No, but sometimes it is an effective and useful diagnostic tool.
Oh, right, we're not supposed to work on our own vehicles anymore, how silly of me to forget.
Well, this isn't something Obama invented...
Perhaps not, but he has latched onto it as his personal catch phrase.
Just like how Bush Sr didn't come up with the phrase, "no new taxes," but when I hear that phrase he immediately springs to mind... or rather, Dana Carvey's dead-on impression of him.
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
But that is precisely what is going on.
Since Obama came on the scene, I've learned that when a politician prefaces a statement with, "let me be clear," chances are good that he's going to be anything but.