Trump's acts of villany are more insidious, but no less repugnant.
Only if you ignore what Trump and Hitler actually did. I mentioned three very things that Hitler did which are more repugnant than anything Trump has done.
And... Hillary? What exactly do you think Hillary Clinton, as president, would have done that would have been more attractive to IBM and its customers? Be specific.
They might still have hired 25k employees. Acting like they're doing this for the next president is likely to be good for them no matter who is in charge.
Just because Trump is a venal populist, doesn't make him Hitler. Hitler pulled a lot of crazy shit even before he took over: an attempted coup of Bavaria and a rigged trial for treason that ended in a handslap, years of riots and street violence that often killed people, being an unwitting but effective party in the overthrow of the Free State of Prussia, and of course, being in the massively dysfunctional state of the Wiemar Republic.
No, I mean that's pretty low grade for racism there. I get that kind of social pressure is bad, but it doesn't kill people or create a permanent underclass. But I'm sure you can think of stuff that does, even today.
They have been through significant periods of climactic instability in the last few hundred million years which has wiped out 90% of species multiple times.
And each time a lot more than just climate instability was going on. For example, the Permian-Triassic extinction probably involved repeated large swings in climate induced and a variety of toxic substances dumped by the largest known volcanic eruptions on Earth. The famous Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction involved a meteorite impact that probably massively changed climate over the course of hours.
We know very little of these extinction events particularly over the small time scales necessary (eg, centuries instead of tens of thousands of years in the case of the first extinction event) in order to compare them to modern climate change. Yet suspiciously enough, you're willing to compare those ancient events confidently to modern times.
Further, even when we filter these extinction events purely as climate change events we find no evidence for the alleged runaway positive feedback that I responded to in my first post.
Thought so. You aren't speaking of a lot of land area or population. And this is going to be over a couple of centuries meaning there will be plenty of time to move or protect such things as New Orleans or JFK Airport.
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
Unless of course, you're wrong. Then there will be a huge trade off. And with the accounting games and cost exaggerations I've seen, I don't buy that the cost of global warming will be astronomical.
The point here is that something is broken with the model of methane positive feedback. We're supposed to be concerned about something that didn't happen under similar circumstances back then.
I've always been under the impression that in vast and complex systems with many causal interdependencies, runaway positive feedback mechanisms are the rule rather than the exception.
And I've been under the impression that vast, complex systems which have managed to stay stable for several hundred million years probably don't have those. Shifts to new stable points? Sure. Runaway positive feedback? Hasn't happened yet.
Um... that contest is about doing malicious things in the middle of tasks you were assigned to do and getting away with it - is that really a skill you want in your programmers?
. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.
Save four times as much just so you can burn it on the most unproductive health care on Earth? I bet two million dollars would buy me a very pretty pyramid.
So it's not actually world-wide income, but Irish income. Otherwise "divert" has no meaning. Sure, it's a game, but a game with rules.
The U.S. does not tax businesses for income out of foreign entities. It does tax natural persons, citizens and lawful permanent residents, on their worldwide income.
Note that there's no diverting world-wide income to the US. It's a different beast.
âoeWhat really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong,â Alexander said Tuesday. âoeThey are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes. They are the ones that deserve our praise. Not a guy who took this race to Hong Kong and to Moscow.â
Or maybe they no longer want to work at an unaccountable agency which is breaking the law on a regular basis? Or a reorg that sounds a bit screwed up?
Not surprising that Greenpeace says stupid shit. They're the ones who had the war on chlorine.
Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group, launched the first salvo in 1991 with its call to phase out completely "the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine, and chlorinated oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite)." As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe."
And when they get a wild idea, it often passes on to other environmentalist organizations.
It makes good sense to prioritize environmental protection. Unfortunately, good sense is conspicuously absent in current efforts to ban the use of chlorine. Greenpeace calls for a "chlorine-free society." Support also comes from other environmental organizations. George Coling of the Sierra Club states ". . . the debate is no longer whether to phase out these chemicals, but how" and Tim Eder, of the National Wildlife Federation notes, "When it comes to (these chemicals) you don't make them, produce them, or dispose of them . . . you just get rid of them!" We should be wary of their claims, for they suggest political opportunism, not sound science.
Bright future, if goosestepping whilst clutching a bible , is your thing.
Remember, that's the TDS talking. Obama was lying just as shamelessly in the 2008 election as Trump (though perhaps not quite as poorly thought out), yet we didn't turn into goosestepping left-oriented fascists while clutching a copy of Dreams of my Father. I think we should care about real dangers rather than the imaginary ones.
First, Texas is not "doing better than California".
By "doing better" I mean higher absolute population growth, higher absolute employment growth, and higher absolute GDP growth over the period in question.
Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas
And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.
Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.
Decline in US labor pricing power due to globalization did that. And we would still have globalization even if the US erected trade barriers way back when. Here is the usual failure to understand basic causes and to attribute current failure to convenient scapegoats.
Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.
Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue? It makes little sense to complain about fights over the existence of Social Security if no one has done anything for the long term viability of Social Security ever since its inception.
The dissolution of Social Security is inevitable unless one is willing to stabilize it fiscally.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump's acts of villany are more insidious, but no less repugnant.
Only if you ignore what Trump and Hitler actually did. I mentioned three very things that Hitler did which are more repugnant than anything Trump has done.
And ... Hillary? What exactly do you think Hillary Clinton, as president, would have done that would have been more attractive to IBM and its customers? Be specific.
They might still have hired 25k employees. Acting like they're doing this for the next president is likely to be good for them no matter who is in charge.
Just because Trump is a venal populist, doesn't make him Hitler. Hitler pulled a lot of crazy shit even before he took over: an attempted coup of Bavaria and a rigged trial for treason that ended in a handslap, years of riots and street violence that often killed people, being an unwitting but effective party in the overthrow of the Free State of Prussia, and of course, being in the massively dysfunctional state of the Wiemar Republic.
No, I mean that's pretty low grade for racism there. I get that kind of social pressure is bad, but it doesn't kill people or create a permanent underclass. But I'm sure you can think of stuff that does, even today.
They have been through significant periods of climactic instability in the last few hundred million years which has wiped out 90% of species multiple times.
And each time a lot more than just climate instability was going on. For example, the Permian-Triassic extinction probably involved repeated large swings in climate induced and a variety of toxic substances dumped by the largest known volcanic eruptions on Earth. The famous Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction involved a meteorite impact that probably massively changed climate over the course of hours.
We know very little of these extinction events particularly over the small time scales necessary (eg, centuries instead of tens of thousands of years in the case of the first extinction event) in order to compare them to modern climate change. Yet suspiciously enough, you're willing to compare those ancient events confidently to modern times.
Further, even when we filter these extinction events purely as climate change events we find no evidence for the alleged runaway positive feedback that I responded to in my first post.
Thought so. You aren't speaking of a lot of land area or population. And this is going to be over a couple of centuries meaning there will be plenty of time to move or protect such things as New Orleans or JFK Airport.
but have one hobby that goes against the stereotype and people will start going: "You sure you're black?".
Whew, that's some serious racism there.
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
Unless of course, you're wrong. Then there will be a huge trade off. And with the accounting games and cost exaggerations I've seen, I don't buy that the cost of global warming will be astronomical.
The circumstances are not similar.
Ok, they were worse then since the jump in temperature was much greater and so much tundra was thawed.
The point here is that something is broken with the model of methane positive feedback. We're supposed to be concerned about something that didn't happen under similar circumstances back then.
I've always been under the impression that in vast and complex systems with many causal interdependencies, runaway positive feedback mechanisms are the rule rather than the exception.
And I've been under the impression that vast, complex systems which have managed to stay stable for several hundred million years probably don't have those. Shifts to new stable points? Sure. Runaway positive feedback? Hasn't happened yet.
Um... that contest is about doing malicious things in the middle of tasks you were assigned to do and getting away with it - is that really a skill you want in your programmers?
You have to ask?
. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.
Save four times as much just so you can burn it on the most unproductive health care on Earth? I bet two million dollars would buy me a very pretty pyramid.
The 75,000 Euro guy doesn't have that luxury. He NEEDS his job.
Unless, of course, he saved money instead. 75k Euros goes pretty far. In particular, it's a lot of "fuck you" money, if you save it.
Bakers discriminating against gay couples has nothing to do with whether a state is secular or not.
and divert income there.
So it's not actually world-wide income, but Irish income. Otherwise "divert" has no meaning. Sure, it's a game, but a game with rules.
The U.S. does not tax businesses for income out of foreign entities. It does tax natural persons, citizens and lawful permanent residents, on their worldwide income.
Note that there's no diverting world-wide income to the US. It's a different beast.
âoeWhat really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong,â Alexander said Tuesday. âoeThey are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes. They are the ones that deserve our praise. Not a guy who took this race to Hong Kong and to Moscow.â
Or maybe they no longer want to work at an unaccountable agency which is breaking the law on a regular basis? Or a reorg that sounds a bit screwed up?
Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group, launched the first salvo in 1991 with its call to phase out completely "the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine, and chlorinated oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite)." As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe."
And when they get a wild idea, it often passes on to other environmentalist organizations.
It makes good sense to prioritize environmental protection. Unfortunately, good sense is conspicuously absent in current efforts to ban the use of chlorine. Greenpeace calls for a "chlorine-free society." Support also comes from other environmental organizations. George Coling of the Sierra Club states ". . . the debate is no longer whether to phase out these chemicals, but how" and Tim Eder, of the National Wildlife Federation notes, "When it comes to (these chemicals) you don't make them, produce them, or dispose of them . . . you just get rid of them!" We should be wary of their claims, for they suggest political opportunism, not sound science.
It's a power not a right. And yes, he does have the power to order an investigation.
Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy.
Silicon Valley is a lot bigger. There's a reason I picked that instead of the LA area.
Bright future, if goosestepping whilst clutching a bible , is your thing.
Remember, that's the TDS talking. Obama was lying just as shamelessly in the 2008 election as Trump (though perhaps not quite as poorly thought out), yet we didn't turn into goosestepping left-oriented fascists while clutching a copy of Dreams of my Father. I think we should care about real dangers rather than the imaginary ones.
First, Texas is not "doing better than California".
By "doing better" I mean higher absolute population growth, higher absolute employment growth, and higher absolute GDP growth over the period in question.
Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas
And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.
Or Texas which has been doing better than California for the last twenty years.
Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.
Decline in US labor pricing power due to globalization did that. And we would still have globalization even if the US erected trade barriers way back when. Here is the usual failure to understand basic causes and to attribute current failure to convenient scapegoats.
Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.
Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue? It makes little sense to complain about fights over the existence of Social Security if no one has done anything for the long term viability of Social Security ever since its inception.
The dissolution of Social Security is inevitable unless one is willing to stabilize it fiscally.