I don't disagree with you. I'm all about reducing total emissions the most economically.
But note that the OP did not mention scooters, which are obviously a larger problem.
And remember the conservative freak-out over the Obama-era "Cash for Clunkers" program, because of the idea that undeserving people (a.k.a. melanin-enhanced minorities) might be getting a benefits from a government program?
How many leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc. are running simultaneously vs. cars/trucks?
Since the answer is orders of magnitude more, a 0.1% reduction in car emissions is much better for the total environment then if all emissions were eliminated from leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc.
A slight bit of critical thinking would do you a world of good.
Amazon has profited from the infrastructure that the Seattle taxpayers have provided for them over the years, including an education system that has provided the workers that have been the engine that has driven Amazon's wealth. And now that Seattle is asking Amazon to give a tiny percentage back to help the community that fostered them, they threaten to leave.
This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country.
Problem #1: Authors complain that the definition of "planet" doesn't include exoplanets (because they don't orbit the Sun).. Solution: Change definition to include other stars or say that the particular star doesn't matter if the other criteria are met.
Problem #2: Authors complain that the criterion that a planet must "clear its orbit" is imprecise and is dependent on other objects. Solution: None needed. Let the IAU define the border cases. As for being dependent on other objects, the point is that for an object to be a planet, it must utterly dominate its orbit, leaving nothing significant.
Problem #3: By the IAU definition, Earth was not a planet for the first 500 MYears of its existence, because it hadn't yet cleared its orbit. Authors call this "bizarre and absurd". Solution: Why is this a problem? There was no guarantee that the Earth was going to survive as a planet. Another Theia-like impact could have ended it.
Problem #4: It is a linguistic paradox (and vindictive to boot) to say "a dwarf planet is not a planet." Solution: So what? A guinea pig is not a pig. Spotted dick is not a dick. Etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how emotional the "Pluto is a planet" people are and how the MSM gives these people much more publicity then they deserve. In the immortal words of Neil DeGrasse tyson, "Get over it!"
1) The person who created the fake web site/law firm/etc. and perpetrated the fraud.
2) Amazon, since they did not do due diligence and ensure that the complaint was legit. And if there original fraudster (see 1) cannot be found, that even makes Amazon's due diligence look even worse.
He doesn't actually need to do anything. He could simply leave the EO in place, and if the 20 AGs still want to sue, let them.
Plus, Trump is a coward. Instead of making the announcement himself, he sent Sessions out to do it. Trump will then blame everybody but himself for consequences of this incredibly short-sighted action.
Most of the "science" that the Google guy cites has been thoroughly debunked, as have most of the theories that say that "evolutionary development" justifies structural inequity.
Also, there is a bell curve, but "The Bell Curve" is a pile of racist claptrap designed to make white guys feel justified in their racism.
Also, have you looked at Trump's waistline? The suits hide a lot of it, but it seems quite unhealthy to me.
Trump also sat for the entire CiC interview while Hillary stood during various portions of it.
And Hillary has released a professional statement from her doctor while Trump's doctor released a statement that sounded like it was written for Kim Jung Un.
So you also believe that Hillary too is innocent until proven guilty and are actively denouncing all the GOPers with their "Lock her up" chants, right?
I have simply NEVER heard a right-winger tell anybody "Don't watch MSNBC!" or "Don't read Slate!" etc. Right wingers usually just roll their eyes over left-wing sources (which they DO read and watch).
Funny, because I have heard right-wingers say things like "Rachel Maddow shouldn't be on TV", etc. To believe that one political side is squeaky clean while the other is totally corrupt is simply ludicrous.
Notice that I said nothing about her gender. I try not to do that.
You just need to look at her Wikipedia page to see the laundry list of controversies she has been involved in.
A particularly egregious example that jumped out at me was her "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror" book where she was justifying the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II (but yet German-Americans were not subject to the same internment). To quote from Wikipedia, "The book's message has been condemned by Japanese American groups and civil rights advocates. Its scholarship has been criticized by academics."
I see her as being a biased source, easily dismissed by many. That's why I believe that we would be better served in the H1-B debate with someone whose position is not so stridently well-known.
Hilariously, I got called a member of the KKK/misogynist and also someone who gets all their news from Daily Kos in response to the same posting.
1) I couldn't care less what race/gender Malkin is. She has simply been demonstrably wrong time and time again (for example, the Jamil Hussein controversy, where Malkin claimed without evidence that this person, who the AP was using as the source for several stories in Irag, simply did not exist) and some of here demagoguery has put people in real physical danger.
2) She has been a contributor to VDARE, a site that uses a lot of white supremacist rhetoric and supports descredited ideas, like that there is scientific evidence that supports idea that some races are mentally inferior to others.
They problem may very well be sociopaths, but the victims tend to be women who step outside of their traditional roles.
The there are the stalking murders of Rebecca Schaeffer and Mia Zapata plus what happened with Sarah MacLachlan, so to pretend that it's simply "sociopaths" is a gross over-simplification.
When there were only a few "geeky girls" around, they were a novelty, and there weren't enough of them to affect change in the workplace. I remember those days. We had lots of highly sexist/racist terms people would just throw around without thinking. Look up "BCH, RCH, and GCH" and the mnemonic for remembering resistor color that begins "Black boys" for example (I won't repeat them). Cheesecake calendars and centerfolds were also displayed prominently at desks. And the women there had to tolerate it. They had no choice if they wanted to stay.
But starting in the early 90's, women starting getting enough power to force companies to enact sexual harassment policies. The calendars disappeared and some topics of conversation became forbidden at work. And many men resented this.
So the trolls learned from this, and thus any woman who starts to be listened to in other male-dominated areas must be destroyed as soon as possible. This is what Kathy Sierra said in her posting. Because, by default, they are not deserving of the attention.
It's the same dynamic that has kept Rush Limbaugh on the radio for 30 years.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen "meta victim blaming" where you are blaming the people who call out statements like "Don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped." as "victim blaming."
Is it at all possible in your world to blame the predators?
"People should be free to do what they want" is one of the stupidest beliefs in the world. Actions have consequences, and the thing that I "want* to do may be injurious to other people of even to humanity as a whole.
This is why I believe the libertarians typically go too far, especially how they refuse to take responsibility for how their actions adversely harm others, but I also don't want to be under the authoritarian heel either. So it's a balance.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."
I think Slashdot ought to consider that some articles, especially those about anonymous internet trolls going open loop, might be set to not allow anonymous posting.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with you. I'm all about reducing total emissions the most economically.
But note that the OP did not mention scooters, which are obviously a larger problem.
And remember the conservative freak-out over the Obama-era "Cash for Clunkers" program, because of the idea that undeserving people (a.k.a. melanin-enhanced minorities) might be getting a benefits from a government program?
How many leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc. are running simultaneously vs. cars/trucks?
Since the answer is orders of magnitude more, a 0.1% reduction in car emissions is much better for the total environment then if all emissions were eliminated from leaf blowers, lawn mowers, construction vehicles, etc.
A slight bit of critical thinking would do you a world of good.
Amazon has profited from the infrastructure that the Seattle taxpayers have provided for them over the years, including an education system that has provided the workers that have been the engine that has driven Amazon's wealth. And now that Seattle is asking Amazon to give a tiny percentage back to help the community that fostered them, they threaten to leave.
This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country.
Problem #1: Authors complain that the definition of "planet" doesn't include exoplanets (because they don't orbit the Sun)..
Solution: Change definition to include other stars or say that the particular star doesn't matter if the other criteria are met.
Problem #2: Authors complain that the criterion that a planet must "clear its orbit" is imprecise and is dependent on other objects.
Solution: None needed. Let the IAU define the border cases. As for being dependent on other objects, the point is that for an object to be a planet, it must utterly dominate its orbit, leaving nothing significant.
Problem #3: By the IAU definition, Earth was not a planet for the first 500 MYears of its existence, because it hadn't yet cleared its orbit. Authors call this "bizarre and absurd".
Solution: Why is this a problem? There was no guarantee that the Earth was going to survive as a planet. Another Theia-like impact could have ended it.
Problem #4: It is a linguistic paradox (and vindictive to boot) to say "a dwarf planet is not a planet."
Solution: So what? A guinea pig is not a pig. Spotted dick is not a dick. Etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how emotional the "Pluto is a planet" people are and how the MSM gives these people much more publicity then they deserve. In the immortal words of Neil DeGrasse tyson, "Get over it!"
1) The person who created the fake web site/law firm/etc. and perpetrated the fraud.
2) Amazon, since they did not do due diligence and ensure that the complaint was legit. And if there original fraudster (see 1) cannot be found, that even makes Amazon's due diligence look even worse.
Trump has *not* been honest.
He doesn't actually need to do anything. He could simply leave the EO in place, and if the 20 AGs still want to sue, let them.
Plus, Trump is a coward. Instead of making the announcement himself, he sent Sessions out to do it. Trump will then blame everybody but himself for consequences of this incredibly short-sighted action.
His "problem" was that he felt that women were simply inferior to men in tech, and had the self-serving pseudo-science to back it up.
That is most assuredly creating a "hostile work environment" (imaging if his supervisor had been a woman), and Google acted appropriately.
It does seem that Slashdot has decended into 4chan territory in the last few years.
Most of the "science" that the Google guy cites has been thoroughly debunked, as have most of the theories that say that "evolutionary development" justifies structural inequity.
Also, there is a bell curve, but "The Bell Curve" is a pile of racist claptrap designed to make white guys feel justified in their racism.
The fact that we allow American flags to be burnt shows that we have freedom.
How many Russian flags do you believe are burnt in Russia? Chinese flags in China? Saudi flags in Saudi Arabia?
Great band name.
But seriously, I agree with your comment completely.
Trump is two years older than HRC.
Also, have you looked at Trump's waistline? The suits hide a lot of it, but it seems quite unhealthy to me.
Trump also sat for the entire CiC interview while Hillary stood during various portions of it.
And Hillary has released a professional statement from her doctor while Trump's doctor released a statement that sounded like it was written for Kim Jung Un.
So you also believe that Hillary too is innocent until proven guilty and are actively denouncing all the GOPers with their "Lock her up" chants, right?
One other thing:
Funny, because I have heard right-wingers say things like "Rachel Maddow shouldn't be on TV", etc. To believe that one political side is squeaky clean while the other is totally corrupt is simply ludicrous.
Notice that I said nothing about her gender. I try not to do that.
You just need to look at her Wikipedia page to see the laundry list of controversies she has been involved in.
A particularly egregious example that jumped out at me was her "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror" book where she was justifying the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II (but yet German-Americans were not subject to the same internment). To quote from Wikipedia, "The book's message has been condemned by Japanese American groups and civil rights advocates. Its scholarship has been criticized by academics."
I see her as being a biased source, easily dismissed by many. That's why I believe that we would be better served in the H1-B debate with someone whose position is not so stridently well-known.
Hilariously, I got called a member of the KKK/misogynist and also someone who gets all their news from Daily Kos in response to the same posting.
1) I couldn't care less what race/gender Malkin is. She has simply been demonstrably wrong time and time again (for example, the Jamil Hussein controversy, where Malkin claimed without evidence that this person, who the AP was using as the source for several stories in Irag, simply did not exist) and some of here demagoguery has put people in real physical danger.
2) She has been a contributor to VDARE, a site that uses a lot of white supremacist rhetoric and supports descredited ideas, like that there is scientific evidence that supports idea that some races are mentally inferior to others.
Michelle Malkin has the credibility of a ... a .. um .. a "crapweasel."
Why can't an actual journalist have written this?
Schilling has pretty terrible politics and turned out to be a bad businessman, but in this case I'm totally on board with him.
They problem may very well be sociopaths, but the victims tend to be women who step outside of their traditional roles.
The there are the stalking murders of Rebecca Schaeffer and Mia Zapata plus what happened with Sarah MacLachlan, so to pretend that it's simply "sociopaths" is a gross over-simplification.
Yes. People wouldn't be complaining about "playing the sex card."
They would be feminizing the guy, calling him a wimp or worse.
When there were only a few "geeky girls" around, they were a novelty, and there weren't enough of them to affect change in the workplace. I remember those days. We had lots of highly sexist/racist terms people would just throw around without thinking. Look up "BCH, RCH, and GCH" and the mnemonic for remembering resistor color that begins "Black boys" for example (I won't repeat them). Cheesecake calendars and centerfolds were also displayed prominently at desks. And the women there had to tolerate it. They had no choice if they wanted to stay.
But starting in the early 90's, women starting getting enough power to force companies to enact sexual harassment policies. The calendars disappeared and some topics of conversation became forbidden at work. And many men resented this.
So the trolls learned from this, and thus any woman who starts to be listened to in other male-dominated areas must be destroyed as soon as possible. This is what Kathy Sierra said in her posting. Because, by default, they are not deserving of the attention.
It's the same dynamic that has kept Rush Limbaugh on the radio for 30 years.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen "meta victim blaming" where you are blaming the people who call out statements like "Don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped." as "victim blaming."
Is it at all possible in your world to blame the predators?
"People should be free to do what they want" is one of the stupidest beliefs in the world. Actions have consequences, and the thing that I "want* to do may be injurious to other people of even to humanity as a whole.
This is why I believe the libertarians typically go too far, especially how they refuse to take responsibility for how their actions adversely harm others, but I also don't want to be under the authoritarian heel either. So it's a balance.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."
I think Slashdot ought to consider that some articles, especially those about anonymous internet trolls going open loop, might be set to not allow anonymous posting.