This is exactly the sort of earth sciences and monitoring that the GOP in congress is trying to strip from NASA's (already woefully inadequate) budget when they say NASA should stick to space science and stop turning the cameras/instruments around to look back at the Earth.
Yeah, two countries run by dictators are totally comparable to the policies of liberals in America. Instead of...say...other countries that actually are similar to America and have already instituted those policies, like most of Europe.
In regards to cuba...what event happened 50 years ago, just by coincidence? oh ya. the embargo. but that's just coincidence.....
has more to do with the random assignment of mod points. that doesn't change the fact the your posts are consistently misinformed and ignorant, and tend to be modded as such.
(stupid lack of edit button) yes...a group that wants to end disproportionate treatment by police and society, due to their skin color, is somehow racist. you're literally taking the stance that a group that wants equal treatment under the law, a group that currently experiences unequal, ie racist, treatment...is itself racist.
just more "equal rights are special rights" stupidity from a rwnj.
don't forget that that dredging also involves the dumping of the material removed near enough to the reefs that it will negatively impact the water clarity that coral depends on to survive.
yes...a group that wants disproportionate treatment by police and society, due to their skin color, is somehow racist. you're literally taking the stance that a group that wants equal treatment under the law, a group that currently experiences unequal, ie racist, treatment...is itself racist.
just more "equal rights are special rights" stupidity from a rwnj.
when they argue against MW increases they are actually getting the cycle backwards.
the cost of living increases on its in a growing thriving economy. the minimum/living wage level has to be increased simply to match it, or else you get the system and cycles of poverty and inequality that we have now, which is a drag on the economy. boosting the MW actually helps continue that growing thriving economy.
Many of the crimes in the US are committed by illegal immigrants — an indisputable fact, even if we can not agree on the exact figures.
False. Saying its indisputable doesn't make it so. There are what, 10mil illegal immigrants? Compared to 320mil legal residents? And you expect us to believe they commit more crimes than legal residents? Even as a percentage that just isnt supported...anywhere.
That building a border-wall would greatly reduce their numbers — indisputably proven by Israel's border wall.
Really? Indisputably? Again?
Ok...here we go: The wall has done very little to stop attacks or crossings. Even Israel's own right wing factions acknowledge the wall has played little part and is ineffective. That credit goes to waning support for violence, and the ability of the Israeli Intelligence to disrupt them. The real reason for the wall is to further expand the territory they have, since possession is 9/10 the law. http://972mag.com/wave-of-stab...
The Second Intifada ended for a number of reasons, only one of which was the separation barrier. That becomes especially clear when you look at how little of the barrier had actually been constructed by the time the attacks stopped.
The violence of the Second Intifada wound down because Israeli intelligence managed to wear down armed Palestinian groups. Popular Palestinian support for the violent uprising slowly dwindled due to the painful consequences, namely Israeli military operations, sieges, closures and curfews, which affected more and more of Palestinian society with little to show for their suffering. And finally, momentum simply fell off; the First Intifada also lasted for roughly five years before slowly coming to a halt.
Even a 10% reduction in crime will pay for the wall within one year. Maybe, the 10% figure is exaggerated, but 1% is certainly reasonable. So the wall will pay off in 10 years instead — still a big win.
No, it's not reasonable. And you've clearly ignored upkeep costs.
The wall Trump wants would cost a minimum of 30 billion to build. that's just in materials, and does not include labor or logistics. which would easily be 2/3 or more of the total project cost. so to build out you're talking ~70-90 billion. (All that....and defeating it as simple as spending ~30$ at Home Depot on a ladder.)
The harsh desert sun and wind would quickly put it into poor shape, so regularly maintence is a must. maintenance costs alone would exceed the initial build cost after only 7 years. so annualized that's ~10 billion a year (at 70b build cost). plus, because walls are stupid-easy to defeat with ladders and tunnels, you're still going to have to man it, which means even more border agents, cameras, monitoring equipment than we currently have. so thats even more money.
So, even going conservatively, 10 year cost total comes to 170billion.
Annually, crime costs ~15b in economic losses, and ~180b in government spending fighting it. That's ~200b a year.
So no, you're not paying it off after 10 years. Or ever really.
And thats again ignoring that the wall will not reduce crime anyway because your entire premise is that immigration is the source of the majority of crime, whic
ok so the claim that you know anything at all about data science is complete bullshit then.
because the accuracy of a single thermometer has fuck-all to do with the margin of error of a dataset comprising a global average.
and no, the accuracy of a 19th century thermometer was not +/- 1C. they may not have achieved the +/-0.002C that some of the ones on my bench right now can achieve, but nor were they that bad.
After being properly calibrated, which largely consists of marking hte scale along the bulb properly, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings. an as long as the bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed, their temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree.
damn. looks like you didnt know what you're talking about again.
positioned "wrong" as simple as "it recieves full direct sun in the morning, but is shaded all afternoon".
now normally the hottest part of hte day is in the afternoon, from ~2-6pm. but even your feeble mind should be able to grasp how such a site would give warming morning temps and cooler evening temps.
or: it used to be in sun 5 years ago, but now its in shade. either because a tree grew, or the station was moved.
or any of a dozen other situations. that doesnt make the data useless or wrong, especially if you know how to adjust for the changes so that each data point is appropriately comparable with the rest. (and if you actually worked with data regularly as you have claimed before, you'd know that)
and thats what the entire process is about. as i said, you claim to know data? then you surely are aware of data calibration procedures, or "adjustments" meant to achieve the same baseline so that comparisons between data are actually valid. yet here you constantly act mystified as to the why and how of it, and dismiss it as a conspiracy meant to cover something up.
which leaves you to blatantly ignore that the effect of those adjustments is largely to REDUCE the amount of warming shown in the data.
(this the part where you link to Watts or someone saying they increased the warming, where i will then rebut that stupid myth by pointing out it they are only talking about the north american (mostly US) data which was increased, but is more than offset by the rest of the data from the rest of hte world, that was by and large calibrated downward, giving an overall effect of reducing warming)
that's easy. its a taxi company, that willfully ignores taxi regulations. regulations that its competition, taxi companies who follow the rules, have to follow. that is its business model and the source of its profitability, as the other stuff (phone app, etc) is incidental and even taxi co.'s are getting in on that.
even you know that...as even you have stated such before. so you can drop this burden of proof fallacy that you insist on engaging in all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the sort of earth sciences and monitoring that the GOP in congress is trying to strip from NASA's (already woefully inadequate) budget when they say NASA should stick to space science and stop turning the cameras/instruments around to look back at the Earth.
funny how the CIA isn't aware of this but mr random AC is.
> His followers are happy to engage in violence
Trump
FTFY.
Yeah, two countries run by dictators are totally comparable to the policies of liberals in America. Instead of...say...other countries that actually are similar to America and have already instituted those policies, like most of Europe.
In regards to cuba...what event happened 50 years ago, just by coincidence?
oh ya. the embargo.
but that's just coincidence.....
has more to do with the random assignment of mod points.
that doesn't change the fact the your posts are consistently misinformed and ignorant, and tend to be modded as such.
oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
meanwhile back in reality actual demographic and census numbers indicate that no one has a majority, but democrats enjoy a plurality over republicans.
or stated another way: you statement is just as true as the statement that " a majority of americans are either Democrats or Independent".
(stupid lack of edit button)
yes...a group that wants to end disproportionate treatment by police and society, due to their skin color, is somehow racist.
you're literally taking the stance that a group that wants equal treatment under the law, a group that currently experiences unequal, ie racist, treatment...is itself racist.
just more "equal rights are special rights" stupidity from a rwnj.
don't forget that that dredging also involves the dumping of the material removed near enough to the reefs that it will negatively impact the water clarity that coral depends on to survive.
No, only delusional RWNJ's who don't understand what reality is are debating that.
yes...a group that wants disproportionate treatment by police and society, due to their skin color, is somehow racist.
you're literally taking the stance that a group that wants equal treatment under the law, a group that currently experiences unequal, ie racist, treatment...is itself racist.
just more "equal rights are special rights" stupidity from a rwnj.
you misspelt Bush
troll be trollin
So you have to be a politician to have an opinion on a politician?
Or a businessman to have an opinion on a businessman?
Well the good news is, neither is Trump.
So I guess he still gets to have his say.
Seriously what the hell!
Doesnt the stench off that massive pile of bullshit you wrote make you gag ??
marxist
Nope.
criminal
Wrong again.
progressive
Hahahhahaha no.
that's what people don't get.
when they argue against MW increases they are actually getting the cycle backwards.
the cost of living increases on its in a growing thriving economy.
the minimum/living wage level has to be increased simply to match it, or else you get the system and cycles of poverty and inequality that we have now, which is a drag on the economy. boosting the MW actually helps continue that growing thriving economy.
Many of the crimes in the US are committed by illegal immigrants — an indisputable fact, even if we can not agree on the exact figures.
False.
Saying its indisputable doesn't make it so.
There are what, 10mil illegal immigrants?
Compared to 320mil legal residents?
And you expect us to believe they commit more crimes than legal residents?
Even as a percentage that just isnt supported...anywhere.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1742...
Oh gee. Looks like they aren't connected after all.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
Doh, not there either.
http://openborders.info/hispan...
Damn.
Still more numbers.
so much for "indisputable".
That building a border-wall would greatly reduce their numbers — indisputably proven by Israel's border wall.
Really? Indisputably? Again?
Ok...here we go:
The wall has done very little to stop attacks or crossings.
Even Israel's own right wing factions acknowledge the wall has played little part and is ineffective.
That credit goes to waning support for violence, and the ability of the Israeli Intelligence to disrupt them.
The real reason for the wall is to further expand the territory they have, since possession is 9/10 the law.
http://972mag.com/wave-of-stab...
The Second Intifada ended for a number of reasons, only one of which was the separation barrier. That becomes especially clear when you look at how little of the barrier had actually been constructed by the time the attacks stopped.
The violence of the Second Intifada wound down because Israeli intelligence managed to wear down armed Palestinian groups. Popular Palestinian support for the violent uprising slowly dwindled due to the painful consequences, namely Israeli military operations, sieges, closures and curfews, which affected more and more of Palestinian society with little to show for their suffering. And finally, momentum simply fell off; the First Intifada also lasted for roughly five years before slowly coming to a halt.
Even a 10% reduction in crime will pay for the wall within one year. Maybe, the 10% figure is exaggerated, but 1% is certainly reasonable. So the wall will pay off in 10 years instead — still a big win.
No, it's not reasonable.
And you've clearly ignored upkeep costs.
The wall Trump wants would cost a minimum of 30 billion to build.
that's just in materials, and does not include labor or logistics. which would easily be 2/3 or more of the total project cost.
so to build out you're talking ~70-90 billion.
(All that....and defeating it as simple as spending ~30$ at Home Depot on a ladder.)
The harsh desert sun and wind would quickly put it into poor shape, so regularly maintence is a must.
maintenance costs alone would exceed the initial build cost after only 7 years. so annualized that's ~10 billion a year (at 70b build cost).
plus, because walls are stupid-easy to defeat with ladders and tunnels, you're still going to have to man it, which means even more border agents, cameras, monitoring equipment than we currently have. so thats even more money.
So, even going conservatively, 10 year cost total comes to 170billion.
Annually, crime costs ~15b in economic losses, and ~180b in government spending fighting it.
That's ~200b a year.
So no, you're not paying it off after 10 years.
Or ever really.
And thats again ignoring that the wall will not reduce crime anyway because your entire premise is that immigration is the source of the majority of crime, whic
as someone who does it regularly:
yes it is trivial.
no it does not take a significant chunk of time.
not for +/-0.5F.
ok so the claim that you know anything at all about data science is complete bullshit then.
because the accuracy of a single thermometer has fuck-all to do with the margin of error of a dataset comprising a global average.
and no, the accuracy of a 19th century thermometer was not +/- 1C.
they may not have achieved the +/-0.002C that some of the ones on my bench right now can achieve, but nor were they that bad.
After being properly calibrated, which largely consists of marking hte scale along the bulb properly, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings. an as long as the bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed, their temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree.
damn.
looks like you didnt know what you're talking about again.
you misspelled delusion.
i believe he's both.
positioned "wrong" as simple as "it recieves full direct sun in the morning, but is shaded all afternoon".
now normally the hottest part of hte day is in the afternoon, from ~2-6pm.
but even your feeble mind should be able to grasp how such a site would give warming morning temps and cooler evening temps.
or: it used to be in sun 5 years ago, but now its in shade.
either because a tree grew, or the station was moved.
or any of a dozen other situations.
that doesnt make the data useless or wrong, especially if you know how to adjust for the changes so that each data point is appropriately comparable with the rest. (and if you actually worked with data regularly as you have claimed before, you'd know that)
and thats what the entire process is about. as i said, you claim to know data? then you surely are aware of data calibration procedures, or "adjustments" meant to achieve the same baseline so that comparisons between data are actually valid. yet here you constantly act mystified as to the why and how of it, and dismiss it as a conspiracy meant to cover something up.
which leaves you to blatantly ignore that the effect of those adjustments is largely to REDUCE the amount of warming shown in the data.
(this the part where you link to Watts or someone saying they increased the warming, where i will then rebut that stupid myth by pointing out it they are only talking about the north american (mostly US) data which was increased, but is more than offset by the rest of the data from the rest of hte world, that was by and large calibrated downward, giving an overall effect of reducing warming)
that's easy.
its a taxi company, that willfully ignores taxi regulations.
regulations that its competition, taxi companies who follow the rules, have to follow.
that is its business model and the source of its profitability, as the other stuff (phone app, etc) is incidental and even taxi co.'s are getting in on that.
even you know that...as even you have stated such before.
so you can drop this burden of proof fallacy that you insist on engaging in all the time.