Ah yes, "notion that Irish economy is built on this loophole" strawman after I called you on your "debating properly is a bad idea" slip. Rather understandable considering that you tend to lose most of your debates on merits here on slashdot because you tend to argue for an pretty badly defensible position.
Now if you only could quote were I suggested something even remotely like this. I'll wait.
Emperor is still not wearing any clothes, and no matter how much you herald ACs are trumpeting about it, he's still out there, still naked, still ugly as fuck.
And hence, people are still leaving FF for any options available when they're not using FF on tablets. Because as of typing this, FF is no longer a desktop browser and hasn't been one for a while. Yes it can be installed on a desktop, but it's in no way, shape or form designed or optimized for desktop usage scenario any more.
To be fair, it was about one mutation away from blowing up our current world order. Airborne virus with reasonably high lethality (for an airborne virus) among healthy population would be utterly devastating and largely unstoppable in modern world, and would collapse entire societies. As a result, I'm finding it hard to not justify the preparations for it. The risk was huge, and in relation to the risk, information and preparation was called for.
The problem is that our mainstream media tends to blow things out of proportion for profit, and as a result, very little of honest reporting was done on the topic.
To be fair, it would not be too hard to implement a game like FTL in flash. It's a text based adventure + static small scale RTS combat. All of these are done on much more complex level in flash today.
Probably easier than implementing it in bastardized version of javascript as was done here.
It's going to go down even further now that one of the most popular Firefox forks for those that dropped Firefox for UI reasons, Pale Moon will now start to carry its own identifier by default.
Pale Moon sits on top of ESR, and they had to switch to a different identifier for the browser because they aren't going with australis insanity.
So far, they appear to be fine. You may want to check them out if you want to keep most of your plugins working, and your interface PC-centric rather than tablet-centric that mozilla is gunning for.
To be fair, I think this is the problem with general population more than anything. With success of vaccines people forgot that there are actually crippling and lethal infectious diseases. They may intellectually understand it, but there's very little understanding on everyday life level. The current panic underscores it as well - first people underreact and now they are overreacting.
CDC is supposed to be professionals trained for this kind of a situation, but they're not immune to being well off for last half a century.
This is correct. However air fuel bomb is in some cases an adequate replacement for a tactical nuclear warhead because the detonation "epicentre" is spread much wider, which means that if your task is to hit a limited area (which is usually the purpose of the low yield tactical nuclear weapons), air fuel bombs can serve as a functional replacement.
One has to remember that destructive force of a tactical nuclear weapon falls off very quickly as range from epicentre increases. Modern MBTs are designed to survive just a short distance from it and come with thick enough armour to make neutron bomb unfeasible as well (main reason why NATO dropped neutron bombs from their list of countermeasures to Soviet tank rush in the 1970s and started to look for alternatives by increasing yields on tactical nuclear weapons).
One has to remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombs, not tactical ones, as a result, the comparison here is flawed. A comparable (in terms of destructive yield) nuclear weapon is going to be something among these lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As a trained combat medic, you do not understand what you're talking about.
"Weapons of MASS destruction" are named that way because they cause massive destruction over large area quickly. In case of potent modern chemical weapons, modus operandi is to not even bother going in to save those in the hit areas. Instead you set up decontamination camps on the edges of contaminated zone and wait to decontaminate those who manage to get out. You do NOT "neutralize" chemical weapons once they are dispersed, because it's largely pointless to try to do so. Whatever is inside the hit zone is assumed dead or dying until chemicals disperse to reasonably safe levels and you can enter the area to check out who is still alive.
Conventional weapons like machineguns lack this capability completely. Arguably the only weapon that has this capability in conventional arsenal is a large enough air fuel bomb. And even then, it hits the scalability problem, where the biggest air fuel bomb in existence is still far inferior to a comparable strategic nuclear, biological or chemical weapon on a similar delivery platform. At best, air fuel bombs can be tactical weapons, on par with modern tactical nuclear weapons, while lacking their main advantage of being physically compact.
Finally, by your measuring stick of what defined "WMD" most of the actually functional and used biological weapons are not WMDs either. Because in most cases, weaponised biological agent is designed to function just like a weaponised chemical agent. It is designed to have a quick localized impact, which quickly diminishes over time to enable attacking force to conquer the region. This is how Japanese, the biggest users of biological weapons in human history did it, and this is how most biological weapons are designed to work.
This is the stuff that US supplied to Saddam to counter Iran, and that he ended up using on Kurds. It's not a secret. It's just that like many of the other most potent negative things about US public image that would actually remind people that West's talking about "human right", "non-proliferation" and other similar goals in merely to ensure that countries we want to be weak enough to bomb or invade never get those. When it's countries we want to beef up against potential geopolitical opponent, they get those weapons from us, like Iraq did.
Those of us knowledgeable of history and warfare knew of this entire time. We're seeing the same thing going in Syria right now, where they are already bombing the areas where IS took out air defence bases, now that Syria no longer has functional chemical weapons arsenal to deter such attacks.
IS didn't get production capabilities however, because they were long gone. When Saddam went rogue (from his Western handlers' point of view), most of know how was lost by Iraq and much of crucial equipment could not be repaired and replaced. As a result when US invaded Iraq, they didn't find any weapons or production plants. All they found was old chemical weapons production and storage sites in various states of disrepair and abandonment, some of which weren't cleaned up. These are apparently where the soldiers the article is talking about got hurt.
I believe you'll have to make the argument how it has no contribution to the economy, as European Council itself disagrees with you. Reminder: economy is more than "direct effect granted by this tax". Since this is Ireland, the original I in PIGS, you'll have to be doubly careful in explaining how you arrived at this conclusion.
Considering that European Council is one of the most politically and economically experienced groups of people in the world, you'll have to present some rock solid evidence if you want that claim to stick.
Yes. That's why I advocate it. That's why pretty much everyone in European countries that suffered from this advocate it.
But if you bring a risk of crashing someone's economy down because of it, you're not going to get anyone to close the loopholes. It's a shortsided and utterly stupid strategy to do so. Everyone still has their sovereign right to legislate their own tax code.
That is why European Council took the line they took. Slow, stable, so that there's a chance of it actually happening, instead of quick, crashy and resulting in a massive push back from locals that will have to suffer another crash.
That's is the problem I have with you and your types. You are full on tunnel vision in any ideology you take. You are utterly incapable of seeing the big picture, or the cost of your ideology. It's enough that your ideology is "correct" and everything else needs to be bulldozed out of the way.
Except that my point of view was the semi official line of the European Council, reported by several European news sources, when it met to discuss this topic recently. Ireland will be given some leeway with this to enable it to keep on growing. I do understand that 2+2=4 is too difficult for you, so I'll break it up into 1+1+1+1.
You see, Ireland benefits significantly from multinationals being in the country, in ways other than this particular tax. Benefits are so significant, that European Council which was trying to push against this loophole for last decade or so accepted Ireland's request not to push this issue any harder because of danger of this change being executed to fast would have on their fragile economy.
Do you even realise that you just threw your entire argument out of the window by saying too much? You may have had a chance in arguing that most of the energy extracted from the atmosphere does return to it when it's used.
But arguing that wind power is not superior when it comes to energy released into atmosphere when compared to other methods of power production is just idiotic. It's completely obvious that when you dig coal that sat under the ground for millions of years and burn it, releasing energy into atmosphere, you clearly add energy to the atmosphere.
Even in a worst case scenario for wind, where all energy extracted from atmosphere returns to it, you do not add energy to the atmosphere that wasn't there for millions of years as you do when you extract coal and burn it.
I suppose I should expect it from a person who tries to end the argument by "get over it, move on...", which is a sign of someone who is running out of arguments.
Because Ireland has started a very slow recovery. Closing the loophole would likely collapse its economy into even deeper recession than one it was in before.
Which is wholly irrelevant strawman, as original argument was about taking the energy out of the atmosphere. Just because we use heat as a part of conditions for reaction doesn't change the fact that energy is in fact transferred from atmosphere to formulation of new molecular bonds. Some of it goes back. Some does not.
Manufacturing is one of the biggest consumers of energy and just one example of activity that binds energy taken out of atmosphere. Just because you convert electric energy to thermal to produce manufacturing process doesn't mean that this energy is fully returned back to atmosphere.
If you were correct, you wouldn't be typing this, because your cells would have no energy source to do so. Welcome to basic chemistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, "notion that Irish economy is built on this loophole" strawman after I called you on your "debating properly is a bad idea" slip.
Rather understandable considering that you tend to lose most of your debates on merits here on slashdot because you tend to argue for an pretty badly defensible position.
Now if you only could quote were I suggested something even remotely like this. I'll wait.
Emperor is still not wearing any clothes, and no matter how much you herald ACs are trumpeting about it, he's still out there, still naked, still ugly as fuck.
And hence, people are still leaving FF for any options available when they're not using FF on tablets. Because as of typing this, FF is no longer a desktop browser and hasn't been one for a while. Yes it can be installed on a desktop, but it's in no way, shape or form designed or optimized for desktop usage scenario any more.
To be fair, it was about one mutation away from blowing up our current world order. Airborne virus with reasonably high lethality (for an airborne virus) among healthy population would be utterly devastating and largely unstoppable in modern world, and would collapse entire societies. As a result, I'm finding it hard to not justify the preparations for it. The risk was huge, and in relation to the risk, information and preparation was called for.
The problem is that our mainstream media tends to blow things out of proportion for profit, and as a result, very little of honest reporting was done on the topic.
Lockheed did no such thing.
They are all last ones. Since it's anal.
To be fair, it would not be too hard to implement a game like FTL in flash. It's a text based adventure + static small scale RTS combat. All of these are done on much more complex level in flash today.
Probably easier than implementing it in bastardized version of javascript as was done here.
Because as WoW has shown us, nothing is hated as much as makeup coming from stealth and killing you in stun.
Pirate Bay doesn't own the games, nor does it host them. Therefore you can't steal them from Pirate Bay no matter how much you would like to try.
There are plenty, including Chrome, IE, Safari, Opera.
And if you are into Firefox functionality such as add-ons, there are fully functional forks that keep most of the functionality such as Pale Moon.
It's going to go down even further now that one of the most popular Firefox forks for those that dropped Firefox for UI reasons, Pale Moon will now start to carry its own identifier by default.
Pale Moon sits on top of ESR, and they had to switch to a different identifier for the browser because they aren't going with australis insanity.
So far, they appear to be fine. You may want to check them out if you want to keep most of your plugins working, and your interface PC-centric rather than tablet-centric that mozilla is gunning for.
To be fair, I think this is the problem with general population more than anything. With success of vaccines people forgot that there are actually crippling and lethal infectious diseases. They may intellectually understand it, but there's very little understanding on everyday life level. The current panic underscores it as well - first people underreact and now they are overreacting.
CDC is supposed to be professionals trained for this kind of a situation, but they're not immune to being well off for last half a century.
Wait, so in your opinion, using proper debate methods approved in schools is bad and mud slinging that you practice is good?
Thanks for sharing. And folks modded me troll in the initial posts. Hah.
This is correct. However air fuel bomb is in some cases an adequate replacement for a tactical nuclear warhead because the detonation "epicentre" is spread much wider, which means that if your task is to hit a limited area (which is usually the purpose of the low yield tactical nuclear weapons), air fuel bombs can serve as a functional replacement.
One has to remember that destructive force of a tactical nuclear weapon falls off very quickly as range from epicentre increases. Modern MBTs are designed to survive just a short distance from it and come with thick enough armour to make neutron bomb unfeasible as well (main reason why NATO dropped neutron bombs from their list of countermeasures to Soviet tank rush in the 1970s and started to look for alternatives by increasing yields on tactical nuclear weapons).
One has to remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombs, not tactical ones, as a result, the comparison here is flawed. A comparable (in terms of destructive yield) nuclear weapon is going to be something among these lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As a trained combat medic, you do not understand what you're talking about.
"Weapons of MASS destruction" are named that way because they cause massive destruction over large area quickly. In case of potent modern chemical weapons, modus operandi is to not even bother going in to save those in the hit areas. Instead you set up decontamination camps on the edges of contaminated zone and wait to decontaminate those who manage to get out. You do NOT "neutralize" chemical weapons once they are dispersed, because it's largely pointless to try to do so. Whatever is inside the hit zone is assumed dead or dying until chemicals disperse to reasonably safe levels and you can enter the area to check out who is still alive.
Conventional weapons like machineguns lack this capability completely. Arguably the only weapon that has this capability in conventional arsenal is a large enough air fuel bomb. And even then, it hits the scalability problem, where the biggest air fuel bomb in existence is still far inferior to a comparable strategic nuclear, biological or chemical weapon on a similar delivery platform. At best, air fuel bombs can be tactical weapons, on par with modern tactical nuclear weapons, while lacking their main advantage of being physically compact.
Finally, by your measuring stick of what defined "WMD" most of the actually functional and used biological weapons are not WMDs either. Because in most cases, weaponised biological agent is designed to function just like a weaponised chemical agent. It is designed to have a quick localized impact, which quickly diminishes over time to enable attacking force to conquer the region. This is how Japanese, the biggest users of biological weapons in human history did it, and this is how most biological weapons are designed to work.
This is the stuff that US supplied to Saddam to counter Iran, and that he ended up using on Kurds. It's not a secret. It's just that like many of the other most potent negative things about US public image that would actually remind people that West's talking about "human right", "non-proliferation" and other similar goals in merely to ensure that countries we want to be weak enough to bomb or invade never get those. When it's countries we want to beef up against potential geopolitical opponent, they get those weapons from us, like Iraq did.
Those of us knowledgeable of history and warfare knew of this entire time. We're seeing the same thing going in Syria right now, where they are already bombing the areas where IS took out air defence bases, now that Syria no longer has functional chemical weapons arsenal to deter such attacks.
IS didn't get production capabilities however, because they were long gone. When Saddam went rogue (from his Western handlers' point of view), most of know how was lost by Iraq and much of crucial equipment could not be repaired and replaced. As a result when US invaded Iraq, they didn't find any weapons or production plants. All they found was old chemical weapons production and storage sites in various states of disrepair and abandonment, some of which weren't cleaned up. These are apparently where the soldiers the article is talking about got hurt.
I believe you'll have to make the argument how it has no contribution to the economy, as European Council itself disagrees with you. Reminder: economy is more than "direct effect granted by this tax". Since this is Ireland, the original I in PIGS, you'll have to be doubly careful in explaining how you arrived at this conclusion.
Considering that European Council is one of the most politically and economically experienced groups of people in the world, you'll have to present some rock solid evidence if you want that claim to stick.
Yes. That's why I advocate it. That's why pretty much everyone in European countries that suffered from this advocate it.
But if you bring a risk of crashing someone's economy down because of it, you're not going to get anyone to close the loopholes. It's a shortsided and utterly stupid strategy to do so. Everyone still has their sovereign right to legislate their own tax code.
That is why European Council took the line they took. Slow, stable, so that there's a chance of it actually happening, instead of quick, crashy and resulting in a massive push back from locals that will have to suffer another crash.
That's is the problem I have with you and your types. You are full on tunnel vision in any ideology you take. You are utterly incapable of seeing the big picture, or the cost of your ideology. It's enough that your ideology is "correct" and everything else needs to be bulldozed out of the way.
Except that my point of view was the semi official line of the European Council, reported by several European news sources, when it met to discuss this topic recently. Ireland will be given some leeway with this to enable it to keep on growing. I do understand that 2+2=4 is too difficult for you, so I'll break it up into 1+1+1+1.
You see, Ireland benefits significantly from multinationals being in the country, in ways other than this particular tax. Benefits are so significant, that European Council which was trying to push against this loophole for last decade or so accepted Ireland's request not to push this issue any harder because of danger of this change being executed to fast would have on their fragile economy.
I understand that you are out of arguments and are now using caps.
The only question I have remaining is why are you so invested in arguing against wind power?
Do you even realise that you just threw your entire argument out of the window by saying too much? You may have had a chance in arguing that most of the energy extracted from the atmosphere does return to it when it's used.
But arguing that wind power is not superior when it comes to energy released into atmosphere when compared to other methods of power production is just idiotic. It's completely obvious that when you dig coal that sat under the ground for millions of years and burn it, releasing energy into atmosphere, you clearly add energy to the atmosphere.
Even in a worst case scenario for wind, where all energy extracted from atmosphere returns to it, you do not add energy to the atmosphere that wasn't there for millions of years as you do when you extract coal and burn it.
I suppose I should expect it from a person who tries to end the argument by "get over it, move on...", which is a sign of someone who is running out of arguments.
Because Ireland has started a very slow recovery. Closing the loophole would likely collapse its economy into even deeper recession than one it was in before.
Which is wholly irrelevant strawman, as original argument was about taking the energy out of the atmosphere. Just because we use heat as a part of conditions for reaction doesn't change the fact that energy is in fact transferred from atmosphere to formulation of new molecular bonds. Some of it goes back. Some does not.
Manufacturing is one of the biggest consumers of energy and just one example of activity that binds energy taken out of atmosphere. Just because you convert electric energy to thermal to produce manufacturing process doesn't mean that this energy is fully returned back to atmosphere.
If you were correct, you wouldn't be typing this, because your cells would have no energy source to do so.
Welcome to basic chemistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...