One part of this consist in controlling a body's movements with an external device - the fact that this device is in turn controlled by the brain occupying the body is another part, but it doesn't have to be that way, obviously. IOW, it is now possible, if not easy, to take control of other people's bodies. Just imagine the potential; it isn't all good.
I personally don't care what/who caused it, blaming is pointless.
By talking about blame, you are saying that we are looking for somebody to punish, which isn't the case. We are looking for causes - by knowing why climate change happens, we give ourselves a chance to change the behaviours that are harmful, and as it turns out, it seems likely that it may even boost our economical and technological development. Right now, to use a crude picture, we have placed our privy right next to the well, and we have discovered that there is a connection to the fact that everybody has terrible problems with their health all the time; would it not be sensible to do something about it? At least we could place the two further apart, or perhaps we could think about inventing sewers, water treatment etc. Look up "The Great Stink" to see how bad they let it get in London before investing in the sewers that everybody thinks of as obvious now. Climate change is the great stink of our time; hopefully we are not going to let it get as bad again.
How many of those 387,000 people were disabled when they decided to enter post secondary education? I'm somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those who were paralyzed after amassing student loans, but anyone who knew what they were getting into and amassed the loans anyways, much less so.
Hmm, right, you're an American, obviously? A member of the nation with the nighest number of self-declared, born-again Christians in the world, at least according to the sounds levels of the believers. The nation where you can hardly be a figure of prominence without delaring your undying love for all things Biblical. Followers of Christ, the guy who is known for talking about one thing more than anything else: The duty to always help those in need without even thinking about whether they deserve it.
I'm not a Christian or a follower of any religion, but I'm more charitable than what you seem to be. Hell, Mao Zedong was more charitable than that.
We might actually be heading into the true plastics era. You ain't seen nothing yet.
I fear you may be right. Burning fossil fuel is bad enough as it is, but at least most of the waste products are going to disappear from the environment relatively quickly, and CO2 is not very poisonous, despite the fact that it causes climate change. Plastics on the other hand consists of entirely new molecules which biology has no response to, so it get broken down very slowly and mostly mechanically, and we are only now beginning to realise that the presence of microscopic fragments of plastinc in the food webs is likely to be a problem - perhaps a big one. And plastics leach other artificial chemicals that have their own, harmful effects; some mimic hormones, for example. It would be somewhat ironic, wouldn't it, if our enthusiasm for this brilliant wonder material ends up more of less sterilising us.
For all that, I'm not against plastics - what I am worried about is the fact that we always seem to rush head first into whatever seems like a good idea at the time, ignoring all calls for caution because that might get in the way of making a quick profit. Why is it that we never learn? Plastics could be - already is, in fact - a hugely valuable material, cheap, strong, light weight, resistant to chemicals etc etc, but we really need to learn to think before we just release new, unknown substances into the environment. Perhaps we actually need something similar to the restrictions on pharmaceuticals - rigorous testing that proves that a new chemical meets certain, strict guidelines for harmfulness, utility and safe mechanisms for their final disposal.
And if those fat cats happen to have started a successful business and made it grow through good strategic leadership, are they still leeches siphoning un-earned money?
Look at your own question and tell me if you haven't already answered it. If you start a business and provide good leadership, does that not add value to the company? That isn't the same as sitting on a big pile of money and lending it out in order to skim off interest of the work of others.
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Exactly - classified means exactly this: that something has been 'classified', ie. put into one of several categories. One of these would be 'unrestricted' or similar.
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth.
Nonsens. Who do you think are the real wealth creators? The fat cats that sit at the top, skimming the cream off the labour of others without much effort? Or the people who put in a real day's work, whether they are called engineers, hi-tech entrepreneurs, farmers or manual labourers? All of these groups of wealth creators will keep working, because they have to, whether they pay taxes or not; if they don't, they can't feed their families. If your only contribution to society consist in siphoning un-earned money into your own wallet, then you are nothing more than a parasite, and the rest of us would be better off without you.
If Brennen refuses an order from a Republican president, however repugnant, he's out the door. There will be any number of qualified sadists that would be happy to torture people, in the name of freedom, for the US government.
Perhaps - but remember after WWII, the Allies didn't accept the excuse of 'We were just carrying out orders', despite the fact that they would have faced execution for not following orders. Torture was an atrocity back then, and it still is today - if this guy has the moral courage to refuse to commit atrocities even if he loses his job, then he deserves the respect of all decent people.
Hate speech? OK. I admit that I am NOT a Trump fan, and I generally try to ignore any news about him (except to skim the headline), but what has he said that is so hateful?
'Hate speech' is beside the point here, I think. But I think he has said plenty to insult large sections of society, American as well as international, and his views and behavior are already a major embarrasment for America; just imagine him as president. A bit like Yeltsin, but perhaps fundamentally less honest.
I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).
You should probably check your numbers. True, most of the terrorism we hear about is carried out by people who claim to be muslims, but there are significant other groups with other credos. Some call themselves Christians (IRA splinter groups: Catholics, several groups of groups call themselves 'Maoists' and so on). So-called 'Islamists' are the loudest right now, but it has been others before, and it will be others in the future. Also, the term 'racist' does not exclusively mean 'discriminating on the grounds of race' in modern, popular usage - it has a far wider interpretation now, including discrimination against ethnicity, and besides, until not long ago, 'Hispanic' was used in context where race was discussed - it probably still is.
Has Trump ever actaully issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.
So it seems. To my mind, when somebody who wants to take on one of the most powerful jobs in the world, plays around with words about wanting to punch somebody, kill somebody etc, it carries significantly more weight than if a Joe Avg. says the same. I presidential candidate should be able to judge when it is appropriate to make jokes, and what kind of jokes are going to be understood as jokes in the context; otherwise, we have another Yeltsin dancing around in a drunken stupor at international conferences.
The fact he shares 25% of his genes with a smart physicist is an interesting tidbit, though it doesn't really mean he's smart himself.
I think, when we talk about genes, it is always worth remembering that we share some ninety-odd percent of our genes with the (other) apes; apparently, 25% is how much we have in common with a banana (unless this is an urban myth). The point being that 25% is not a lot.
Trump may well be highly intelligent - low intelligence means you probably stay ignorant most of your life, high intelligence enables you to learn how to avoid taking in facts that you don't like. This kind of selective ignorance is what I call stupidity (as opposed to simple ignorance; perhaps there is better word, but I haven't come across it yet): it is something that requires a lot of intellectual effort. It is also very dangerous.
Really? Taxes are now about morality? I rather thought that taxes were about the people with guns who would come to repossess my house if I didn't pay them.
It is like this: As you say yourself, certain things are paid for via the taxes, such as infrastructure, and in many countries also education and healthcare. If you don't pay tax, but still benefit from these things, then you are essentially freeloading; whether that is immoral or not is perhaps worth discussing, but while you can excuse those who genuinely can't find the means to pay tax - for example because they are unimployed - I don't think you can excuse people who could easily afford to pay, but are rich enough to find ways to avoid it legally or not. To me this is clearly a moral issue; why should those taxpayers who are not wealthy enough to squirrel their wealth away have to support a bunch of rich freeloaders?
Wouldn't they (Blizzard) actually benefit more from being good sports and allowing this service to continue? Perhaps even by sponsoring them or condoning them officially - there are probably many who wouldn't spend the money to try WoW because they think it isn't their thing, but who might get hooked this way. And I don't think they loose customers - people who are this dedicated would probably also invest in the official game. I'm not a player myself, but it seems like common sense to me.
Damn it Google, just pick a fucking language already...
Really? In my experience, this is one activity that doesn't in itself require much in the way of language skills; others may have a different perspective, of course.
I know - this is about turboprop and that sort of things, but I can't help imagining a jet-engine with an almighty bolt of lightning coming out of the rear end.
I wonder if the AWS business will actually lead Amazon to make a profit, I've read so much about how they never make a profit in the news, I seriously wonder if this could be the tipping point (product).
Perhaps what we are talking about here is TAXABLE profit? Amazon, among others, have been in the news for not paying any tax due to what can best be described as trickery. Legal, but not morally right - in the sense that if you benefit (eg. as in making money) from a nation or other group of entities, then it is right that you pay for it to that nation/group of entities. Actually, this is a basic principle in business; there wouldn't be any business, if only one side profited from the relationship.
I can sense that this is something you care about - that's good. I'm not sure I agree with you, but it is a lot better that people care enough to have an opinion instead of just oozing along in whatever direction the flow goes.
In my view, privacy isn't a black and white issue; there are things that should not be private and things that definitely should be, but many - most even - are in the grey zone where it depends on circumstances. Should the tax affairs of an unimportant person like me be made public? Probably not - I don't have things to hide, but how much would it benefit society? On the other hand, should the tax affairs of the most influential man in UK be in the public domain? I can see strong arguments in favour, but I'm not entirely sure. It is certainly necessary that we feel we can trust him, and if doubt has been raised, then it is reasonable that he is willing to answer clearly and fully.
Should the government spy on its citizens? I don't think so - we all do things we would feel embarrassed about if they were known publically, and nobody likes the thought that some unknown civil servant sits somewhere in a grubby office, leering over our private lives; it somehow feels wrong, like being fondled by a stranger in a crowd. But more importantly, I think the substantial amounts of money and effort it would require could be better spent elsewhere.
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to call it 'Wagner', then? Vivaldi is fairly light-footed and pleasant, whereas Wagner tends to sound like it was written for - and performed by - The Hulk on bad day.
Why not simply have unisex bathrooms? I suppose there are some practical reasons - women tend, on average, to take longer in the bathroom, or perhaps more accurately, men are quicker, because they have the option to use the pissoir. Maybe a balanced solution would be to have a toilet to be shared by both genders, with a separate pissoir to offload the men into, leaving more capacity for women.
They speak of corruption, but in reality, when faced with it, in their families, they do nothing
How do you know? It is still very early days - only a few names have been reported in the press so far, out of several million documents. Right now they are probably busy trying to assess any damage and figure out how to handle it, which I suggest anybody in a similar situation would be sensible to do, whether they are individuals, institutions or governments. I hope these revelations will result in a major clean-up of corruption everywhere. Perhaps I'm too naive, but one can hope.
Is the voice and persona of The Archetypical Mother-In-Law. Actually, that would be a very useful feature for fighting vermin: http://izquotes.com/quote/4826...
Of all the things that we need to be warned about, the White House is effectively stating the dangers we would have... by simply living in the tropics.
Essentially, they have basically said that having flowers and green plants for longer during the year is a problem. Hell, that's why I moved south to begin with. If I can have tropical weather by the time I'm retirement age, I won't have to migrate to Florida when I have blue hair!
Well, are you equipped to deal with living in the tropics? Perhaps you are, but many people are not - and when it comes to diseases, the richer countries in the world are going to receive a large number of climate refugees, whether they like it or not, as I'm sure you are aware. With a larger influx of people from poor, tropical nations, the risk of importing nasty diseases rises, and believe, there are many to choose from; I don't think the American healthcare model is geared to cope, certainly not if good healthcare is only really available to those who can afford to have good insurances.
Another, major factor is that a warmer climate will probably make drought a more prominent feature in America's heartlands - as well as making aquifers run dry - so less food will be produced. And so on - each of these challenges can be addressed, but it all adds up, and the most vulnerable will be hit hardest. Nothing new in that, but if you are getting to your retirement age, then you are probably getting closer to the category of "most vulnerable" and would benefit from taking the issue serious.
Which is the exact reason Putin's minions released this data now: to have the public talk about something else.
I'm not an admirer of Putin, personally, but I think we should try to be at least somewhat plausible when we accuse him of things. What is the general interest to us in the leaking of data from Turkey? They are not all that much in the spotlight, so as a diversion from the Panama leak, it is nothing, and while it is certainly inconvenient for Turkey, there is little in a citizenship database that is likely to keep Mr Putin and other embarrassed parties out of the headlines. Speaking of which - there is a lot of rich, influential people who have a strong interest in the Panama leak going away quickly - so why particularly Putin and not somebody else?
That must be really poor if half of your energy production is consumed by your renewables. We finally know the truth that renewables consume energy... Or the editor doesn't know how to write a title!
Or perhaps you are just going out of your way to misunderstand? Hopefully this is meant as a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
... things WILL evolve that can eat it. Sooner or later.
As a matter of fact, I read an article not long ago about just such a micro organism, which can digest some types of plastic, very slowly.
One part of this consist in controlling a body's movements with an external device - the fact that this device is in turn controlled by the brain occupying the body is another part, but it doesn't have to be that way, obviously. IOW, it is now possible, if not easy, to take control of other people's bodies. Just imagine the potential; it isn't all good.
I personally don't care what/who caused it, blaming is pointless.
By talking about blame, you are saying that we are looking for somebody to punish, which isn't the case. We are looking for causes - by knowing why climate change happens, we give ourselves a chance to change the behaviours that are harmful, and as it turns out, it seems likely that it may even boost our economical and technological development. Right now, to use a crude picture, we have placed our privy right next to the well, and we have discovered that there is a connection to the fact that everybody has terrible problems with their health all the time; would it not be sensible to do something about it? At least we could place the two further apart, or perhaps we could think about inventing sewers, water treatment etc. Look up "The Great Stink" to see how bad they let it get in London before investing in the sewers that everybody thinks of as obvious now. Climate change is the great stink of our time; hopefully we are not going to let it get as bad again.
How many of those 387,000 people were disabled when they decided to enter post secondary education?
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those who were paralyzed after amassing student loans, but anyone who knew what they were getting into and amassed the loans anyways, much less so.
Hmm, right, you're an American, obviously? A member of the nation with the nighest number of self-declared, born-again Christians in the world, at least according to the sounds levels of the believers. The nation where you can hardly be a figure of prominence without delaring your undying love for all things Biblical. Followers of Christ, the guy who is known for talking about one thing more than anything else: The duty to always help those in need without even thinking about whether they deserve it.
I'm not a Christian or a follower of any religion, but I'm more charitable than what you seem to be. Hell, Mao Zedong was more charitable than that.
We might actually be heading into the true plastics era. You ain't seen nothing yet.
I fear you may be right. Burning fossil fuel is bad enough as it is, but at least most of the waste products are going to disappear from the environment relatively quickly, and CO2 is not very poisonous, despite the fact that it causes climate change. Plastics on the other hand consists of entirely new molecules which biology has no response to, so it get broken down very slowly and mostly mechanically, and we are only now beginning to realise that the presence of microscopic fragments of plastinc in the food webs is likely to be a problem - perhaps a big one. And plastics leach other artificial chemicals that have their own, harmful effects; some mimic hormones, for example. It would be somewhat ironic, wouldn't it, if our enthusiasm for this brilliant wonder material ends up more of less sterilising us.
For all that, I'm not against plastics - what I am worried about is the fact that we always seem to rush head first into whatever seems like a good idea at the time, ignoring all calls for caution because that might get in the way of making a quick profit. Why is it that we never learn? Plastics could be - already is, in fact - a hugely valuable material, cheap, strong, light weight, resistant to chemicals etc etc, but we really need to learn to think before we just release new, unknown substances into the environment. Perhaps we actually need something similar to the restrictions on pharmaceuticals - rigorous testing that proves that a new chemical meets certain, strict guidelines for harmfulness, utility and safe mechanisms for their final disposal.
And if those fat cats happen to have started a successful business and made it grow through good strategic leadership, are they still leeches siphoning un-earned money?
Look at your own question and tell me if you haven't already answered it. If you start a business and provide good leadership, does that not add value to the company? That isn't the same as sitting on a big pile of money and lending it out in order to skim off interest of the work of others.
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Exactly - classified means exactly this: that something has been 'classified', ie. put into one of several categories. One of these would be 'unrestricted' or similar.
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth.
Nonsens. Who do you think are the real wealth creators? The fat cats that sit at the top, skimming the cream off the labour of others without much effort? Or the people who put in a real day's work, whether they are called engineers, hi-tech entrepreneurs, farmers or manual labourers? All of these groups of wealth creators will keep working, because they have to, whether they pay taxes or not; if they don't, they can't feed their families. If your only contribution to society consist in siphoning un-earned money into your own wallet, then you are nothing more than a parasite, and the rest of us would be better off without you.
If Brennen refuses an order from a Republican president, however repugnant, he's out the door. There will be any number of qualified sadists that would be happy to torture people, in the name of freedom, for the US government.
Perhaps - but remember after WWII, the Allies didn't accept the excuse of 'We were just carrying out orders', despite the fact that they would have faced execution for not following orders. Torture was an atrocity back then, and it still is today - if this guy has the moral courage to refuse to commit atrocities even if he loses his job, then he deserves the respect of all decent people.
Hate speech? OK. I admit that I am NOT a Trump fan, and I generally try to ignore any news about him (except to skim the headline), but what has he said that is so hateful?
'Hate speech' is beside the point here, I think. But I think he has said plenty to insult large sections of society, American as well as international, and his views and behavior are already a major embarrasment for America; just imagine him as president. A bit like Yeltsin, but perhaps fundamentally less honest.
I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).
You should probably check your numbers. True, most of the terrorism we hear about is carried out by people who claim to be muslims, but there are significant other groups with other credos. Some call themselves Christians (IRA splinter groups: Catholics, several groups of groups call themselves 'Maoists' and so on). So-called 'Islamists' are the loudest right now, but it has been others before, and it will be others in the future. Also, the term 'racist' does not exclusively mean 'discriminating on the grounds of race' in modern, popular usage - it has a far wider interpretation now, including discrimination against ethnicity, and besides, until not long ago, 'Hispanic' was used in context where race was discussed - it probably still is.
Has Trump ever actaully issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.
So it seems. To my mind, when somebody who wants to take on one of the most powerful jobs in the world, plays around with words about wanting to punch somebody, kill somebody etc, it carries significantly more weight than if a Joe Avg. says the same. I presidential candidate should be able to judge when it is appropriate to make jokes, and what kind of jokes are going to be understood as jokes in the context; otherwise, we have another Yeltsin dancing around in a drunken stupor at international conferences.
The fact he shares 25% of his genes with a smart physicist is an interesting tidbit, though it doesn't really mean he's smart himself.
I think, when we talk about genes, it is always worth remembering that we share some ninety-odd percent of our genes with the (other) apes; apparently, 25% is how much we have in common with a banana (unless this is an urban myth). The point being that 25% is not a lot.
Trump may well be highly intelligent - low intelligence means you probably stay ignorant most of your life, high intelligence enables you to learn how to avoid taking in facts that you don't like. This kind of selective ignorance is what I call stupidity (as opposed to simple ignorance; perhaps there is better word, but I haven't come across it yet): it is something that requires a lot of intellectual effort. It is also very dangerous.
Really? Taxes are now about morality? I rather thought that taxes were about the people with guns who would come to repossess my house if I didn't pay them.
It is like this: As you say yourself, certain things are paid for via the taxes, such as infrastructure, and in many countries also education and healthcare. If you don't pay tax, but still benefit from these things, then you are essentially freeloading; whether that is immoral or not is perhaps worth discussing, but while you can excuse those who genuinely can't find the means to pay tax - for example because they are unimployed - I don't think you can excuse people who could easily afford to pay, but are rich enough to find ways to avoid it legally or not. To me this is clearly a moral issue; why should those taxpayers who are not wealthy enough to squirrel their wealth away have to support a bunch of rich freeloaders?
Wouldn't they (Blizzard) actually benefit more from being good sports and allowing this service to continue? Perhaps even by sponsoring them or condoning them officially - there are probably many who wouldn't spend the money to try WoW because they think it isn't their thing, but who might get hooked this way. And I don't think they loose customers - people who are this dedicated would probably also invest in the official game. I'm not a player myself, but it seems like common sense to me.
Damn it Google, just pick a fucking language already ...
Really? In my experience, this is one activity that doesn't in itself require much in the way of language skills; others may have a different perspective, of course.
I know - this is about turboprop and that sort of things, but I can't help imagining a jet-engine with an almighty bolt of lightning coming out of the rear end.
I wonder if the AWS business will actually lead Amazon to make a profit, I've read so much about how they never make a profit in the news, I seriously wonder if this could be the tipping point (product).
Perhaps what we are talking about here is TAXABLE profit? Amazon, among others, have been in the news for not paying any tax due to what can best be described as trickery. Legal, but not morally right - in the sense that if you benefit (eg. as in making money) from a nation or other group of entities, then it is right that you pay for it to that nation/group of entities. Actually, this is a basic principle in business; there wouldn't be any business, if only one side profited from the relationship.
I can sense that this is something you care about - that's good. I'm not sure I agree with you, but it is a lot better that people care enough to have an opinion instead of just oozing along in whatever direction the flow goes.
In my view, privacy isn't a black and white issue; there are things that should not be private and things that definitely should be, but many - most even - are in the grey zone where it depends on circumstances. Should the tax affairs of an unimportant person like me be made public? Probably not - I don't have things to hide, but how much would it benefit society? On the other hand, should the tax affairs of the most influential man in UK be in the public domain? I can see strong arguments in favour, but I'm not entirely sure. It is certainly necessary that we feel we can trust him, and if doubt has been raised, then it is reasonable that he is willing to answer clearly and fully.
Should the government spy on its citizens? I don't think so - we all do things we would feel embarrassed about if they were known publically, and nobody likes the thought that some unknown civil servant sits somewhere in a grubby office, leering over our private lives; it somehow feels wrong, like being fondled by a stranger in a crowd. But more importantly, I think the substantial amounts of money and effort it would require could be better spent elsewhere.
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to call it 'Wagner', then? Vivaldi is fairly light-footed and pleasant, whereas Wagner tends to sound like it was written for - and performed by - The Hulk on bad day.
Why not simply have unisex bathrooms? I suppose there are some practical reasons - women tend, on average, to take longer in the bathroom, or perhaps more accurately, men are quicker, because they have the option to use the pissoir. Maybe a balanced solution would be to have a toilet to be shared by both genders, with a separate pissoir to offload the men into, leaving more capacity for women.
Has it been tried on these http://www.funnyordie.com/arti...?
They speak of corruption, but in reality, when faced with it, in their families, they do nothing
How do you know? It is still very early days - only a few names have been reported in the press so far, out of several million documents. Right now they are probably busy trying to assess any damage and figure out how to handle it, which I suggest anybody in a similar situation would be sensible to do, whether they are individuals, institutions or governments. I hope these revelations will result in a major clean-up of corruption everywhere. Perhaps I'm too naive, but one can hope.
Is the voice and persona of The Archetypical Mother-In-Law. Actually, that would be a very useful feature for fighting vermin: http://izquotes.com/quote/4826...
Of all the things that we need to be warned about, the White House is effectively stating the dangers we would have... by simply living in the tropics.
Essentially, they have basically said that having flowers and green plants for longer during the year is a problem. Hell, that's why I moved south to begin with. If I can have tropical weather by the time I'm retirement age, I won't have to migrate to Florida when I have blue hair!
Well, are you equipped to deal with living in the tropics? Perhaps you are, but many people are not - and when it comes to diseases, the richer countries in the world are going to receive a large number of climate refugees, whether they like it or not, as I'm sure you are aware. With a larger influx of people from poor, tropical nations, the risk of importing nasty diseases rises, and believe, there are many to choose from; I don't think the American healthcare model is geared to cope, certainly not if good healthcare is only really available to those who can afford to have good insurances.
Another, major factor is that a warmer climate will probably make drought a more prominent feature in America's heartlands - as well as making aquifers run dry - so less food will be produced. And so on - each of these challenges can be addressed, but it all adds up, and the most vulnerable will be hit hardest. Nothing new in that, but if you are getting to your retirement age, then you are probably getting closer to the category of "most vulnerable" and would benefit from taking the issue serious.
Which is the exact reason Putin's minions released this data now: to have the public talk about something else.
I'm not an admirer of Putin, personally, but I think we should try to be at least somewhat plausible when we accuse him of things. What is the general interest to us in the leaking of data from Turkey? They are not all that much in the spotlight, so as a diversion from the Panama leak, it is nothing, and while it is certainly inconvenient for Turkey, there is little in a citizenship database that is likely to keep Mr Putin and other embarrassed parties out of the headlines. Speaking of which - there is a lot of rich, influential people who have a strong interest in the Panama leak going away quickly - so why particularly Putin and not somebody else?
That must be really poor if half of your energy production is consumed by your renewables. We finally know the truth that renewables consume energy... Or the editor doesn't know how to write a title!
Or perhaps you are just going out of your way to misunderstand? Hopefully this is meant as a joke.