So how much energy, i.e. how much oil, gas, and/or coal do we need to burn to provide the energy, to capture, compress, and transport the CO2 in the first place? And can anyone imagine an energy company actually doing this?
If it's as simple a clear-cut as you'd like us to believe, then why was Assange granted political asylum by Ecuador (and offered it by a few other countries)? Think about that for a minute. Let that sink in. Assange is simply a rapist trying to avoid jail and Ecuador are sticking their necks out to help him? Seriously?
Monsieur, je vous assure que je ne suis pas un garçon. The USA's a big-ass country so I'm sure there are some enclaves where people can cycle without being called hippies, freaks, weird, or even worse... poor! and without being run off the road. Do you live in Portland, by any chance?
You don't have to like Assange or support him to believe what he says. I'm sure there are a lot of people fact checking right now and if we don't hear any rebuttals, we can assume he's more or less right.
We're all media whores now that social media is a thing;)
Re: "they are charging him for rape" -- No they aren't. No charges have been made.
Two women filed complaints of "sexual misconduct," which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. Sweden has some very progressive, pro-feminist laws to protect women from being sexually exploited, which is a good thing, but in this case, the law is being abused.
One of the women has since withdrawn her complaint.
Extraditing Assange under these circumstances would be unprecedented under UK legal history.
This is one of many reasons why several countries offered Assange political asylum.
The UK is also breaking international treaties by not allowing Assange safe passage to his country of asylum.
There's more than likely a sealed indictment against Assange in the US and Sweden would more than likely agree to extradite him to the US.
Looking at recent history, there's a very real likelihood that Assange wouldn't get a fair trial in the US.
Also, looking at recent history, Assange would more than likely be subjected to cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment, and possibly torture in the US.
Assange's main crime is investigative journalism that led to some very powerful people getting embarrassed. Assange will more than likely continue to be persecuted and vilified as a "lesson" to anyone else considering doing some effective investigative journalism.
...the children! Will nobody think of the CHILDREN!!! And what about terrorism, porn, and drugs?!!
Seriously, someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of Britain's purse-lipped mother-in-law attitudes like those espoused ad nauseum in the Daily Mail.
...do Americans make such a big deal over something as simple, easy, and routine as riding a bike? Go anywhere else in the developed world (and a lot of developing countries too) and you'll see that a lot of people use bikes to get around. Really, it's not a big deal.
The current regime in Turkey certainly isn't winning any civil or human rights awards at the moment. I'm no fan of them myself. However, what is this policy really doing? If the data centres must physically be in the country then they're under the jurisdiction of the local courts for things like protecting consumer rights and making it easier for Turkish citizens to take PayPal to court when it (frequently and arbitrarily) screws its users over.
To those people who modded this comment as flamebait, the parody quote is pretty close to the way Trump actually talks to the media. Then again, you've got a point: Just about everything Trump says is flamebait!;)
...in addition to FB's new Like button options, can they add a "Like through clenched teeth" button? When people click on it, they should simply appear as regular "Likes" to the FB account holder (or anyone with the same IP address) but as "Like through clenched teeth" to everyone else. How about it? Can we petition Mark Zuckerberg to implement it?
"Donald Trump is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." -- Stephen Hawking
"Stephen who? Who is this guy? I've never heard of him? How can I respond to a guy I've never heard of? Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he's a rapist, I don't know. Some people say he's working for the Chinese to steal American jobs. I don't know but that's what I hear." -- Donald Trump
Only an idiot would bring rationality and reason to a bullshitting contest.
I don't think it's so much about cheap labour, probably more about getting people to spend more time on computers and the internet. More consumers for their products and services among the coming generations.
That may be less inflammatory, but the subject is abortion, not reproductive rights as a whole.
Actually, 95% of the services that the clinics that the anti-choice activists are shutting down are reproductive healthcare, so the issue IS reproductive rights for people who can't afford private healthcare. When you shut down so called abortion clinics, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies spike. I guess you could say that anti-choice supporters are pro-backstreet abortion.
Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.
Remember the infamous interview where the Monsanto lobbyist, Patrick Moore, claimed that Roundup was safe to drink but then refused to actually drink any? May be he knew about this. And no your argument about coal doesn't hold water here. There's really no point to claiming that something's safe because other things are more dangerous. In addition, Roundup is far more dangerous than radioactivity from coal. Then the point about Roundup users tasting it? You don't think that they may inhale it while spraying it from backpacks, tractors, and mobile spray tanks, do you?
What happens? They deny it in a completely reasonable statement? They didn't kill anyone over it, threaten to sue anyone, or attempt to have the report blocked in any way. What are you trying to suggest?
kill, threaten, sue, block: The reactions that you've suggested are irrational and unnecessary. I doubt any corporation in Monsanto's position would ever consider them. All they have to do is make sure that the few researchers that publish papers critical of Monsanto have their funding dry up, that this is broadly known among researchers, and that other researchers understand why. All they have to do is promote the idea/belief that critical papers are professional suicide, and they're pretty good at it.
This is yet another example of what happens when we allow corporations to write the law. Their lawyers don't think past their clients' own self-interest and leave gaping legal loopholes that allow other lawyers to exploit ordinary citizens (or in the case of the UK, the Queen's subjects: The UK isn't a democracy).
Now they're going to pass TPP and next TTIP: Two massive bundles of laws written almost exclusively by hundreds of corporate lawyers. What's not to like about that?
"I don't doubt that Snowden was courageous and did what he did for what he thought were good reasons. But I think he was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy."
This is wrong on so many levels: Snowden has proved himself time and time again to be anything but arrogant. He's been humble, has sought the advice of others, and has only made comments on the subjects that he knows well. What he did was expose outright violations of the US constitution by the NSA and CIA, and so acted as a whistle blower in support of democracy and constitutional rights.
BTW, Snowden's soundbite, "I don't care about my privacy because I have nothing to hide is like saying I don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say" (or words to that effect) was an insightful stroke of genius.
BTW, here's an example of what often happens when someone does actually publish evidence against Monsanto's interests: http://www.nature.com/news/wid...
I know agricultural researchers and Monsanto is a regular topic of discussion. The influence of Monsanto is there but it's less direct that funding the meta-study by the National Academy of Sciences. Monsanto funds huge amounts of research at the world's leading agricultural research centres while convincing governments that they don't need to fund so much of the research. The ag research community has become somewhat dependent on them. Maybe a researcher isn't currently working in a department that is partly funded by Monsanto but they may do so in the not too distant future. How many agricultural researchers do you think are left who aren't afraid of publishing papers that would negatively impact Monsanto's share price?
Slashdot Mirror
So how much energy, i.e. how much oil, gas, and/or coal do we need to burn to provide the energy, to capture, compress, and transport the CO2 in the first place? And can anyone imagine an energy company actually doing this?
If it's as simple a clear-cut as you'd like us to believe, then why was Assange granted political asylum by Ecuador (and offered it by a few other countries)? Think about that for a minute. Let that sink in. Assange is simply a rapist trying to avoid jail and Ecuador are sticking their necks out to help him? Seriously?
Monsieur, je vous assure que je ne suis pas un garçon. The USA's a big-ass country so I'm sure there are some enclaves where people can cycle without being called hippies, freaks, weird, or even worse... poor! and without being run off the road. Do you live in Portland, by any chance?
Oh yeah, forgot about those. Nasty Daily Mail.
You don't have to like Assange or support him to believe what he says. I'm sure there are a lot of people fact checking right now and if we don't hear any rebuttals, we can assume he's more or less right.
We're all media whores now that social media is a thing ;)
Re: "they are charging him for rape" -- No they aren't. No charges have been made.
Two women filed complaints of "sexual misconduct," which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. Sweden has some very progressive, pro-feminist laws to protect women from being sexually exploited, which is a good thing, but in this case, the law is being abused.
One of the women has since withdrawn her complaint.
Extraditing Assange under these circumstances would be unprecedented under UK legal history.
This is one of many reasons why several countries offered Assange political asylum.
The UK is also breaking international treaties by not allowing Assange safe passage to his country of asylum.
There's more than likely a sealed indictment against Assange in the US and Sweden would more than likely agree to extradite him to the US.
Looking at recent history, there's a very real likelihood that Assange wouldn't get a fair trial in the US.
Also, looking at recent history, Assange would more than likely be subjected to cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment, and possibly torture in the US.
Assange's main crime is investigative journalism that led to some very powerful people getting embarrassed. Assange will more than likely continue to be persecuted and vilified as a "lesson" to anyone else considering doing some effective investigative journalism.
...the children! Will nobody think of the CHILDREN!!! And what about terrorism, porn, and drugs?!!
Seriously, someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of Britain's purse-lipped mother-in-law attitudes like those espoused ad nauseum in the Daily Mail.
...do Americans make such a big deal over something as simple, easy, and routine as riding a bike? Go anywhere else in the developed world (and a lot of developing countries too) and you'll see that a lot of people use bikes to get around. Really, it's not a big deal.
..to read about the guy with more money than sense who buys this phone and then accidentally drops it down the toilet during a call.
The entire unencrypted version of the data of that transaction is soon to be in the hands of Edrogan's government.
Do you mean as well as the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK (AKA the Five Eyes)?
The current regime in Turkey certainly isn't winning any civil or human rights awards at the moment. I'm no fan of them myself. However, what is this policy really doing? If the data centres must physically be in the country then they're under the jurisdiction of the local courts for things like protecting consumer rights and making it easier for Turkish citizens to take PayPal to court when it (frequently and arbitrarily) screws its users over.
To those people who modded this comment as flamebait, the parody quote is pretty close to the way Trump actually talks to the media. Then again, you've got a point: Just about everything Trump says is flamebait! ;)
...in addition to FB's new Like button options, can they add a "Like through clenched teeth" button? When people click on it, they should simply appear as regular "Likes" to the FB account holder (or anyone with the same IP address) but as "Like through clenched teeth" to everyone else. How about it? Can we petition Mark Zuckerberg to implement it?
"Donald Trump is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." -- Stephen Hawking
"Stephen who? Who is this guy? I've never heard of him? How can I respond to a guy I've never heard of? Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he's a rapist, I don't know. Some people say he's working for the Chinese to steal American jobs. I don't know but that's what I hear." -- Donald Trump
Only an idiot would bring rationality and reason to a bullshitting contest.
"Computers will one day exceed human intelligence. -- Ray Kurtzweil
"Only if we meet them half-way." -- David Snowden (No relation to Edward)
Randall Munroe (AKA XKCD) had a great take on AI chatbots: https://xkcd.com/948/
Not biscuit. It's a muffin
Not muffin. McMuffin. Try ordering a muffin in McDonald's and wait for the blank stare from the cashier.
I don't think it's so much about cheap labour, probably more about getting people to spend more time on computers and the internet. More consumers for their products and services among the coming generations.
That may be less inflammatory, but the subject is abortion, not reproductive rights as a whole.
Actually, 95% of the services that the clinics that the anti-choice activists are shutting down are reproductive healthcare, so the issue IS reproductive rights for people who can't afford private healthcare. When you shut down so called abortion clinics, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies spike. I guess you could say that anti-choice supporters are pro-backstreet abortion.
Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.
Source: "New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup" https://theintercept.com/2016/...
Remember the infamous interview where the Monsanto lobbyist, Patrick Moore, claimed that Roundup was safe to drink but then refused to actually drink any? May be he knew about this. And no your argument about coal doesn't hold water here. There's really no point to claiming that something's safe because other things are more dangerous. In addition, Roundup is far more dangerous than radioactivity from coal. Then the point about Roundup users tasting it? You don't think that they may inhale it while spraying it from backpacks, tractors, and mobile spray tanks, do you?
What happens? They deny it in a completely reasonable statement? They didn't kill anyone over it, threaten to sue anyone, or attempt to have the report blocked in any way. What are you trying to suggest?
kill, threaten, sue, block: The reactions that you've suggested are irrational and unnecessary. I doubt any corporation in Monsanto's position would ever consider them. All they have to do is make sure that the few researchers that publish papers critical of Monsanto have their funding dry up, that this is broadly known among researchers, and that other researchers understand why. All they have to do is promote the idea/belief that critical papers are professional suicide, and they're pretty good at it.
...can science prove that there's no magic?
This is yet another example of what happens when we allow corporations to write the law. Their lawyers don't think past their clients' own self-interest and leave gaping legal loopholes that allow other lawyers to exploit ordinary citizens (or in the case of the UK, the Queen's subjects: The UK isn't a democracy).
Now they're going to pass TPP and next TTIP: Two massive bundles of laws written almost exclusively by hundreds of corporate lawyers. What's not to like about that?
"I don't doubt that Snowden was courageous and did what he did for what he thought were good reasons. But I think he was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy."
This is wrong on so many levels: Snowden has proved himself time and time again to be anything but arrogant. He's been humble, has sought the advice of others, and has only made comments on the subjects that he knows well. What he did was expose outright violations of the US constitution by the NSA and CIA, and so acted as a whistle blower in support of democracy and constitutional rights.
BTW, Snowden's soundbite, "I don't care about my privacy because I have nothing to hide is like saying I don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say" (or words to that effect) was an insightful stroke of genius.
Godwin's law reached in 3 posts. Is that a record?
BTW, here's an example of what often happens when someone does actually publish evidence against Monsanto's interests: http://www.nature.com/news/wid...
I know agricultural researchers and Monsanto is a regular topic of discussion. The influence of Monsanto is there but it's less direct that funding the meta-study by the National Academy of Sciences. Monsanto funds huge amounts of research at the world's leading agricultural research centres while convincing governments that they don't need to fund so much of the research. The ag research community has become somewhat dependent on them. Maybe a researcher isn't currently working in a department that is partly funded by Monsanto but they may do so in the not too distant future. How many agricultural researchers do you think are left who aren't afraid of publishing papers that would negatively impact Monsanto's share price?