Well, lots of city slickers are assholes. I wouldn't want any living close to my farm, either.
Incidentally, I do live in a city (albeit a smallish one, with only 350,000 people) but I grew up on a farm. You could always tell the people who moved out to the country from a city, as they'd have a gate installed across the end of their laneway, and lock it all the time, or other bizarre-for-rural-life stuff like that. I think my favourite was the one who bought the house across the road from a livestock pasture, then went to the township council trying to get the farming operation closed down because they didn't like the smell. Fortunately, all the councilors were farmers, too, and told them to go pound salt.
They're in a lot more places than just Mount Forest. It's basically the Ontario government saying "We're going to line rural Ontario with wind farms, wherever we think they should go, and it doesn't matter, because nobody lives in rural Ontario. And think how good we can feel about ourselves in Toronto for using green energy to run our electric shavers while we get ready for the 15km 2 hour commute to work in our SUVs!"
You're an idiot. Farmers are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.
I can't even begin to list the things that farmers have to know that you don't have a clue about.
It's not that people are against wind energy, per se. It's that the Ontario government passed a law giving them final and absolute authority over where they were placed, effectively killing any municipal control over zoning, land use, etc.
It's basically a bunch of idiot urban politicians saying to a rural county "We're putting a wind farm in your county, right here on the map, complete with massive construction traffic and huge amounts of concrete for the bases of these things, and it doesn't matter to you, because there's hardly anybody living there to complain. After all, you've got, what, 1/100th the population density of Toronto?"
If the local county had zoned that area agricultural, or had plans for a shopping mall that had been years and hundreds of thousands in the making, and were ready to break ground tomorrow, then tough luck.
Another thing is, considering the amount of concrete involved, it effectively kills the land for any agricultural use, anyway. Even if the turbine and its base is removed, the leach from the concrete will have done serious damage the the ground's ability to grow crops. Since the provincial government is frequently putting them in prime agricultural areas, rather than in, place where the soil is too shallow over bedrock to be productive, it's a reasonable concern.
It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing
Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!
He would, but his stuff would just get pirated on the Pirate Bay, so he doesn't figure it's worth it....:)
They're not trying to convince those who are firmly against it. They're trying to sway those who are easily susceptible to suggestion, and who don't really have an opinion unless someone else has given it to them. (In other words, most of the North American public.)
They're trying to make the opposition seem corrupt/nasty/evil/silly so that the sheeple will come over to their side.
I can't believe nobody replied to this. Fluoride in water has been demonstrated to have no effect on teeth. Local topical application (read: brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste) is the only demonstrated method of reducing cavities with fluoride. Ingestion does nothing for teeth, but does lower IQ, as the GP stated.
No, no. What he means is, his ticket fell over. So, in order to right it, he needs some frame, or lever, or something, made out of transparent aluminum. Since nobody makes transparent aluminum, he has to make it himself.
If you can make it yourself, then you can right your own ticket, rather than having to get someone else to right it for you.
Actually, they did mention that. You just missed it, because you're an idiot.
You also missed the part where it says that it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, or what the authorities claim you've done, the same rights still apply to you as to everyone else. Presumably you missed this for the same reason.
You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.
Say I did that, would the pirate party sue me? And for how much?
A hundred bottles of rum and a chest of gold coins. Aye, that be what they be suing you forrrr. Aaaaaahhrrr!
Using that logic, or at least incredibly similar logic, most animated Disney movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, etc) should all be considered public domain, because they're all based on very old stories that are public domain.
I've got two kids and a third on the way. That logic works for me.
Irreducible complexity. They were referencing rotary motors on bacteria, and the creationist said "take away one part, and it will not work." This could not have evolved, because so many things would have had to come together by chance at the exact same time.
Dawkins used the same Chewbacca defence that's on the linked page. Basically, he said "creationists say it doesn't work if you take away only one part. We can show we can take away 15 (or so) and it works as this other mechanism."
But, that still doesn't solve the problem. Because, when a single part is added to TTSS, it no longer functions. Which means it serves no biological purpose, and would be "evolved away" so to speak. Dawkins claimed though, that this destroyed the irreducible complexity argument. It doesn't. It just means, instead of the entire machine forming at once, it has to form 75% of it at once. Either way, there are vast caverns of evolution to cross, with no guidance from natural selection, since it's currently a non-functional mechanism, to get from TTSS to a rotary motor.
Car analogy time: It's like saying a Bugatti Veyron is a slight derivative of a 1000kW Honda generator, because they both have an engine.
It wasn't on the spot. It was actually in an interview after where he had an example device (mouse trap) to demonstrate the issue, so it was obviously something he'd thought about.
That's not scientific. That's not even anecdotal evidence. That's just crap.
The most obvious point: - How old were your maps? And more importantly, how old was the data used to make them? If the maps were 2 years old, and an entire glacier was gone, then yes, something big is happening. If the map data was 50-100 years old, well, that proves nothing. If you did the same thing 500 years ago, using 600 year old map data, I bet things would be different, too. But we can't do that, because we weren't around 500 years ago. ("We", meaning "you and I". Not "we" meaning "the human race") One of the fundamental tenets of anything scientific is that experiments are repeatable, and are capable of being proven incorrect. As soon as you get something involving massive amounts of time, this repeatability is not possible, which makes current theories of climate change not scientific. We have no controls. We have no reference point. We have absolutely nothing. Not to say it's not true, but it's impossible to prove with current knowledge.
Thank you! If you read Dawkins and others, they make it very clear they would accept any scientific evidence that disproves natural selection and biological evolution. To date there has been none, which is why it's now accepted as a fact. The same cannot be said of anthropomorphic climate change which is flimsy on evidence and cannot be falsified to date. Not to mention the political forces that support it.
Actually, I saw a debate between Dawkins and a Creationist once, where the Creationist brought up a very valid point that I had to agree with, and stated that evolution "will not work" because of this problem. Then Dawkins said, "Well, let's see if we can solve that problem, because look over here at this completely different thing that doesn't solve the problem at all, but seems tangentially related to the plebes, so it'll seem good enough to them."
It was nothing more than a Chewbacca defence, and he never did come up with anything to counter the issue raised by the Creationist. The problem with Dawkins et al, is that evolution, to them, has been raised in their mind to near iconic religious status, and nobody is allowed to question it. I've seen Dawkins get furious and start hurling insults when somebody raised a point he couldn't counter, too.
He claims to be open and unbiased, but he's most certainly not.
How about, in order for an ARM architecture device to be WHQL certified for Windows 8, it has to be impossible to install a competing operating system? I seem to remember reading that somewhere recently.....
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, leaching, you stupid, obnoxious, loud mouthed, cock sucking prick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation#Leaching
Read, asshole.
Then let me give you a hint: Crops don't grow well in soil with high levels of calcium.
Well, lots of city slickers are assholes. I wouldn't want any living close to my farm, either.
Incidentally, I do live in a city (albeit a smallish one, with only 350,000 people) but I grew up on a farm. You could always tell the people who moved out to the country from a city, as they'd have a gate installed across the end of their laneway, and lock it all the time, or other bizarre-for-rural-life stuff like that.
I think my favourite was the one who bought the house across the road from a livestock pasture, then went to the township council trying to get the farming operation closed down because they didn't like the smell. Fortunately, all the councilors were farmers, too, and told them to go pound salt.
They're in a lot more places than just Mount Forest. It's basically the Ontario government saying "We're going to line rural Ontario with wind farms, wherever we think they should go, and it doesn't matter, because nobody lives in rural Ontario. And think how good we can feel about ourselves in Toronto for using green energy to run our electric shavers while we get ready for the 15km 2 hour commute to work in our SUVs!"
He's a farmer. Not the highest intellect.
You're an idiot. Farmers are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.
I can't even begin to list the things that farmers have to know that you don't have a clue about.
It's not that people are against wind energy, per se. It's that the Ontario government passed a law giving them final and absolute authority over where they were placed, effectively killing any municipal control over zoning, land use, etc.
It's basically a bunch of idiot urban politicians saying to a rural county "We're putting a wind farm in your county, right here on the map, complete with massive construction traffic and huge amounts of concrete for the bases of these things, and it doesn't matter to you, because there's hardly anybody living there to complain. After all, you've got, what, 1/100th the population density of Toronto?"
If the local county had zoned that area agricultural, or had plans for a shopping mall that had been years and hundreds of thousands in the making, and were ready to break ground tomorrow, then tough luck.
Another thing is, considering the amount of concrete involved, it effectively kills the land for any agricultural use, anyway. Even if the turbine and its base is removed, the leach from the concrete will have done serious damage the the ground's ability to grow crops. Since the provincial government is frequently putting them in prime agricultural areas, rather than in, place where the soil is too shallow over bedrock to be productive, it's a reasonable concern.
It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing
Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!
He would, but his stuff would just get pirated on the Pirate Bay, so he doesn't figure it's worth it.... :)
They're not trying to convince those who are firmly against it. They're trying to sway those who are easily susceptible to suggestion, and who don't really have an opinion unless someone else has given it to them. (In other words, most of the North American public.)
They're trying to make the opposition seem corrupt/nasty/evil/silly so that the sheeple will come over to their side.
All that mess, and the only thing you're concerned about is "copywrites"?
Seriously?
Did you ever think, maybe, just maybe, it was intentional?
I can't believe nobody replied to this. Fluoride in water has been demonstrated to have no effect on teeth. Local topical application (read: brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste) is the only demonstrated method of reducing cavities with fluoride.
Ingestion does nothing for teeth, but does lower IQ, as the GP stated.
You can understand your own Perl code? :P
No, no. What he means is, his ticket fell over. So, in order to right it, he needs some frame, or lever, or something, made out of transparent aluminum. Since nobody makes transparent aluminum, he has to make it himself.
If you can make it yourself, then you can right your own ticket, rather than having to get someone else to right it for you.
TLA. They feel a kindred spirit because of it.
Oh, and here's a Slashdot article from yesterday about the evolution from single cell to multicellular life in the span of 60 days in a lab:
Which was guided by a scientist with a brain, hence intelligence. What's your point?
Canadian laws are all online, too. Same with Ontario. Don't know about all the other provinces, but at least some of them are.
Actually, they did mention that. You just missed it, because you're an idiot.
You also missed the part where it says that it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, or what the authorities claim you've done, the same rights still apply to you as to everyone else.
Presumably you missed this for the same reason.
Why are these not marked funny?!?!
You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.
Say I did that, would the pirate party sue me? And for how much?
A hundred bottles of rum and a chest of gold coins. Aye, that be what they be suing you forrrr. Aaaaaahhrrr!
Using that logic, or at least incredibly similar logic, most animated Disney movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, etc) should all be considered public domain, because they're all based on very old stories that are public domain.
I've got two kids and a third on the way. That logic works for me.
It was this http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Irreducible complexity. They were referencing rotary motors on bacteria, and the creationist said "take away one part, and it will not work." This could not have evolved, because so many things would have had to come together by chance at the exact same time.
Dawkins used the same Chewbacca defence that's on the linked page. Basically, he said "creationists say it doesn't work if you take away only one part. We can show we can take away 15 (or so) and it works as this other mechanism."
But, that still doesn't solve the problem. Because, when a single part is added to TTSS, it no longer functions. Which means it serves no biological purpose, and would be "evolved away" so to speak. Dawkins claimed though, that this destroyed the irreducible complexity argument. It doesn't. It just means, instead of the entire machine forming at once, it has to form 75% of it at once. Either way, there are vast caverns of evolution to cross, with no guidance from natural selection, since it's currently a non-functional mechanism, to get from TTSS to a rotary motor.
Car analogy time:
It's like saying a Bugatti Veyron is a slight derivative of a 1000kW Honda generator, because they both have an engine.
It wasn't on the spot. It was actually in an interview after where he had an example device (mouse trap) to demonstrate the issue, so it was obviously something he'd thought about.
That's not scientific. That's not even anecdotal evidence. That's just crap.
The most obvious point:
- How old were your maps? And more importantly, how old was the data used to make them? If the maps were 2 years old, and an entire glacier was gone, then yes, something big is happening. If the map data was 50-100 years old, well, that proves nothing. If you did the same thing 500 years ago, using 600 year old map data, I bet things would be different, too. But we can't do that, because we weren't around 500 years ago. ("We", meaning "you and I". Not "we" meaning "the human race") One of the fundamental tenets of anything scientific is that experiments are repeatable, and are capable of being proven incorrect. As soon as you get something involving massive amounts of time, this repeatability is not possible, which makes current theories of climate change not scientific. We have no controls. We have no reference point. We have absolutely nothing. Not to say it's not true, but it's impossible to prove with current knowledge.
Thank you! If you read Dawkins and others, they make it very clear they would accept any scientific evidence that disproves natural selection and biological evolution. To date there has been none, which is why it's now accepted as a fact. The same cannot be said of anthropomorphic climate change which is flimsy on evidence and cannot be falsified to date. Not to mention the political forces that support it.
Actually, I saw a debate between Dawkins and a Creationist once, where the Creationist brought up a very valid point that I had to agree with, and stated that evolution "will not work" because of this problem. Then Dawkins said, "Well, let's see if we can solve that problem, because look over here at this completely different thing that doesn't solve the problem at all, but seems tangentially related to the plebes, so it'll seem good enough to them."
It was nothing more than a Chewbacca defence, and he never did come up with anything to counter the issue raised by the Creationist. The problem with Dawkins et al, is that evolution, to them, has been raised in their mind to near iconic religious status, and nobody is allowed to question it. I've seen Dawkins get furious and start hurling insults when somebody raised a point he couldn't counter, too.
He claims to be open and unbiased, but he's most certainly not.
Your information is from 4 to 7 months ago. Since December, Microsoft has changed the requirements to be more strict than what you read previously. /., so where have you been?
In fact, it was even mentioned on
How about, in order for an ARM architecture device to be WHQL certified for Windows 8, it has to be impossible to install a competing operating system? I seem to remember reading that somewhere recently.....
Unless of course, more shenanigans are revealed.
Which would be why the GP started that statement with "If it's restricted to one or two people"....