The Bay of Pigs invasion was done mostly by Cuban exiles, funded, armed, trained, and organized by the US. It's a mess, but it's at least partly civil war and not a US invasion.
I checked how his name is spelled in Cyrillic. "Yeltsin" is how it reads, not "Eltsin". (The "i" in both cases should be pronounced like "ee" in English.)
If you were a halfway competent Russian troll, you'd know that.
In fact, it was designed explicitly against such volume and frequency in order to prevent manipulation and ensure all nodes can sync the full block chain.
In other words, it was designed so it has to stay small and have only a marginal effect. That's not the impression I've been getting from its supporters.
ROI, from GP, is about a factor of six in five years, which is extremely good. Are you referring to P/E ratio? That's a useful value for a stable company, much less so for a growing company.
The only case of Implied Consent I can think of is that, if I drive on public roads, I've given consent to alcohol testing. Driving on public roads is a potentially very dangerous activity, and imposing conditions on it is reasonable. One condition is that I hold a valid driver's license, and another that I may be tested for blood alcohol.
While I agree in general, it doesn't look to me like the Second is under serious attack. The Fourth has been under constant attack for quite a few years now. The First has been seriously attacked, mostly the provision against establishing a religion.
Moreover, the Second has a politically powerful organization devoted to defending its interpretation of the Second, and ignoring other parts of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it means other people don't feel inclined to defend the Second.
Because it's possible for the company to dissuade women from complaining to the point that nobody will dare except for something egregious. I don't know whether this was the situation or not, and in any particular case it's likely that some of the complaints were exaggerated or possibly fabricated entirely.
People did things that were improper that worked against Clinton. These actions were meddling in an actual national election, as opposed to a party nomination process. There's a very large difference between the two.
I've seen no evidence that there were wiretaps on Clinton's political opposition because it was her opposition, although such evidence would be difficult to find if it existed. There were wiretaps on some members of the Trump campaign for other reasons. All of this is meaningless unless the FBI leaked evidence collected to the Clinton campaign, which there's no indication of. Nunes searched the documents and the best he could do was to insinuate that a warrant or two might have been requested misleadingly, which suggests to me that the whole thing was thoroughly professional on the part of the FBI.
Trump supporters could not be consistently against insults in general or bad sexual behavior, so those aren't reasons for the result. Assange has very little credibility.
Holy books don't make a religion. They're easily distorted to suit the views of the people who should be paying attention to them. You can see this by looking at some variations of Christianity and comparing them to the Bible, or to what Jesus said. To understand adherents of a religion, we need to study a lot more than just their holy books.
I'm not advocating not defending ourselves from people who attack us. However, most Muslims aren't going to attack us. They have their own lives, and can't be arsed to attack the West, no matter how much they say so. The way to get more Muslims against us is to attack Islam as a religion with the assumption that all Muslims are potential terrorists and that their beliefs are evil.
The claims to watch are the official ones of the IPCC, and you can see in detail what claims they're willing to make and how confident they are in them, as well as references to how they got the claims. Your cite was of a scientist who made a claim that probably looked reasonable eighteen years ago, and which was reported on in the general press. There is no apparent way to go from that claim to the process behind it, which means that it's really scientifically useless. Very likely he spoke off-the-cuff, and whatever models he used have doubtless been examined to death and improved. Possibly, his idea of "a few years" is different from yours, or he was misquoted. You need to stop confusing science journalism with science.
So, you picked a claim out of the past twenty years from the popular press that proved to be wrong. That's not a valid attack on the science. Check what the actual supported claims are, not the speculations, and see how those turn out.
What you don't understand is that some investments are based on current P/E and some based on expected future P/E (and some based on the "greater fool" theory, of course).
One reason to invest in a company is that it has a good P/E ratio. Another is in the belief that it will get one later. Which you likes depends on how conservative an investor you are. Buy companies based on long-term prospects, and some will fizzle and a few might make it big.
No academic institution will accept as a reference anything that can change before the quote can be checked.
which leads to the conclusion that if you ar enot using it accademically - it is better than having no reference at all.
Actually, it's perfectly possible to get a permanent link to a Wikipedia page so that what you cite won't change. The reason it can't be used as a source is that it's an encyclopedia, not a primary or secondary source. Academics use it to get some background information and to find its sources.
Okay, what was Sanders proposing to do with government power that isn't out of line with other uses of government power? He was mostly proposing to tax and spend in a way Republicans have some disagreements with.
Actually, climate scientists monitor solar output, for obvious reasons. The surface of the planet is warming relative to what you'd expect from the solar output.
Weather isn't climate. Climate is something like the integral of weather. Individual extreme events are weather. How often they happen over the years is climate. Similarly, the temperature outside the window right now is weather. What temperature range we tend to get in mid-March here is local climate.
The poster you refer to talked about what happened in his little area of the globe. By his reasoning, rains of fire and brimstone and snakes wouldn't be an extreme event, as long as it was outside New Jersey.
We've got global warming. Looking at the entire globe, we find it's warmer on the whole. Parts of it may be colder, but on the whole it's warmer.
I have no idea how you select which claim from 2000 is "the" claim. There's been lots of them, some more accurate and some less accurate. Nor why you think a single claim that turns out not to be true should be cause for disgrace. Scientists live, study, observe, and learn.
Being something of a science buff and something of a history buff, you're wrong. That's not how history works, although scientific reasoning is useful at times. I have no idea what fields you're not ignorant in.
Calling deniers deniers is not anti-science. Deniers calling themselves skeptics are anti-science. It's pretty easy to tell the difference: deniers will adopt any conceivable idea as an explanation as to why global warming isn't happening, because it would violate a quasi-religious belief. If someone tells you they don't think it's happening, but haven't really looked at it, that's a skeptic. If someone tells you that worldwide science is a political conspiracy related to things primarily in the US, and that the scientists are frauds, that's a denier.
When I was much younger, the song with words "white bird in a golden cage in a winter's rain" became popular. At that time, winter rain was very rare in my area, especially if we're talking December-February. It's fairly common nowadays. I'd say that our local winters have changed significantly.
6) The winter where I live was colder than last winter where I live, although warmer than the historical trends of winters where I live. Therefore, global warming isn't happening.
You do realize that you've constructed a thought experiment and a rickety chain of reasoning to explain what you'd see, which isn't what we see when we do the experiment. As an empiricist, I googled "greenhouse gas experiment" and got plenty of references.
We had a certain level of CO2 a couple of centuries ago. I'm not calling it perfect, but it was the level we built civilization around and the level the complicated ecosystems that support us evolved with. Changing it rapidly disrupts these, and at the very least that's expensive. It may be that raising it a little would have been useful, but we're well beyond that now.
Slashdot Mirror
The Bay of Pigs invasion was done mostly by Cuban exiles, funded, armed, trained, and organized by the US. It's a mess, but it's at least partly civil war and not a US invasion.
I checked how his name is spelled in Cyrillic. "Yeltsin" is how it reads, not "Eltsin". (The "i" in both cases should be pronounced like "ee" in English.)
If you were a halfway competent Russian troll, you'd know that.
Add Iraq to the list of countries, and you've got hundreds of thousands.
In other words, it was designed so it has to stay small and have only a marginal effect. That's not the impression I've been getting from its supporters.
ROI, from GP, is about a factor of six in five years, which is extremely good. Are you referring to P/E ratio? That's a useful value for a stable company, much less so for a growing company.
The only case of Implied Consent I can think of is that, if I drive on public roads, I've given consent to alcohol testing. Driving on public roads is a potentially very dangerous activity, and imposing conditions on it is reasonable. One condition is that I hold a valid driver's license, and another that I may be tested for blood alcohol.
While I agree in general, it doesn't look to me like the Second is under serious attack. The Fourth has been under constant attack for quite a few years now. The First has been seriously attacked, mostly the provision against establishing a religion.
Moreover, the Second has a politically powerful organization devoted to defending its interpretation of the Second, and ignoring other parts of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it means other people don't feel inclined to defend the Second.
Because it's possible for the company to dissuade women from complaining to the point that nobody will dare except for something egregious. I don't know whether this was the situation or not, and in any particular case it's likely that some of the complaints were exaggerated or possibly fabricated entirely.
People did things that were improper that worked against Clinton. These actions were meddling in an actual national election, as opposed to a party nomination process. There's a very large difference between the two.
I've seen no evidence that there were wiretaps on Clinton's political opposition because it was her opposition, although such evidence would be difficult to find if it existed. There were wiretaps on some members of the Trump campaign for other reasons. All of this is meaningless unless the FBI leaked evidence collected to the Clinton campaign, which there's no indication of. Nunes searched the documents and the best he could do was to insinuate that a warrant or two might have been requested misleadingly, which suggests to me that the whole thing was thoroughly professional on the part of the FBI.
Trump supporters could not be consistently against insults in general or bad sexual behavior, so those aren't reasons for the result. Assange has very little credibility.
Holy books don't make a religion. They're easily distorted to suit the views of the people who should be paying attention to them. You can see this by looking at some variations of Christianity and comparing them to the Bible, or to what Jesus said. To understand adherents of a religion, we need to study a lot more than just their holy books.
I'm not advocating not defending ourselves from people who attack us. However, most Muslims aren't going to attack us. They have their own lives, and can't be arsed to attack the West, no matter how much they say so. The way to get more Muslims against us is to attack Islam as a religion with the assumption that all Muslims are potential terrorists and that their beliefs are evil.
The claims to watch are the official ones of the IPCC, and you can see in detail what claims they're willing to make and how confident they are in them, as well as references to how they got the claims. Your cite was of a scientist who made a claim that probably looked reasonable eighteen years ago, and which was reported on in the general press. There is no apparent way to go from that claim to the process behind it, which means that it's really scientifically useless. Very likely he spoke off-the-cuff, and whatever models he used have doubtless been examined to death and improved. Possibly, his idea of "a few years" is different from yours, or he was misquoted. You need to stop confusing science journalism with science.
So, you picked a claim out of the past twenty years from the popular press that proved to be wrong. That's not a valid attack on the science. Check what the actual supported claims are, not the speculations, and see how those turn out.
What you don't understand is that some investments are based on current P/E and some based on expected future P/E (and some based on the "greater fool" theory, of course).
One reason to invest in a company is that it has a good P/E ratio. Another is in the belief that it will get one later. Which you likes depends on how conservative an investor you are. Buy companies based on long-term prospects, and some will fizzle and a few might make it big.
Actually, it's perfectly possible to get a permanent link to a Wikipedia page so that what you cite won't change. The reason it can't be used as a source is that it's an encyclopedia, not a primary or secondary source. Academics use it to get some background information and to find its sources.
Okay, what was Sanders proposing to do with government power that isn't out of line with other uses of government power? He was mostly proposing to tax and spend in a way Republicans have some disagreements with.
Actually, climate scientists monitor solar output, for obvious reasons. The surface of the planet is warming relative to what you'd expect from the solar output.
Weather isn't climate. Climate is something like the integral of weather. Individual extreme events are weather. How often they happen over the years is climate. Similarly, the temperature outside the window right now is weather. What temperature range we tend to get in mid-March here is local climate.
The poster you refer to talked about what happened in his little area of the globe. By his reasoning, rains of fire and brimstone and snakes wouldn't be an extreme event, as long as it was outside New Jersey.
We've got global warming. Looking at the entire globe, we find it's warmer on the whole. Parts of it may be colder, but on the whole it's warmer.
I have no idea how you select which claim from 2000 is "the" claim. There's been lots of them, some more accurate and some less accurate. Nor why you think a single claim that turns out not to be true should be cause for disgrace. Scientists live, study, observe, and learn.
Being something of a science buff and something of a history buff, you're wrong. That's not how history works, although scientific reasoning is useful at times. I have no idea what fields you're not ignorant in.
If there's no runaway warming, why are we seeing it?
Calling deniers deniers is not anti-science. Deniers calling themselves skeptics are anti-science. It's pretty easy to tell the difference: deniers will adopt any conceivable idea as an explanation as to why global warming isn't happening, because it would violate a quasi-religious belief. If someone tells you they don't think it's happening, but haven't really looked at it, that's a skeptic. If someone tells you that worldwide science is a political conspiracy related to things primarily in the US, and that the scientists are frauds, that's a denier.
When I was much younger, the song with words "white bird in a golden cage in a winter's rain" became popular. At that time, winter rain was very rare in my area, especially if we're talking December-February. It's fairly common nowadays. I'd say that our local winters have changed significantly.
Not quite. Try
6) The winter where I live was colder than last winter where I live, although warmer than the historical trends of winters where I live. Therefore, global warming isn't happening.
You do realize that you've constructed a thought experiment and a rickety chain of reasoning to explain what you'd see, which isn't what we see when we do the experiment. As an empiricist, I googled "greenhouse gas experiment" and got plenty of references.
We had a certain level of CO2 a couple of centuries ago. I'm not calling it perfect, but it was the level we built civilization around and the level the complicated ecosystems that support us evolved with. Changing it rapidly disrupts these, and at the very least that's expensive. It may be that raising it a little would have been useful, but we're well beyond that now.