Climate change (...) will cause some long-term issues with human habitation
I am actually very worried about impact on agriculture. Climate change will make some countries production tank, causing deaths, economical crisis, political instabilities, wars and migrations. And we already saw some instance of such trouble in the middle east.
Unfortunately, photosynthesis is not the only CO2 sink, as noted in the article: Oceans also take their share, and that cause their pH to drop, which in turns kills coral, and make coasts more vulnerable to erosion.
This is obvious: carbs have to go somewhere. Sport helps burning them in muscles, but for the sedentary, the only options for carbs in excess are making fat, or developing diabetes (or both!)
Job postings will include an "Apply Now" button that launches a standard job application flow, but pre-populated with information from a user's public profile. That could help people quickly apply for multiple jobs without typing in redundant information.
That will probably deter some companies from posting jobs opening on Facebook: If applying is as easy as a click, you quickly get thousands of CVs and you wonder how you could even filter the stream to find interesting ones.
The chart is about incidence of cancers, not mutations.
Cancer is the result of exposition to inducer factors (that cause mutations), and promoter factors (that help tumor growth). This means you can find two groups where one will have more mutations, but less cancers.
Indian food is well known to be an effective tumor growth inhibitor, hence I am not surprised to see low cancer levels for India.
If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits
Sure, we know death is a protection against cancer, but that does not answer the question. We are told smokers get 150 mutation a year, but how much does a non smoker get?
You have a point. Russia's Military spending is a tenth of what the US spends currently, and way below that of the Soviet era. So the Russification of neighboring States has been put on hold for a decade or so. But it _will_ continue, as it has since the days of Peter the Great and his expanding Russian Empire.
If you want to understand Russia's moves, you need to consider its point of view: For Russia, NATO is an hostile expanding power at work in eastern Europe.
This one is quite in line with what I was saying about the issues of discovering truth in a civil war zone: we are said the BUK system came from Russia, fired from a Kiev-controlled area and then went back to Russia. Does it makes sense for a sovereign state to claim it controls an area, when someone can bring a weapon from another country, shot down a plane and vanish afterwards?
And we still do not know why a commercial plane was flying above a war zone.
Apart from the operators bragging about it on social media you mean? And the cellular metadata putting them all in the right place at the right time, and wire tapped calls of their connections with Moscow?
You refer to John Kerry's statement from july 2014, right?
I've never been a fan of Merkel (wrong party anyway), but I'm pretty sure that her emails wouldn't reveal anything but hard work and things we already know.
Well, we may learn things that would not harm her reputation, but would cause damage to others. For instance, I am certain Merkel's inbox has some stuff on how French and Dutch politicians carved to the Lisbon treaty, after their People rejected the EU constitution treaty.
They comprehensively present the evidence for the missile type and launcher that destroyed the plane
Please note my point about the civil war area.
Even if we get confidence about what shot down MH17, that still does not tells us who operated it. You have a zone not fully controlled by anyone, filled with soldiers from both side, foreign fighters, US and Russian spies and war instructors. And all these people can seize and use weapons from each others.
Good article, except when it affirms who shot down MH17.
I know we heard various things on this, but I seriously doubt we can ever be certain about who shot down an aircraft over a region in civil war. The only valid interesting question here is why did we had commercial planes flying there at all?
Indeed such stuff looks shocking to me, but on the other hand it has some advantage: it could free us of some mistargetted ads, such as hair care for black women served to bald white men.
Slashdot Mirror
Climate change (...) will cause some long-term issues with human habitation
I am actually very worried about impact on agriculture. Climate change will make some countries production tank, causing deaths, economical crisis, political instabilities, wars and migrations. And we already saw some instance of such trouble in the middle east.
How can they degrade a Youtube video flowing through a TLS session?
Unfortunately, photosynthesis is not the only CO2 sink, as noted in the article: Oceans also take their share, and that cause their pH to drop, which in turns kills coral, and make coasts more vulnerable to erosion.
We're committed to continuing to work on this issue and improve the experiences on our platform
Translation: you may be right, but we don't care.
This is obvious: carbs have to go somewhere. Sport helps burning them in muscles, but for the sedentary, the only options for carbs in excess are making fat, or developing diabetes (or both!)
The choice was between an awkward lady and World War 3
I thought the awkward lady wanted more wars
Job postings will include an "Apply Now" button that launches a standard job application flow, but pre-populated with information from a user's public profile. That could help people quickly apply for multiple jobs without typing in redundant information.
That will probably deter some companies from posting jobs opening on Facebook: If applying is as easy as a click, you quickly get thousands of CVs and you wonder how you could even filter the stream to find interesting ones.
Perhaps they comply because they had a a court order about this in India.
The new buyers pay for the previous ones. That looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
Let me guess: the eligible areas have been selected because a higher voter turnout there favors a given candidate over the other one?
The winner will be Russian anyway, so why bother hacking the thing?
Enter a new monoculture. Will Google behave less evilly that Microsoft did in its time?
That will probably work, because Russia has no interest into revealing hacking tools just to have someone win a Chess match.
The chart is about incidence of cancers, not mutations.
Cancer is the result of exposition to inducer factors (that cause mutations), and promoter factors (that help tumor growth). This means you can find two groups where one will have more mutations, but less cancers.
Indian food is well known to be an effective tumor growth inhibitor, hence I am not surprised to see low cancer levels for India.
If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits
Sure, we know death is a protection against cancer, but that does not answer the question. We are told smokers get 150 mutation a year, but how much does a non smoker get?
You have a point. Russia's Military spending is a tenth of what the US spends currently, and way below that of the Soviet era. So the Russification of neighboring States has been put on hold for a decade or so. But it _will_ continue, as it has since the days of Peter the Great and his expanding Russian Empire.
If you want to understand Russia's moves, you need to consider its point of view: For Russia, NATO is an hostile expanding power at work in eastern Europe.
How many mutation does a non smoker get during a year? The comparison would be interesting.
those protections, which were enacted by the Library of Congress's Copyright Office in October of 2015 but delayed a full year
What caused this one year delay?
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh17-investigation-key-findings-revealed/news-story/1759d0844bd1ce07e12951f9c18b6399
This one is quite in line with what I was saying about the issues of discovering truth in a civil war zone: we are said the BUK system came from Russia, fired from a Kiev-controlled area and then went back to Russia. Does it makes sense for a sovereign state to claim it controls an area, when someone can bring a weapon from another country, shot down a plane and vanish afterwards?
And we still do not know why a commercial plane was flying above a war zone.
There is nothing really new here : What is the difference between bots and humans paid for astroturfing or trolling?
Bots have an advantage here: their volume will quickly make everyone realize social media are rigged and irrelevant.
Apart from the operators bragging about it on social media you mean? And the cellular metadata putting them all in the right place at the right time, and wire tapped calls of their connections with Moscow?
You refer to John Kerry's statement from july 2014, right?
I've never been a fan of Merkel (wrong party anyway), but I'm pretty sure that her emails wouldn't reveal anything but hard work and things we already know.
Well, we may learn things that would not harm her reputation, but would cause damage to others. For instance, I am certain Merkel's inbox has some stuff on how French and Dutch politicians carved to the Lisbon treaty, after their People rejected the EU constitution treaty.
They comprehensively present the evidence for the missile type and launcher that destroyed the plane
Please note my point about the civil war area.
Even if we get confidence about what shot down MH17, that still does not tells us who operated it. You have a zone not fully controlled by anyone, filled with soldiers from both side, foreign fighters, US and Russian spies and war instructors. And all these people can seize and use weapons from each others.
Good article, except when it affirms who shot down MH17.
I know we heard various things on this, but I seriously doubt we can ever be certain about who shot down an aircraft over a region in civil war. The only valid interesting question here is why did we had commercial planes flying there at all?
Indeed such stuff looks shocking to me, but on the other hand it has some advantage: it could free us of some mistargetted ads, such as hair care for black women served to bald white men.