It's too bad that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the original partition agreement that the British mandate tried to mediate - it was a 2 state solution. However, they rejected the talks in favor of genocidal murder for decades (because they thought they could win).
After 70 years of getting their asses kicked repeatedly, NOW they want a 2-state solution.
...scientists take a measurement that's known to be valid in only a microscopic fraction of observables (ie, systems that happen to have their ecliptic in line with ours, and have an orbital period so far of 1 year) and base broad, sweeping conclusions about the entire universe on them.
These guys are almost as bad as anthropologists, who'll build an entire career 'interpreting' facets of a who civilization extrapolated from a half-dozen potsherds.
1) this wasn't a science fair experiment. The science teacher said this had nothing to do with classwork - she was just screwing around. 2) the 'draino bomb' hardly makes "a little pop, and a little smoke" (nice job of displaying one's bias on the part of the reporter, though). Any sort of pressure in a sealed vessel can explode with nasty consequences, and drain-o is no cheery substance to be splashed with either. As a "smart" student, she should have understood that too.
And you know what, it's not a binary thing: She WAS an idiot AND The school administration are dicks for expelling her. BOTH can be simultaneously true.
(That said, I'm really f*cking sick of school admins hiding behind the 'no tolerance' nonsense. You morons are paid well to MAKE DECISIONS, it doesn't take any brainpower to follow a chain of if-then statements blindly.)
I certainly see justification for suspension for a few days, but not expulsion. If she's that good a student as portrayed, suspension will be enough.
Will it fire when my fingers are covered in zombie gore?
No?
Then no thanks.
The fact is that firearms are TOOLS. They kill things. To damn firearms for all the people they kill (including suicides) is like damning hammers for all the nails they pound in. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, technically, they're using a pretty good tool for the job.
To directly harm the utility of the tool in order to make it safe is an argument that's failing in first principles.
Of course, we're all to uncomfortable to acknowledge that simply, some people are not responsible enough to handle these kinds of dangerous tools. Rather than actually point that out, we're trying to remove the ability of every civilian to use them - brilliant. Just brilliant.
Already, every picture that I take is uploaded to the cloud. It plays merry hell on my battery life, but the fact is that - as long as I can stall for a minute or two (in decent coverage areas) - every picture I take is loaded to dropbox in the cloud.
I didn't realize quite how quickly it was working until the other day my sdcard died....all my pics were not lost.
Take my phone, shithead. Smash it. I still have the pictures, and likely you've just given me what any jury will recognize is a juicy basis for a lawsuit.
The whole 'hands free' thing went through our company, and is still the safety policy - you may NOT talk on the phone while driving without a hands-free set.
This is, simply, asinine.
The point of distracted driving isn't (mostly) about what's in your HAND. It's about being...distracted, ie your mind on something other than driving.
Not to mention, I can't count the number of times I've been in a salesman's car, his phone rings, and the dumb sunuvabitch starts rifling through his console trying to find the hands-free thingy while racing along the highway at 70+ mph.
Two points: 1) command economies are good at big stuff. Has anyone ever said otherwise? 2) Perhaps the main reason that clean energy isn't taking off in the US is because (at least for the moment) it's still largely a capitalistic society, and 'clean' energy is an entirely contrived, laterally-motivated concept (ie not driven by customer demand, but by tangential forces like a 'desire' for a clean environment contrived by the eco-lobby) whose existence relies almost entirely on government subsidy, regulatory 'sticks', and accounting sleight-of-hand?
Face it, as much as eco-nuts 'demand' we be cleaner, and legislators 'believe' we should be cleaner, Joe Public *generally* is uninterested in paying 2x the price for power if it comes from 'clean' sources. Maybe if Joe lived in 1870 London where everything was covered in soot, or something, he'd be motivated to change his habits. But the fact is, the environment in the USA hasn't reached the sort of obtrusive levels of pollution like Love Canal or the burning Hudson River that DID spark such motivations a generation ago.
Without motivation, consumers aren't typically really good at making 'commons' choices, because they're too consumed with affording things NOW to really be concerned about incremental impacts 20-50-100 years from now. No matter how much they're preached to.
He's a 'suspect' in the Marathon bombing, but AFAIK he's pretty much red-handed involved in the killing of one cop and the shooting of another, as well as lobbing pipebombs at those trying to arrest him.
Recognition that government is a necessary evil. Emphasis on "necessary" and "evil". Make the country run successfully, and stop focussing on social issues.
Take today's spending for the US gov't. Fix that for the next 4 years. No growth until the debt is reduced to 0. Divide spending that by the number of people in the country. This is the average, per person tax burden. Proportionalize, based on the person's total income (of any kind) vs the average income. If you made 2x the average income, you pay 2x share. If you made 1/10 the average income, you pay 1/10.
In principle I don't disagree with you, but what's the alternative?
If there is something that can be done to catch mass-murderers, shouldn't the police be doing so? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and carp about it, but if you're RESPONSIBLE for the safety of people, one suspects that one would be fairly conservative and do everything possible to stop them, no?
Now, on a larger scope I even more completely agree - the mass paranoia that we've been whipped into since 9/11 has entirely overshadowed the damage/deaths of 9/11.
Of course it does. Where Forbes failed in his 'explanation' is that he should have added:
"So too money best lubricates commerce when it has a fixed value...within the marketplace of its use."
Obviously the value of the dollar (for example) fluctuates constantly vis a vis other currencies. But within the market place of its use, ie the USA, the value is effectively fixed in the short term - that's why we HAVE a currency* in the first place, and why the use of currency within the US is typically limited to the USD. It does fluctuate in value even in this market in the medium-long term (inflation/deflation), but the more inflation impacts a currency within it's market, the bigger a problem it is - thus his point.
*yes, we all understand that the dollar is a placeholder in any case; particularly in the case of a fiat currency, the dollar in reality represents a unit of labor.
You aren't really using the Weimar Republic DM as an example of currency that was working correctly, are you?
Whatever used to require a PC has been gradually replaced with other, specialized hardware that addresses the shortcomings of a 'universal' platform.
Game consoles came out, addressing a lower price point and consistent locked-in hardware where those are the prime concerns of users of those aspects. Smart phones and pads have come out, addressing portability, speed of start up, and convenience for applications where those are the primary concerns.
Simultaneously, it seems like computers have reached a plateau where speed really isn't impacting users much any more. It used to be that from a 286 to a 386 to a 486 upgrades had a direct (wonderful) improvement in speed of EVERYTHING. Your word-processor started faster, your graphics program ran quicker, everything was perceptibly different and better. Now, essentially, most typical applications open almost instantly. Really, the lag bottleneck on launching big apps or games is the hard drive, making SSD's a bigger impact for the user than a new computer.
(IMO the only 'frontier' that really impacts users today for PCs is startup time. I still would like a system that a) I can *really* shut down - not just leave in a 500w-consuming-'sleep' mode, and b) will start as fast as a pad-device. Then again, starting my android smartphone now seems to take more time than my old 386 used to....)
It's one of the few (to me) persuasive arguments that life might be quite rare, in that so many other ways our sun and system is apparently entirely pedestrian.
Our seemingly interesting local neighborhood and circumstances for only the last 5-10 million years might mean that intelligent life - on this planet at least - might be existing only in what (on a galactic scale) amounts to a spark floating for a moment in the flickering gap between tongues of a campfire's flame.
I already ran into this with Steam. When my sons started getting Steam games as gifts, they were too young for their own account (2004?) - they were 7? 8? so I (I guess, stupidly) applied their games to mine, would log on and let them play.
Over the years, we just kept accumulating games, and applying them to "the house account". We did open an extra account once, so we could multiplayer (I think we have Magicka on that one too.), and then (by accident, since 14 year olds are often more interested in getting "that game" installed than thinking about) a couple more games got installed on that account too.
Now they're 17+ and (obviously) have their own accounts.
Unfortunately, I have games and stuff on my account that are technically theirs...Civ5, Magicka and a ton of expansions, Skyrim, etc. I don't play them, I don't want access to them, etc. I'd love to just xfer them to their account, and be done. But right now we basically have to text each other "Dad, you on steam account (X) tonight, or can I play on it?" because we have my (main) account, our other (house) account, and then each of their accounts.
(I tried to raise this concern earlier here, and the Slashmob attacked me for lying, fabricating the situation, and all sorts of things. Not sure why? But I simply doubt many of these services, and certainly Terms, weren't drafted with a 10+ year timeframe expected. Now I am paying the price for not thinking it through, either.)
Not saying that we're there yet, but one might extrapolate not inconceivably far into the future to ask about the essential and theoretical foundations which grant this so-called 'legitimacy' to a state that somehow outranks the individual. What is it that a state "has" that an individual doesn't, and could we conceive of a society in which the state doesn't have any sort of primacy over the individual?
It speaks to the essential nature of the social contract, and the state born therefrom (of course this assumes that the power of the state flows FROM the the citizen, and not the other way around); but in an era where there are fewer and fewer intrinsic bottlenecks on the movement, communication, and power of citizens - for example, we're not THAT far away (50 years? 100 years?) from an era in which people could credibly create their own nuclear or bioweapons. What happens to the concepts of WMD "proliferation" when the technology, energy, and intellectual resources are ubiquitous?
It's worth mentioning that I see this in the roots of the 2nd Amendment discussions in the US as well: the martial power available to a citizen in, say, a fully-automatic weapon is almost inconceivably more than the Founding Fathers imagined a single individual having. Does this mean that the Amendment should be nullified, or (as we have today) that we acquiesce to incrementally circumscribing what is an otherwise pretty categorical and straightforward prohibition on ANY such limitation?
It's of course a smaller issue, but I see the powers available to UAVs another camel-nose-under-the-tent of personal capability to do something formerly reserved to government. I do NOT believe that blanket prohibition is in any way feasible or practicable over the long term - genies don't go back into bottles willingly.
Yes, it does seem like there should be some rigor to the process. I don't want my descendants emigrating to the planet "My Hairy Balls"* because I was drunk and happened to have some spare cash lying around that day.
*although it would, perhaps, be a poetic illustration of the circle of life.
Personally, I've always found zealots of either side are far more similar than different. Sure they may have superficial differences in beliefs, etc, but their manner, approach, and fundamental motivations seem very much the same.
I know it's anathema for/. to praise MS but this is good.
The guy made not only catastrophically stupid comments, but came off as arrogant and patronizing. Whether his exit is graceful or humiliating, I don't really care: it's a GOOD THING that he has departed MS.
Whether it was a higher up 'suggesting he seek another opportunity', or him quitting after getting constant complaints about it, either way it should be clear that his beliefs are not going to be the company line at MS. That's an unmitigated good.
Then again, having panic (or outrage) 'on tap' seems to be the raison d'etre for media information centers of democratic governments since at least 9/11, if not earlier.
I entirely agree with your points, but I'd point out that since the US gov't has been borrowing to cover ongoing budget shortfalls for years, TECHNICALLY there are a lot of things that they "paid for" last year that they actually couldn't afford.
Climate change will ruin the crops. Climate change will ruin crabs. Climate change will kill all the coral. Climate change will benefit or kill insects (whether they're considered pests or beneficial in that particular article, respectively). Climate change will cause areas to get wetter (if that would be bad). Climate change will cause other areas to desertify (if that would be bad). Climate change will make some places warmer (if that would be bad) or colder (if that would be bad). Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is held fondly) to die off. Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is nasty, disliked, or hated) to flourish. Climate change will cause your airline rides to be bumpier. Climate change will cause weather patterns to "change". Climate change will cause widespread war. Climate change will cause famine. Climate change will increase the rate of disease. Specifically, Climate change will cause more diarrhoea. Climate change will cause more snowfall (where that's bad), or reduce it (where that's bad). Climate change will cause more, bigger hurricanes and extreme weather events. Climate change will increase the number of volcanoes and earthquakes. (My personal favorite.) Climate change will increase the incidence of stress-related behaviors* and mental illness. *presumably, more mass killings since that's the fear-du-jour? Climate change will increase the level of particulates in the air, and generally decrease air quality everywhere. Climate change will raise the cost of (everything), including internet services and cable television.
Did I miss any?
I haven't yet heard how climate change will increase meteorite impacts, but I'm almost certain there's someone, somewhere working on a rationalization to "explain" that too.
This list was assembled from the news reports I've paid attention to in JUST THE LAST 4 months.
Nonsense, so weak it doesn't even merit a "nice try".
"When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things. "One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
That has essentially no context implied. If he'd said "before he went to Cairo" or "in light of his visit to Egypt"...no, the context was "When I became (X), my BOSS told me three things....foremost being kissing the butt of people he's going to talk to tomorrow."
There's no misquoting here, as convenient as that would be for apologists.
Slashdot Mirror
It's too bad that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the original partition agreement that the British mandate tried to mediate - it was a 2 state solution. However, they rejected the talks in favor of genocidal murder for decades (because they thought they could win).
After 70 years of getting their asses kicked repeatedly, NOW they want a 2-state solution.
How convenient!
...scientists take a measurement that's known to be valid in only a microscopic fraction of observables (ie, systems that happen to have their ecliptic in line with ours, and have an orbital period so far of 1 year) and base broad, sweeping conclusions about the entire universe on them.
These guys are almost as bad as anthropologists, who'll build an entire career 'interpreting' facets of a who civilization extrapolated from a half-dozen potsherds.
Some people like cold beverages because their country gets warm.
But then you probably need sunlight to have actual warmth, so I can comprehend why a Brit might not comprehend that.
1) this wasn't a science fair experiment. The science teacher said this had nothing to do with classwork - she was just screwing around.
2) the 'draino bomb' hardly makes "a little pop, and a little smoke" (nice job of displaying one's bias on the part of the reporter, though). Any sort of pressure in a sealed vessel can explode with nasty consequences, and drain-o is no cheery substance to be splashed with either. As a "smart" student, she should have understood that too.
And you know what, it's not a binary thing:
She WAS an idiot AND The school administration are dicks for expelling her.
BOTH can be simultaneously true.
(That said, I'm really f*cking sick of school admins hiding behind the 'no tolerance' nonsense. You morons are paid well to MAKE DECISIONS, it doesn't take any brainpower to follow a chain of if-then statements blindly.)
I certainly see justification for suspension for a few days, but not expulsion.
If she's that good a student as portrayed, suspension will be enough.
Will it fire when my fingers are covered in zombie gore?
No?
Then no thanks.
The fact is that firearms are TOOLS. They kill things. To damn firearms for all the people they kill (including suicides) is like damning hammers for all the nails they pound in. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, technically, they're using a pretty good tool for the job.
To directly harm the utility of the tool in order to make it safe is an argument that's failing in first principles.
Of course, we're all to uncomfortable to acknowledge that simply, some people are not responsible enough to handle these kinds of dangerous tools. Rather than actually point that out, we're trying to remove the ability of every civilian to use them - brilliant. Just brilliant.
Already, every picture that I take is uploaded to the cloud. It plays merry hell on my battery life, but the fact is that - as long as I can stall for a minute or two (in decent coverage areas) - every picture I take is loaded to dropbox in the cloud.
I didn't realize quite how quickly it was working until the other day my sdcard died....all my pics were not lost.
Take my phone, shithead. Smash it. I still have the pictures, and likely you've just given me what any jury will recognize is a juicy basis for a lawsuit.
The whole 'hands free' thing went through our company, and is still the safety policy - you may NOT talk on the phone while driving without a hands-free set.
This is, simply, asinine.
The point of distracted driving isn't (mostly) about what's in your HAND. It's about being...distracted, ie your mind on something other than driving.
Not to mention, I can't count the number of times I've been in a salesman's car, his phone rings, and the dumb sunuvabitch starts rifling through his console trying to find the hands-free thingy while racing along the highway at 70+ mph.
Two points:
1) command economies are good at big stuff. Has anyone ever said otherwise?
2) Perhaps the main reason that clean energy isn't taking off in the US is because (at least for the moment) it's still largely a capitalistic society, and 'clean' energy is an entirely contrived, laterally-motivated concept (ie not driven by customer demand, but by tangential forces like a 'desire' for a clean environment contrived by the eco-lobby) whose existence relies almost entirely on government subsidy, regulatory 'sticks', and accounting sleight-of-hand?
Face it, as much as eco-nuts 'demand' we be cleaner, and legislators 'believe' we should be cleaner, Joe Public *generally* is uninterested in paying 2x the price for power if it comes from 'clean' sources. Maybe if Joe lived in 1870 London where everything was covered in soot, or something, he'd be motivated to change his habits. But the fact is, the environment in the USA hasn't reached the sort of obtrusive levels of pollution like Love Canal or the burning Hudson River that DID spark such motivations a generation ago.
Without motivation, consumers aren't typically really good at making 'commons' choices, because they're too consumed with affording things NOW to really be concerned about incremental impacts 20-50-100 years from now. No matter how much they're preached to.
He's a 'suspect' in the Marathon bombing, but AFAIK he's pretty much red-handed involved in the killing of one cop and the shooting of another, as well as lobbing pipebombs at those trying to arrest him.
So yeah, guilty now. Maybe more guilty later.
Recognition that government is a necessary evil.
Emphasis on "necessary" and "evil". Make the country run successfully, and stop focussing on social issues.
Take today's spending for the US gov't. Fix that for the next 4 years. No growth until the debt is reduced to 0.
Divide spending that by the number of people in the country.
This is the average, per person tax burden.
Proportionalize, based on the person's total income (of any kind) vs the average income. If you made 2x the average income, you pay 2x share. If you made 1/10 the average income, you pay 1/10.
In principle I don't disagree with you, but what's the alternative?
If there is something that can be done to catch mass-murderers, shouldn't the police be doing so? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and carp about it, but if you're RESPONSIBLE for the safety of people, one suspects that one would be fairly conservative and do everything possible to stop them, no?
Now, on a larger scope I even more completely agree - the mass paranoia that we've been whipped into since 9/11 has entirely overshadowed the damage/deaths of 9/11.
Of course it does.
Where Forbes failed in his 'explanation' is that he should have added:
"So too money best lubricates commerce when it has a fixed value... within the marketplace of its use ."
Obviously the value of the dollar (for example) fluctuates constantly vis a vis other currencies. But within the market place of its use, ie the USA, the value is effectively fixed in the short term - that's why we HAVE a currency* in the first place, and why the use of currency within the US is typically limited to the USD. It does fluctuate in value even in this market in the medium-long term (inflation/deflation), but the more inflation impacts a currency within it's market, the bigger a problem it is - thus his point.
*yes, we all understand that the dollar is a placeholder in any case; particularly in the case of a fiat currency, the dollar in reality represents a unit of labor.
You aren't really using the Weimar Republic DM as an example of currency that was working correctly, are you?
Whatever used to require a PC has been gradually replaced with other, specialized hardware that addresses the shortcomings of a 'universal' platform.
Game consoles came out, addressing a lower price point and consistent locked-in hardware where those are the prime concerns of users of those aspects.
Smart phones and pads have come out, addressing portability, speed of start up, and convenience for applications where those are the primary concerns.
Simultaneously, it seems like computers have reached a plateau where speed really isn't impacting users much any more. It used to be that from a 286 to a 386 to a 486 upgrades had a direct (wonderful) improvement in speed of EVERYTHING. Your word-processor started faster, your graphics program ran quicker, everything was perceptibly different and better. Now, essentially, most typical applications open almost instantly. Really, the lag bottleneck on launching big apps or games is the hard drive, making SSD's a bigger impact for the user than a new computer.
(IMO the only 'frontier' that really impacts users today for PCs is startup time. I still would like a system that a) I can *really* shut down - not just leave in a 500w-consuming-'sleep' mode, and b) will start as fast as a pad-device. Then again, starting my android smartphone now seems to take more time than my old 386 used to....)
It's one of the few (to me) persuasive arguments that life might be quite rare, in that so many other ways our sun and system is apparently entirely pedestrian.
Our seemingly interesting local neighborhood and circumstances for only the last 5-10 million years might mean that intelligent life - on this planet at least - might be existing only in what (on a galactic scale) amounts to a spark floating for a moment in the flickering gap between tongues of a campfire's flame.
It's humbling, really.
I already ran into this with Steam.
When my sons started getting Steam games as gifts, they were too young for their own account (2004?) - they were 7? 8? so I (I guess, stupidly) applied their games to mine, would log on and let them play.
Over the years, we just kept accumulating games, and applying them to "the house account". We did open an extra account once, so we could multiplayer (I think we have Magicka on that one too.), and then (by accident, since 14 year olds are often more interested in getting "that game" installed than thinking about) a couple more games got installed on that account too.
Now they're 17+ and (obviously) have their own accounts.
Unfortunately, I have games and stuff on my account that are technically theirs...Civ5, Magicka and a ton of expansions, Skyrim, etc. I don't play them, I don't want access to them, etc. I'd love to just xfer them to their account, and be done. But right now we basically have to text each other "Dad, you on steam account (X) tonight, or can I play on it?" because we have my (main) account, our other (house) account, and then each of their accounts.
(I tried to raise this concern earlier here, and the Slashmob attacked me for lying, fabricating the situation, and all sorts of things. Not sure why? But I simply doubt many of these services, and certainly Terms, weren't drafted with a 10+ year timeframe expected. Now I am paying the price for not thinking it through, either.)
Not saying that we're there yet, but one might extrapolate not inconceivably far into the future to ask about the essential and theoretical foundations which grant this so-called 'legitimacy' to a state that somehow outranks the individual. What is it that a state "has" that an individual doesn't, and could we conceive of a society in which the state doesn't have any sort of primacy over the individual?
It speaks to the essential nature of the social contract, and the state born therefrom (of course this assumes that the power of the state flows FROM the the citizen, and not the other way around); but in an era where there are fewer and fewer intrinsic bottlenecks on the movement, communication, and power of citizens - for example, we're not THAT far away (50 years? 100 years?) from an era in which people could credibly create their own nuclear or bioweapons. What happens to the concepts of WMD "proliferation" when the technology, energy, and intellectual resources are ubiquitous?
It's worth mentioning that I see this in the roots of the 2nd Amendment discussions in the US as well: the martial power available to a citizen in, say, a fully-automatic weapon is almost inconceivably more than the Founding Fathers imagined a single individual having. Does this mean that the Amendment should be nullified, or (as we have today) that we acquiesce to incrementally circumscribing what is an otherwise pretty categorical and straightforward prohibition on ANY such limitation?
It's of course a smaller issue, but I see the powers available to UAVs another camel-nose-under-the-tent of personal capability to do something formerly reserved to government. I do NOT believe that blanket prohibition is in any way feasible or practicable over the long term - genies don't go back into bottles willingly.
Yes, it does seem like there should be some rigor to the process. I don't want my descendants emigrating to the planet "My Hairy Balls"* because I was drunk and happened to have some spare cash lying around that day.
*although it would, perhaps, be a poetic illustration of the circle of life.
Personally, I've always found zealots of either side are far more similar than different. Sure they may have superficial differences in beliefs, etc, but their manner, approach, and fundamental motivations seem very much the same.
I know it's anathema for /. to praise MS but this is good.
The guy made not only catastrophically stupid comments, but came off as arrogant and patronizing. Whether his exit is graceful or humiliating, I don't really care: it's a GOOD THING that he has departed MS.
Whether it was a higher up 'suggesting he seek another opportunity', or him quitting after getting constant complaints about it, either way it should be clear that his beliefs are not going to be the company line at MS. That's an unmitigated good.
Then again, having panic (or outrage) 'on tap' seems to be the raison d'etre for media information centers of democratic governments since at least 9/11, if not earlier.
I entirely agree with your points, but I'd point out that since the US gov't has been borrowing to cover ongoing budget shortfalls for years, TECHNICALLY there are a lot of things that they "paid for" last year that they actually couldn't afford.
Climate change will ruin the crops.
Climate change will ruin crabs.
Climate change will kill all the coral.
Climate change will benefit or kill insects (whether they're considered pests or beneficial in that particular article, respectively).
Climate change will cause areas to get wetter (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause other areas to desertify (if that would be bad).
Climate change will make some places warmer (if that would be bad) or colder (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is held fondly) to die off.
Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is nasty, disliked, or hated) to flourish.
Climate change will cause your airline rides to be bumpier.
Climate change will cause weather patterns to "change".
Climate change will cause widespread war.
Climate change will cause famine.
Climate change will increase the rate of disease.
Specifically, Climate change will cause more diarrhoea.
Climate change will cause more snowfall (where that's bad), or reduce it (where that's bad).
Climate change will cause more, bigger hurricanes and extreme weather events.
Climate change will increase the number of volcanoes and earthquakes. (My personal favorite.)
Climate change will increase the incidence of stress-related behaviors* and mental illness.
*presumably, more mass killings since that's the fear-du-jour?
Climate change will increase the level of particulates in the air, and generally decrease air quality everywhere.
Climate change will raise the cost of (everything), including internet services and cable television.
Did I miss any?
I haven't yet heard how climate change will increase meteorite impacts, but I'm almost certain there's someone, somewhere working on a rationalization to "explain" that too.
This list was assembled from the news reports I've paid attention to in JUST THE LAST 4 months.
...what "Big Brother" policies HAVEN'T been motivated by some superficial 'good intent'?
Seriously?
Last time I checked, the pavement on the road to Hell was still the same as it always was.
You have to be kidding, right?
I mean, it's not like the thing preventing use from smoking Somali pirates is the ineffectiveness or expense of our weapons.
I think the impotence problem is a little lower, in the area where testicles are supposed to be.
Nonsense, so weak it doesn't even merit a "nice try".
"When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things. "One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
That has essentially no context implied. If he'd said "before he went to Cairo" or "in light of his visit to Egypt"...no, the context was "When I became (X), my BOSS told me three things....foremost being kissing the butt of people he's going to talk to tomorrow."
There's no misquoting here, as convenient as that would be for apologists.