The study isn't about "how great" fossil fuels are, it's about consumption. There are rules about use of statistics and reporting for publicly listed companies. I suppose you think some Marxist environmentalist group is going to produce a completely unbiased report, do you? Calling me thick. What a cheek.
Oh no! A "right wing organization"! That means it's probably supporting genocide! It wouldn't surprise me if its employees keep Human body parts in their freezers! Fascists!!!
Or perhaps it's just reporting the BP Statistical Review of World Energy Use.
I don't know. How can she have survived at the top of politics so long and at the same time be such an idiot? If you admit that, you're basically admitting the entire US political system is dead. As someone from the UK who admires Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et al (who took the flame of the English Enlightenment across the Atlantic), it seems completely insane.
It occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that actually the server was a honey pot and the information contained therein was misinformation, for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
... I did say it was a long shot but it would explain the lack of an explanation for it. Otherwise her behaviour is inexplicable as long as you forget she's a Clinton.
I mentioned 5% part trolling, part making a point. I would (1) simplify the tax system to such an extent even a jury could understand whether or not the law was broken, (2) lower the rate of tax to such an extent that only the most determined criminals would try to avoid paying it, (3) enforce and strengthen the legal responsibilities of CEOs and company directors, including the penalties for non-compliance.
We used to have something called the serious fraud office. I think they closed it or something because the legal cases were so utterly complex no jury could ever possibly understand whether or not what was going on was legal or not. This is course partly a function of the complexity of the tax system I mentioned above.
Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, fewer companies would bother with the shell game and tax rules wouldn't need to be so utterly absurd? I mean look at the UK, 15,000 pages of tax law and regulation. It's insane.
"They" can, but will they? Think about this for a minute. In Communist East Germany they had a pervasive security apparatus that employed hundreds of thousands of people. We didn't have that here in the West. They could have done it here. They have the guns after all. But they didn't. So it seems a bit strange to assert that they're seeking to construct this kind of society when it's easily done without it. There are enough butt-licking narcissistic dribblers out there to do it. You only have to look around your own workplace to see them in action every day, kissing the manager's arsehole.
Needless to say, if you don't want the NSA to know all about your private life, quit Facebook. I mean that's what we're talking about here isn't it: People stupid enough to put photo albums and diaries of their entire, tedious lives on the internet for the entire world to see.
It was a good article except the idea the sentient robots were a near-term reality is completely ridiculous. We don't know how to instantiate consciousness (as Searle would agree). The best we can do is see some very rough correlations in cognition. Sentient they won't be.
Join the dots. Men shouldn't be allowed to comment on shows produced "for women" unless they're gay, obviously. The converse, not allowing women to comment on shows produced for men is obviously sexist and anyone suggesting it is a misogynist.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, everybody with a personal computer should just recompile. Even the 99.9% of people who don't code, right?
As usual the bigger picture is revealed if you change the time span.
The study isn't about "how great" fossil fuels are, it's about consumption. There are rules about use of statistics and reporting for publicly listed companies. I suppose you think some Marxist environmentalist group is going to produce a completely unbiased report, do you? Calling me thick. What a cheek.
Oh no! A "right wing organization"! That means it's probably supporting genocide! It wouldn't surprise me if its employees keep Human body parts in their freezers! Fascists!!!
Or perhaps it's just reporting the BP Statistical Review of World Energy Use.
I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.
I don't know. How can she have survived at the top of politics so long and at the same time be such an idiot? If you admit that, you're basically admitting the entire US political system is dead. As someone from the UK who admires Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et al (who took the flame of the English Enlightenment across the Atlantic), it seems completely insane.
I didn't wish it. I tried to look for an explanation that wasn't she's an idiot. Unfortunately it appears she is.
100? Citation?
It occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that actually the server was a honey pot and the information contained therein was misinformation, for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
... I did say it was a long shot but it would explain the lack of an explanation for it. Otherwise her behaviour is inexplicable as long as you forget she's a Clinton.
Oh do fuck off. Gawker lost the case.
I mentioned 5% part trolling, part making a point. I would (1) simplify the tax system to such an extent even a jury could understand whether or not the law was broken, (2) lower the rate of tax to such an extent that only the most determined criminals would try to avoid paying it, (3) enforce and strengthen the legal responsibilities of CEOs and company directors, including the penalties for non-compliance.
We used to have something called the serious fraud office. I think they closed it or something because the legal cases were so utterly complex no jury could ever possibly understand whether or not what was going on was legal or not. This is course partly a function of the complexity of the tax system I mentioned above.
I agree. However it's easier to actually enforce a much simpler tax code.
35%? That's huge. 5%.
Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, fewer companies would bother with the shell game and tax rules wouldn't need to be so utterly absurd? I mean look at the UK, 15,000 pages of tax law and regulation. It's insane.
I just had a look at their supplementary information. Their models have no error bars. Quelle surprise!.
Read No One Left To Lie To by Christopher Hitchens. If you prefer the Clintons to Trump knock yourself out.
How absurd.
The Hard Problem is called the Hard Problem because it's, you know, Hard.
Precisely.
You say that but I still find managers completely unrealistic about timescales to do things properly.
"They" can, but will they? Think about this for a minute. In Communist East Germany they had a pervasive security apparatus that employed hundreds of thousands of people. We didn't have that here in the West. They could have done it here. They have the guns after all. But they didn't. So it seems a bit strange to assert that they're seeking to construct this kind of society when it's easily done without it. There are enough butt-licking narcissistic dribblers out there to do it. You only have to look around your own workplace to see them in action every day, kissing the manager's arsehole.
Needless to say, if you don't want the NSA to know all about your private life, quit Facebook. I mean that's what we're talking about here isn't it: People stupid enough to put photo albums and diaries of their entire, tedious lives on the internet for the entire world to see.
It was a good article except the idea the sentient robots were a near-term reality is completely ridiculous. We don't know how to instantiate consciousness (as Searle would agree). The best we can do is see some very rough correlations in cognition. Sentient they won't be.
Join the dots. Men shouldn't be allowed to comment on shows produced "for women" unless they're gay, obviously. The converse, not allowing women to comment on shows produced for men is obviously sexist and anyone suggesting it is a misogynist.
Are we clear?
Sex and the City is shit. Next question.