Statutes like that shouldn't exist. They distort the truth and the natural being of things. If you're an engineer you're an engineer, no matter what some retarded Oregon institution thinks about it. That 'law' is a clear candidate for permanent jury annulment. Ridiculous, what the fuck are we talking about? You're something but you're by law not allowed to say so. Fucking stupid.
If there are indications she has been bullied into committing suicide there should be a police investigation involving also her facebook account. (why is 'facebook' not yet a word in slashdot's spell checker?)
The whole concept of not being allowed to say that you're an engineer when in fact you are one is preposterous.
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
Wrong.
Russians want to co-operate and do business with Europe.
An alliance between Russian with its huge resources and population and Europe (especially Germany) with their capital and technology would totally dominate the US. That is the main reason why the US are setting Europe and Russia up against each other.
Divide and conquer.
Ok, so the Israelis are illegally in Syria, trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign country, probably even operating un-uniformed, i.e.: as spies--risking death penalties in such cases during war time.... And their possible exposure is bad in what way?
WW I & II were fought for, and partly by the Americans.
The primordial interest of the United States over which for a century we have fought wars--the first, second world war--, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen.
-- G. Friedman, at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Feb 4, 2015.
(Makes one wonder what that mess in the Ukraine is about, no?)
Mankind has been warmongering over differences in belief systems for thousands of years.
The people who pull the strings and initiate the fighting don't give fuck about religion. They just (ab)use it to manipulate their people into agreeing with wars for geopolitical purposes and for financial gain of the elite (= people pulling the strings).
Satan, that is our political leaders who wage war for geo-political reasons and out of financial self-interest, like shares in weapons factories.
Satan, that is the leaders and owners of the military-industrial complex that lobby and pay the people in governments to start wars, so their weapons can be sold and used.
Satan, that is the bankers who want to take away our cash and financial freedom, and want to destroy any non-western bank in order to establish their own and get all countries under their control. Oh, and charge negative interest of course once we are 'cash less'.
There is absolutely no reason to look into the sky or soil, looking for a satan--or god for that matter--somewere outside of this world.
Satan is here, where most of us don't see him because most people don't see hell from the satans.
That's not so difficult. Just keep the functionality and look-and-feel and people will be fine with an upgrade (not a down-grade to an OS that they actually don't want).
Good for you if you live in a country where people are educated enough to realize that the foot bridge is there for their safety.
You see that wrong, (almost) nobody is interested in preventing people from dying, as you can see in the US where 45,000 people per year avoidably die (American Journal of Public Health 2009) from being uninsured. The truth is, that the foot bridges are there for the convenience of the motorized traffic, not for the protection of the paupers who can't afford a car anyway.
The other truth is that health care, err.. people being uninsured, is an (one of the many) 'extraction mechanism' that keeps the transfer of wealth from middle and lower class to upper class going on and on. People in congress are almost all part of the upper class and therefore aren't very keen on insuring everybody. If someone falls ill, he'll go to the bank for a loan, has to submit his valuables (house etc.) as a collateral, and whether he heals or not, he has lost his house to the bank because there simply is no way he can pay back the ridiculously expensive hospital bill, so the bank just got richer at 10 cents to the dollar.
The other truth is that falling ill is many times out of pure coincidence, but a coincidence that keeps bankrupting people randomly all the time.
It is beyond me why those people aren't banding together by sharing the risks collectively, averaging the health care (actually it is 'disease care') costs to an affordable level, aka cooperative health insurance.
As I said, I don't have the time and means to re-construct the whole climate science.
But the behaviour I see from leading climate scientists and non-scientists, together with the faults in logic regarding modeling and incompleteness of the theory, give me rat's smell and fishy feeling.
My main scientific argument however, is that the models *can not* predict parameters outside their range of calibration, that the theory isn't complete, the feedback loops aren't all understood or not even invented yet, and the financial and political incentives are too big to make me 'believe' in the so called science, which in my opinion, as has been shown in many other fields of science, is very prone to 'community thought'.
Political interests and greed wouldn't affect approximately every climate scientist in the world similarly.
No, but if you're in the right position you can manipulate them all, or almost all.
Take for instance Michael Hulme, head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, when it was formed in the 1990's. It's members constitute numerous participants in the IPCC.
In his recent book 'Why we disagree about climate change', he wrote:
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
These myths transcend the scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'.
So, according to one of the 'important' and authoritative persons in the climate change discussion, it's ok to let climate change work for your 'personal projects' and mobilize the people by just telling them some 'stories' and 'myths', and it doesn't matter whether they are true or not, because they 'transcend' those scientific categories.
Sorry, but after reading this, I think I know enough. Thank you very much...
If you raise the CO2 concentrations, total mass of plants will increase because of more vigorous growth. So there will be more CO2 stored in plant materials than before the increase in atmospheric CO2. There's your net sink.
Never mind the rotting, there's increased vegetation volume, or mass, or how you want to measure it, and that binds more CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
Statutes like that shouldn't exist. They distort the truth and the natural being of things. If you're an engineer you're an engineer, no matter what some retarded Oregon institution thinks about it. That 'law' is a clear candidate for permanent jury annulment. Ridiculous, what the fuck are we talking about? You're something but you're by law not allowed to say so. Fucking stupid.
It's the fault of Windows, that should give a warning that within 24 hours it will shut down, and then do it.
If there are indications she has been bullied into committing suicide there should be a police investigation involving also her facebook account. (why is 'facebook' not yet a word in slashdot's spell checker?)
Also the 'squad' looked on unallocated space so there is doubt the doctor put the pictures there himself.
The whole concept of not being allowed to say that you're an engineer when in fact you are one is preposterous.
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
Wrong.
Russians want to co-operate and do business with Europe.
An alliance between Russian with its huge resources and population and Europe (especially Germany) with their capital and technology would totally dominate the US. That is the main reason why the US are setting Europe and Russia up against each other.
Divide and conquer.
Helping ISIS probably...
Well, if those infosec people did their job their would be strong encryption on the laptop and always a backup available.
...wants to shoot itself in the foot...
Not if the goal is the destruction of America.
Ok, so the Israelis are illegally in Syria, trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign country, probably even operating un-uniformed, i.e.: as spies--risking death penalties in such cases during war time.... And their possible exposure is bad in what way?
The primordial interest of the United States over which for a century we have fought wars--the first, second world war--, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen.
-- G. Friedman, at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Feb 4, 2015.
(Makes one wonder what that mess in the Ukraine is about, no?)
Mankind has been warmongering over differences in belief systems for thousands of years.
The people who pull the strings and initiate the fighting don't give fuck about religion. They just (ab)use it to manipulate their people into agreeing with wars for geopolitical purposes and for financial gain of the elite (= people pulling the strings).
So we need 'open propaganda'?
I don't know whether you noticed, but those countries are becoming increasingly rare...
Maybe that someone else didn't mention Trump?
Satan, that is our political leaders who wage war for geo-political reasons and out of financial self-interest, like shares in weapons factories.
Satan, that is the leaders and owners of the military-industrial complex that lobby and pay the people in governments to start wars, so their weapons can be sold and used.
Satan, that is the bankers who want to take away our cash and financial freedom, and want to destroy any non-western bank in order to establish their own and get all countries under their control. Oh, and charge negative interest of course once we are 'cash less'.
There is absolutely no reason to look into the sky or soil, looking for a satan--or god for that matter--somewere outside of this world.
Satan is here, where most of us don't see him because most people don't see hell from the satans.
And how would they get users to upgrade?
That's not so difficult. Just keep the functionality and look-and-feel and people will be fine with an upgrade (not a down-grade to an OS that they actually don't want).
Good for you if you live in a country where people are educated enough to realize that the foot bridge is there for their safety.
You see that wrong, (almost) nobody is interested in preventing people from dying, as you can see in the US where 45,000 people per year avoidably die (American Journal of Public Health 2009) from being uninsured. The truth is, that the foot bridges are there for the convenience of the motorized traffic, not for the protection of the paupers who can't afford a car anyway.
The other truth is that health care, err.. people being uninsured, is an (one of the many) 'extraction mechanism' that keeps the transfer of wealth from middle and lower class to upper class going on and on. People in congress are almost all part of the upper class and therefore aren't very keen on insuring everybody. If someone falls ill, he'll go to the bank for a loan, has to submit his valuables (house etc.) as a collateral, and whether he heals or not, he has lost his house to the bank because there simply is no way he can pay back the ridiculously expensive hospital bill, so the bank just got richer at 10 cents to the dollar.
The other truth is that falling ill is many times out of pure coincidence, but a coincidence that keeps bankrupting people randomly all the time.
It is beyond me why those people aren't banding together by sharing the risks collectively, averaging the health care (actually it is 'disease care') costs to an affordable level, aka cooperative health insurance.
Puuuuh-leeeeze!
As I said, I don't have the time and means to re-construct the whole climate science.
But the behaviour I see from leading climate scientists and non-scientists, together with the faults in logic regarding modeling and incompleteness of the theory, give me rat's smell and fishy feeling.
My main scientific argument however, is that the models *can not* predict parameters outside their range of calibration, that the theory isn't complete, the feedback loops aren't all understood or not even invented yet, and the financial and political incentives are too big to make me 'believe' in the so called science, which in my opinion, as has been shown in many other fields of science, is very prone to 'community thought'.
Political interests and greed wouldn't affect approximately every climate scientist in the world similarly.
No, but if you're in the right position you can manipulate them all, or almost all.
Take for instance Michael Hulme, head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, when it was formed in the 1990's. It's members constitute numerous participants in the IPCC.
In his recent book 'Why we disagree about climate change', he wrote:
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
These myths transcend the scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'.
So, according to one of the 'important' and authoritative persons in the climate change discussion, it's ok to let climate change work for your 'personal projects' and mobilize the people by just telling them some 'stories' and 'myths', and it doesn't matter whether they are true or not, because they 'transcend' those scientific categories.
Sorry, but after reading this, I think I know enough. Thank you very much...
If you raise the CO2 concentrations, total mass of plants will increase because of more vigorous growth. So there will be more CO2 stored in plant materials than before the increase in atmospheric CO2. There's your net sink.
Never mind the rotting, there's increased vegetation volume, or mass, or how you want to measure it, and that binds more CO2.
That's what I call predatory advertising.
I'm glad I'm not part of that stupid facebook abuse.
I use Liferea.
It's very convenient to browse through a list of new topics on various websites and read the first paragraph(s) or summaries.
Which reminds me to not reply to any ACs at all anymore. Too many idiots among them.