2) The worst, most active and directly dangerous, is to INHALE mercury. But, it doesn't happen on normal temperatures (it's ebullition happens 357 ÂC, 675 F). In fact, the only ones affected by this are in the workers melting cinnabar to extract mercury (my father was one of those and, with the proper protections, never had any health issue).
So, why is there so, but SO MANY LIES about this?
Well, it happens all this shit started when Spain started to remove the lead pipes it had installed, that are DIRECTLY DEADLY. So, for the people to not learn about this, they created this lie.
Just when the fossil fuels are still getting national bonuses, removing renewable national bonuses and the fuels companies buying the technology of renewable companies closing... (All of this is actually happening in Spain right now)
Esperanto is not simplified *at all*. It introduces twice the sounds I use in Spanish.
Natural languages evolve to three aspects: simplification (say more things with less wording), homophonia (deprecating sounds, in Spanish, the Castillian "v" has been deprecated and now it sounds like "b") and inclusion (omiting parts of a sentence but keep the meaning, for example, I can say "Don't do that" to you and you, automatically, understands this "You, don't do that", in Spanish, we have things like "CÃmetelo" (Eat it) short of "TÃ cÃmete eso" (You, eat that thing).
All those things ends with the uselessness of "strong" grammar structure (as in contemporary English).
Yes, all languages in the Global Communication Era has "imports" from other languages, but, at the end, after "learning" the word, they just "adapt" it and simplifies it. For example, we Spaniards have "servicio" (water-close) and imported "water-close", simplified to "water" and adapted to "vÃter" (as "w" is pronounced as letter "v").
Taking different a bit of all languages (from this, the roots; from that, some alphabet chars, from those, some cyrillic chars; from that, some verbal conjugation; from that other language, the sentence structure, etc.) so all people can find something "familiar" in the language just to maximize the popularity......and mixing it, ignoring the BASIS of any language evolution (to SIMPLIFICATION), makes Esperanto the epitome of failure.
You wrote: "I fail to see on a philosophical level how anything can be a right if it requires someone else to provide it for you."
Well, someone must provide you with freedom of speech for it to be a right. I can assure you that Chinese in China doesn't know a shit about the "right of freedom of speech".
A) They were testing their "fast-access pay-only web filter" for rich people, and something went wrong; or
B) They purposely created this problem to later say: "The lines were so over-used that made everything fall, that's a problem of Net Neutrality; if we could adapt the bandwidth this would have not happened".
You have paid for a 50 Mb/s connection and your ISP decides that Google services must run at 16 kb/s; then I can asure you that ISP can censor effectively anything they want without Net Neutrality Laws.
> Good for you. Now what are you going to do in the meantime?
Look into Patreon and, if I see something I want, talk directly with the creator about supporting him/her. Less fees for me and less fees for him/her.
> And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon
Nope, the #1 issue at Patreon is that they think they can violate the Law.
1) No one can change a payment agreement without the consent of ALL parts involved in it; or the agreement became automatically illegal and the parts that weren't asked can sue the one who changed it. 2) I agreed to pay monthly $X to that person and be charged $X. 3) Patreon decided I should pay $X + 2.9% + $0.30 because they ORDERED so. 4) So, I quit Patreon and they can be glad I didn't sue them.
(The below are generalizations, they tend to be true. I don't want to hear about an anecdote regarding noble Prince Hobo who'd never stoop to this kind of behavior.)
They leave their trash everywhere > Sure, homeless animals after shitting, they take away their shit; same as pissing. And, "homefull" animals too...
They pester people going in and out for change (sometimes pretty fucking aggressively) > Sure, homeless animals do not pester you for food (money can be used for food too).
They absolutely deter people from going into a business > Sure, an stray bulldog sleeping in the entrance to a building doesn't deter but just to the dog-fearing people... Or, wait, it's that the "hypocrite" people just doesn't stand to see a people "not properly" dressed/cleaned.
Even a non-profit like the SPCA should have the right to keep their entrance as inviting and usable as possible. > Sure, as long as it doesn't violate the Human Rights, you know, that Art. 1 where "all humans are... equal in rights and dignity, etc".
Stow the virtue signaling outrage. If it was *your* office building, you'd more than likely sing a different tune. > Not so sure, maybe they could talk, in the "American way", with a nearby Church (criminals too of the Human Rights) or any other NGO to help them "ACTIVELY".
Besides, a stray dog or cat did NOT CHOOSE that lifestyle. > Sure, a homeless person DID CHOOSE to live in the street, scrap for food, be despised by people, etc.
I do stop here because the adjective I've for you right now would not be appropriate even to 99 years old people.
1) You have to "fabricate" the manure (it takes a lot of resources to make and the "creation" process does contamine)
2) Instead of fertilizing the soil to cultivate food for humans (I guess the "half the planet earthlings are starving" hasn't take its toll in their minds) they prefer to burn the manure.
Dear Dr. Trisia Farrelly of New Zealand's Massey University (from now on DTFNZMU to save breath):
You ask for banning "all glitter" because, as you DTFNZMU says, "[glitter] it's microplastic".
Should I inform you that historically glitter was made of mica (found in natural form in the ecosystem) and there are some companies that do still produce mica-only glittler?
Hence, DTFNZMU, wouldn't you agree with me that your statement of "I think all glitter should be banned, because it's microplastic" is SO, but SO SO SO OVER THE TOP that might put off that "D" in your name title? Unless, of course, that "D" corresponds with a Doctorate in Filosophy or other... in which case you should refrain of such comments using the "D" in your name title as it makes seem you know what you're talking about.
Quote: "And, since the treatment they receive sterilizes them,..."
Are you sure? I mean, are you SCIENTIFICALLY sure about that point?
Let's see some scenearios I'm sure they have taken into account (pun intended):
1) Mosquitoes infected that ain't sterile after all. 2) Interspecies newborns that might became bacteria-proof (think like horse + donkey = mule). This mosquito+bacteria + another species of mosquito from other Country might create another thing that hasn't been studies and might even create much much worse scenario 3) Etc.
That's why in Europe is not allowed to sell GMOs and in EEUU it is, because there's no study of side-effects. (Like when an USA University proposed, seriously, to launch an umbrella into space to reduce global warming... Â_Â )
And how on Earth is going the EPA and US to control that such kind of hybrids doesn't invade another countries like Canada or Mexico?
Or should we, the rest of the World, to just sit and close our mouth with whatever thing they like to do that might fuck our countries? Same as the Paris Climate?
Why should WE convince YOU? Well, because you're polluting MY air and, hence, YOU MUST be punished; or we WILL HAVE TO stop buying ANYTHING FROM YOU because it will DESTROY the world my people will inherit.
If I spend my time writing, please, use yours to READ what I wrote BEFORE spreading lies.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in DIGNITY and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(Caps mine). Saying homosexuals are "inmoral" or "unnatural" is a direct attack against OUR dignity. HENCE, Christians and Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS as I stated before.
Please, if you're going to reply again, first READ what I wrote before making me waste my time fixing your lies.
So you mean the "main danger" is "the protection the Human Rights" (which, BTW, is the only, ONLY, argument I wrote about?
Because, if you, again, READ what the Human Rights says in its Art. 30 is to protect ONLY the Human Rights from ANY ABUSE from ANYONE (including people in power and minorities).
So, there's no "situation" and no "selective enforcement", and it gives not just "more power", it just give "no power" at all: if you want Human Rights PROTECTION you MUST COMPLY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. That's just PLAIN OBVIOUS.
Art. 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Art. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Art. 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
See? SEE? HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD?
You have the freedom of speech IF AND ONLY IF that speech DOESN'T ATTACK THE HUMAN RIGHTS: 1) Christians, Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS because they say (in manifestations, acts and publicly) homosexuals do NOT have same rights as heterosexuals (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30 2) Nazis et al. are CRIMINALS because they say Jews, Blacks, Yellows, etc. (in manifestations, acts and publicly) do NOT have same rights as white people (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30 Etc.
The true news would be if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD HAVE THE GUTS TO SUE AND EXPOSE THOSE CRIMINALS.
That, my friend, would be TRUE freedom (from CRIMINALS).
Slashdot Mirror
Quote: "Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist."
Seriously? What have you smoked?
Geologist, Forensic, etc. ain't scientists... right.
So, they can't reproduce a test, like in medicine when you try to reproduce the spread of a virus...
Conclusion: IA is a virus, beware! ;-)
First, mercury is NOT toxic neither in liquid nor in solid (cinnabar) forms. Full stop.
Second, there's only two ways that TRANSFORM mercury into a toxic SUBPRODUCT:
1) When some fish species eat mercury, they transform it into methyl-mercury. If we it the methyl-mercury it will be toxic for as. But we can only metabolize it because of the "methyl" part. In fact, mercury has (and still is) being used in medicine for centuries: as purgative (drinking one drop, it's huge density will literally push the shit out of you) and as ANTISEPTIC for injuries in "mercromine" (merc = mercury). This way it might affect us. Note: I lived in Almadén (Spain), one of the only three dead volcanoes that have mercury in the world, where you can literally pat stones with mercury EVERYWHERE, with an artificial lake nearby, and we have same "mercury intoxication ratio" than the rest of the world.
2) The worst, most active and directly dangerous, is to INHALE mercury. But, it doesn't happen on normal temperatures (it's ebullition happens 357 ÂC, 675 F). In fact, the only ones affected by this are in the workers melting cinnabar to extract mercury (my father was one of those and, with the proper protections, never had any health issue).
So, why is there so, but SO MANY LIES about this?
Well, it happens all this shit started when Spain started to remove the lead pipes it had installed, that are DIRECTLY DEADLY. So, for the people to not learn about this, they created this lie.
Well, it seems you eat it all...
So, they knew WHERE they must go and the FASTEST won!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!
Now, on MORE REAL SCENARIOS, where you don't have a f*c*ing idea WHERE YOUR TARGET IS... How would win?
Fastest or the one with WIDEST POINT OF VIEW?
"Things just happen, what the hell".
(c) Terry Pratchett, "Hogfather"
Just when the fossil fuels are still getting national bonuses, removing renewable national bonuses and the fuels companies buying the technology of renewable companies closing... (All of this is actually happening in Spain right now)
Still the same shit with different wrapper.
Wouldn't be easier to force all "Call Apps" to send GPS/"I'm here" alongside with the Phone Number only (for privacy) when calling 991/112 ?
Esperanto is not simplified *at all*. It introduces twice the sounds I use in Spanish.
Natural languages evolve to three aspects: simplification (say more things with less wording), homophonia (deprecating sounds, in Spanish, the Castillian "v" has been deprecated and now it sounds like "b") and inclusion (omiting parts of a sentence but keep the meaning, for example, I can say "Don't do that" to you and you, automatically, understands this "You, don't do that", in Spanish, we have things like "CÃmetelo" (Eat it) short of "TÃ cÃmete eso" (You, eat that thing).
All those things ends with the uselessness of "strong" grammar structure (as in contemporary English).
Yes, all languages in the Global Communication Era has "imports" from other languages, but, at the end, after "learning" the word, they just "adapt" it and simplifies it. For example, we Spaniards have "servicio" (water-close) and imported "water-close", simplified to "water" and adapted to "vÃter" (as "w" is pronounced as letter "v").
Taking different a bit of all languages (from this, the roots; from that, some alphabet chars, from those, some cyrillic chars; from that, some verbal conjugation; from that other language, the sentence structure, etc.) so all people can find something "familiar" in the language just to maximize the popularity... ...and mixing it, ignoring the BASIS of any language evolution (to SIMPLIFICATION), makes Esperanto the epitome of failure.
You wrote: "I fail to see on a philosophical level how anything can be a right if it requires someone else to provide it for you."
Well, someone must provide you with freedom of speech for it to be a right. I can assure you that Chinese in China doesn't know a shit about the "right of freedom of speech".
A) They were testing their "fast-access pay-only web filter" for rich people, and something went wrong; or
B) They purposely created this problem to later say: "The lines were so over-used that made everything fall, that's a problem of Net Neutrality; if we could adapt the bandwidth this would have not happened".
That's plainly wrong, your assumption.
You have paid for a 50 Mb/s connection and your ISP decides that Google services must run at 16 kb/s; then I can asure you that ISP can censor effectively anything they want without Net Neutrality Laws.
> Good for you. Now what are you going to do in the meantime?
Look into Patreon and, if I see something I want, talk directly with the creator about supporting him/her. Less fees for me and less fees for him/her.
> And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon
Nope, the #1 issue at Patreon is that they think they can violate the Law.
1) No one can change a payment agreement without the consent of ALL parts involved in it; or the agreement became automatically illegal and the parts that weren't asked can sue the one who changed it.
2) I agreed to pay monthly $X to that person and be charged $X.
3) Patreon decided I should pay $X + 2.9% + $0.30 because they ORDERED so.
4) So, I quit Patreon and they can be glad I didn't sue them.
Oh for fucks sake, my response:
(The below are generalizations, they tend to be true. I don't want to hear about an anecdote regarding noble Prince Hobo who'd never stoop to this kind of behavior.)
They leave their trash everywhere
> Sure, homeless animals after shitting, they take away their shit; same as pissing. And, "homefull" animals too...
They pester people going in and out for change (sometimes pretty fucking aggressively)
> Sure, homeless animals do not pester you for food (money can be used for food too).
They absolutely deter people from going into a business
> Sure, an stray bulldog sleeping in the entrance to a building doesn't deter but just to the dog-fearing people... Or, wait, it's that the "hypocrite" people just doesn't stand to see a people "not properly" dressed/cleaned.
Even a non-profit like the SPCA should have the right to keep their entrance as inviting and usable as possible. ... equal in rights and dignity, etc".
> Sure, as long as it doesn't violate the Human Rights, you know, that Art. 1 where "all humans are
Stow the virtue signaling outrage. If it was *your* office building, you'd more than likely sing a different tune.
> Not so sure, maybe they could talk, in the "American way", with a nearby Church (criminals too of the Human Rights) or any other NGO to help them "ACTIVELY".
Besides, a stray dog or cat did NOT CHOOSE that lifestyle.
> Sure, a homeless person DID CHOOSE to live in the street, scrap for food, be despised by people, etc.
I do stop here because the adjective I've for you right now would not be appropriate even to 99 years old people.
I mean,
1) You have to "fabricate" the manure (it takes a lot of resources to make and the "creation" process does contamine)
2) Instead of fertilizing the soil to cultivate food for humans (I guess the "half the planet earthlings are starving" hasn't take its toll in their minds) they prefer to burn the manure.
Win-Win! Wait... ain't that right, is it?
Dear Dr. Trisia Farrelly of New Zealand's Massey University (from now on DTFNZMU to save breath):
You ask for banning "all glitter" because, as you DTFNZMU says, "[glitter] it's microplastic".
Should I inform you that historically glitter was made of mica (found in natural form in the ecosystem) and there are some companies that do still produce mica-only glittler?
Hence, DTFNZMU, wouldn't you agree with me that your statement of "I think all glitter should be banned, because it's microplastic" is SO, but SO SO SO OVER THE TOP that might put off that "D" in your name title? Unless, of course, that "D" corresponds with a Doctorate in Filosophy or other... in which case you should refrain of such comments using the "D" in your name title as it makes seem you know what you're talking about.
I'm the Company. I do charge for:
1) (End-user) Giving "faster" access to more part of the Web.
2) (Websites) For adding them to the "faster" list.
It's a Win-Win! Thank you very much Trump (and start paying me right now you thieves [aka "users"])!
Despite being old, as you clearly states, you must agree that it was MUCH better designed than Chernobyl.
It suffered an earthquake and a tsunami and it was "properly" (mind the quotes) contained, nothing like Chernobyl.
Quote: "And, since the treatment they receive sterilizes them, ..."
Are you sure? I mean, are you SCIENTIFICALLY sure about that point?
Let's see some scenearios I'm sure they have taken into account (pun intended):
1) Mosquitoes infected that ain't sterile after all.
2) Interspecies newborns that might became bacteria-proof (think like horse + donkey = mule). This mosquito+bacteria + another species of mosquito from other Country might create another thing that hasn't been studies and might even create much much worse scenario
3) Etc.
That's why in Europe is not allowed to sell GMOs and in EEUU it is, because there's no study of side-effects. (Like when an USA University proposed, seriously, to launch an umbrella into space to reduce global warming... Â_Â )
And how on Earth is going the EPA and US to control that such kind of hybrids doesn't invade another countries like Canada or Mexico?
Or should we, the rest of the World, to just sit and close our mouth with whatever thing they like to do that might fuck our countries? Same as the Paris Climate?
I'll byte. Here's the answer:
Why should WE convince YOU? Well, because you're polluting MY air and, hence, YOU MUST be punished; or we WILL HAVE TO stop buying ANYTHING FROM YOU because it will DESTROY the world my people will inherit.
Ain't that clear enough?
If I spend my time writing, please, use yours to READ what I wrote BEFORE spreading lies.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in DIGNITY and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(Caps mine). Saying homosexuals are "inmoral" or "unnatural" is a direct attack against OUR dignity. HENCE, Christians and Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS as I stated before.
Please, if you're going to reply again, first READ what I wrote before making me waste my time fixing your lies.
Please, no "cheap" arguing...
So you mean the "main danger" is "the protection the Human Rights" (which, BTW, is the only, ONLY, argument I wrote about?
Because, if you, again, READ what the Human Rights says in its Art. 30 is to protect ONLY the Human Rights from ANY ABUSE from ANYONE (including people in power and minorities).
So, there's no "situation" and no "selective enforcement", and it gives not just "more power", it just give "no power" at all: if you want Human Rights PROTECTION you MUST COMPLY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. That's just PLAIN OBVIOUS.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Art. 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Art. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Art. 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
See? SEE? HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD?
You have the freedom of speech IF AND ONLY IF that speech DOESN'T ATTACK THE HUMAN RIGHTS:
1) Christians, Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS because they say (in manifestations, acts and publicly) homosexuals do NOT have same rights as heterosexuals (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30
2) Nazis et al. are CRIMINALS because they say Jews, Blacks, Yellows, etc. (in manifestations, acts and publicly) do NOT have same rights as white people (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30
Etc.
The true news would be if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD HAVE THE GUTS TO SUE AND EXPOSE THOSE CRIMINALS.
That, my friend, would be TRUE freedom (from CRIMINALS).
Condemn...
Agatha Christie: "Then Little Ni**ers" being re-titled to "And then there were none"
for example?