This. The actual, official campaign and the DNC have been very professional through the whole thing. It's only the koolaid drinkers pushing this crazy, hyperbolic crap.
There is no concentration of any particular gas in the atmosphere that is 'good' or 'bad' for the climate. The climate doesn't care one way or the other, it simply is. Good or bad for US, that's a different matter.
The only man made problem here is the fact we've stopped forest fires in the first place. They are worse because of all the underbrush that didn't burn in the first place.
Climate change has nothing to do with it, except it got the author a new grant.
This.
Climate change may be a contributing factor, but ascribing the whole issue to it seems pretty damned shortsighted and irresponsible.
The foolishness of the bet comes not really from any climate-change denial nonesense, but just from random chance. Betting that any given year will be hotter or colder than any other given particular year is stupid, there's too much chance for something else to go wrong (from whatever your perspective).
A better bet, if you're really looking to test the climate change bit, would have been something like "The 10 year period starting in January 2008 will be, on average, warmer than the 10 year period starting January 1998." The data on THAT would be way more interesting and useful to our purposes here.
That isn't a flaw in the market, it's a flaw in the investors. The market corrects for it by brutally penalizing those who make bad decisions and rewarding those who make good ones.
Calm down there chicken little. You're missing the point. Unless you're arguing that quality of live for the vast majority of human beings on this planet isn't significantly better than it was even 50 years ago, in which case continue.
So someone do it better, then they get the money instead of google. That's how a free market works.
This is just a government sanctioned shakedown. The Euros want a slice of that pie, and they'll probably get it too.
Right, okay. I'm behind him on all that, it sounds super, but it won't happen and we know it.
Even if he were elected, none of it would happen. Why? Because while our system might be corrupt, broken, and ineffective; it is very good at preventing change.
If I'm being realistic, that's what we (you, I, everyone) actually want. Everyone says they want change, but they don't. What we all really want is for tomorrow to be pretty much like today.
I haven't played a game from either series in years, but here's the gist of the opinion swing:
Battlefield's new offering is doing something that hasn't been really covered yet. Only a few indy titles are set in or around ww1, and zero AAA titles. It's a departure, and shows that maybe the dev team there is actually going to give us something new and interesting.
COD meanwhile, looks almost precisely like the LAST game in the series. On top of that less-than-inspiring tidbit, at the very end it shows a bit of gameplay from a redone version of Modern Warfare, considered to be one of the best FPS titles ever made. The catch? You can only get the remastered version of MW if you buy a 'Legacy Edition' copy of the NEW CoD title. True or not, the perception there is that they're standing on the back of a better game to sell their rehashed garbage at an inflated price. That's bound to piss people off.
That was the catalyst for the opinion each way, after that it's all internet hype machine.
Giving a dollar to a homeless guy of your own will is charity.
The government taking four dollars from you at gunpoint and giving the homeless dude one of them is socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense. Hard to pardon someone of a crime if they haven't been convicted of anything.
Facebook deciding what's offensive, thats exactly what I want.
This. The actual, official campaign and the DNC have been very professional through the whole thing. It's only the koolaid drinkers pushing this crazy, hyperbolic crap.
Idiots on both sides of the pacific. 'Hey, lets fix problems caused by trade manipulation with MORE trade manipulation!'
Is your girlfriend godzilla?
There is no concentration of any particular gas in the atmosphere that is 'good' or 'bad' for the climate. The climate doesn't care one way or the other, it simply is. Good or bad for US, that's a different matter.
The only man made problem here is the fact we've stopped forest fires in the first place. They are worse because of all the underbrush that didn't burn in the first place.
Climate change has nothing to do with it, except it got the author a new grant.
This. Climate change may be a contributing factor, but ascribing the whole issue to it seems pretty damned shortsighted and irresponsible.
Considering google fiber isn't offered here or where anyone I know lives, I'm betting that Nokia CAN in fact deliver better than 1000 x 0.
The foolishness of the bet comes not really from any climate-change denial nonesense, but just from random chance. Betting that any given year will be hotter or colder than any other given particular year is stupid, there's too much chance for something else to go wrong (from whatever your perspective). A better bet, if you're really looking to test the climate change bit, would have been something like "The 10 year period starting in January 2008 will be, on average, warmer than the 10 year period starting January 1998." The data on THAT would be way more interesting and useful to our purposes here.
The market DID penalize all of those. The government bailed them out.
That isn't a flaw in the market, it's a flaw in the investors. The market corrects for it by brutally penalizing those who make bad decisions and rewarding those who make good ones.
Calm down there chicken little. You're missing the point. Unless you're arguing that quality of live for the vast majority of human beings on this planet isn't significantly better than it was even 50 years ago, in which case continue.
Known racist asshole says racist asshole things. Film at 11.
So someone do it better, then they get the money instead of google. That's how a free market works. This is just a government sanctioned shakedown. The Euros want a slice of that pie, and they'll probably get it too.
Libertarianism. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Source? I never got that vibe from anything I've seen him say or do, but then I don't exactly monitor his every step.
Right, okay. I'm behind him on all that, it sounds super, but it won't happen and we know it. Even if he were elected, none of it would happen. Why? Because while our system might be corrupt, broken, and ineffective; it is very good at preventing change. If I'm being realistic, that's what we (you, I, everyone) actually want. Everyone says they want change, but they don't. What we all really want is for tomorrow to be pretty much like today.
If they work hard enough, maybe their economy can become as noncompetitive and laced with government cronies as the United States.
Evil conniving murdering fucking cunt-faced shit-eating bastards. I pay TAXES to these assholes.
In other news, the Lindbergh baby was found dead.
Hasn't happened yet in several millennia of tech development. Also, trash pick up would be a GREAT job for a robot.
Flippin' sweet, thats 127 billion dollars worth of extra labor avaliable for other things.
I haven't played a game from either series in years, but here's the gist of the opinion swing: Battlefield's new offering is doing something that hasn't been really covered yet. Only a few indy titles are set in or around ww1, and zero AAA titles. It's a departure, and shows that maybe the dev team there is actually going to give us something new and interesting. COD meanwhile, looks almost precisely like the LAST game in the series. On top of that less-than-inspiring tidbit, at the very end it shows a bit of gameplay from a redone version of Modern Warfare, considered to be one of the best FPS titles ever made. The catch? You can only get the remastered version of MW if you buy a 'Legacy Edition' copy of the NEW CoD title. True or not, the perception there is that they're standing on the back of a better game to sell their rehashed garbage at an inflated price. That's bound to piss people off. That was the catalyst for the opinion each way, after that it's all internet hype machine.
Giving a dollar to a homeless guy of your own will is charity. The government taking four dollars from you at gunpoint and giving the homeless dude one of them is socialism.