I would rather use Java than C#, not because of the language so much (they are fairly similar); but because C# programmers are often complete morons. (Note: I'm not talking about you, friendly reader).
The main reason this is still contested is because the science isn't nearly as certain as advocates would like you to believe.
Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on the environment. How much effect? What damages will result, if any? If there are damages, should they be mitigated for prevented? If we decide to prevent them, how exactly should we do it?
These are all extremely important questions, and there is no consensus on any of them.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org] the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm
I would think it would be hard for anyone to prove that they've been damaged by global warming.
Also, there is the legal principle of sovereign immunity: The King Can do No Wrong. If memory serves, victims of radiation from nuclear tests in Nevada sued the government, and lost based on that principle. If victims of nuclear fallout can't win the case, I can't imagine these people will.
But anyway the case should be an entertainment. Bring out the popcorn!
I never thought GOP would work with Manafort, given his links to the Russian election strategists (and likely the hacks) and his involvement in the Ukraine takeover, yet they did exactly that
I'm going to tell you something, the average American doesn't care about Ukraine, or even Russia really, despite all the attempts at scaremongering in the last few months (the fact that the scaremongering didn't work is further evidence that Americans don't care about Russia).
Not only does the average American not care about Ukraine, they would also have trouble finding it on a map. Russia is easy because it's big.
Reminds me that in the final debate last election, both Romney and Obama were bragging about how much oil they were going to drill up
Ultimately no one is willing to make the sacrifices required to cut CO2 output: the only hope is new technology (cheap electric cars, yay!) or that the reality doesn't go anywhere near the disasters predicted. And it will probably be a combination of both.
Threading is hard because cyclomatic complexity is increased by an order of magnitude as soon as you add a thread. That's so many more test cases you need to add.
It's manageable, but wise programmers tend to avoid threads when there is another option.
Secondly, as a question of curiosity, who do you consider to be the mainstream media, exactly? There's no malice here, I'm genuinely curious what the Trump supporter's side is. If you don't read mainstream media, then why would you feel like you're being manipulated? And if I evaluate both sides, and then side with the mainstream media, does that also make me manipulated?
The meme is so strong now that you'll see people on MSNBC or in the WSJ criticize 'mainstream media,' rather oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the mainstream media.
* He was pro-choice before he got involved in politics, so that's probably his real personal stance.
He's likely financed some abortions, in fact. My feel based on the last election is that he's decided late-term, last-minute abortions are kind of bad, so that's how he can justify calling himself pro-life.
He does not genuinely appear to have anti-trade views; he made many statements in favor of reduced barriers and outsourcing before he got involved in politics
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (I tried to find the interview for you, sorry; it was in April or something and there are too many search results on DT), he said that's kind of a negotiation strategy; you start with an extreme anti position, and then move towards the middle. So for example, he might 'moderate' his position and get Mexico to pay for half of the wall, then he Mexico feels like they got a good deal, Trump looks magnanimous, and he still got Mexico to pay for half of his hair-brained scheme.
Off-topic but also worth mentioning that Hillary had a really nice-looking suit today.
The president can also veto any bills produced by congress. He also appoints judges. So he has a lot of real power, but by design, only 1/3 of the power (with the court and legislature having the other 2/3).
It's a three-part leadership, where each part has powers specifically enumerated to limit the other parts. So, for example, the president is in charge of the military, but congress writes the military's paycheck.
So yes, your larger point that the president doesn't run the government is true.
This is the plan that is most likely to replace Obamacare. It is largely the same as Obamacare, including exchanges. It is designed to protect people like your sister, but
Whether it does or not of course depends on the details. You can look at it now and figure out if your sister will be ok.
I've heard Mexicans say the same thing about Enrique Peña Nieto.
What they don't realize is: we aren't making fun of those presidents. We're mostly ignoring them.
She lost by a couple percent. There are a lot of things she could have done differently that would have swayed things in her direction (Nate Silver says it well).
Slashdot Mirror
Note that in most polls, the number of 'undecided' voters was massively higher than the lead of either candidate.......
Here. Angry bird in there, too.
Facebook is a walled garden, where you get all the freedom you pay for.
I would rather use Java than C#, not because of the language so much (they are fairly similar); but because C# programmers are often complete morons. (Note: I'm not talking about you, friendly reader).
Without being subsidized would GM or Chrysler have been viable companies?
Yes, they would have declared bankruptcy, restructured, and continued on......which is actually what they did in the end anyway.
The main reason this is still contested is because the science isn't nearly as certain as advocates would like you to believe.
Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on the environment. How much effect? What damages will result, if any? If there are damages, should they be mitigated for prevented? If we decide to prevent them, how exactly should we do it?
These are all extremely important questions, and there is no consensus on any of them.
The summary specifically mentioned constitutional rights, you should go back and read it.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org] the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm
If replicated, that sucks lol
Has that happened before?
.....rights to life and liberty
Those are what the judge was referring to.
I would think it would be hard for anyone to prove that they've been damaged by global warming.
Also, there is the legal principle of sovereign immunity: The King Can do No Wrong. If memory serves, victims of radiation from nuclear tests in Nevada sued the government, and lost based on that principle. If victims of nuclear fallout can't win the case, I can't imagine these people will.
But anyway the case should be an entertainment. Bring out the popcorn!
I voted Jill Stein.
I never thought GOP would work with Manafort, given his links to the Russian election strategists (and likely the hacks) and his involvement in the Ukraine takeover, yet they did exactly that
I'm going to tell you something, the average American doesn't care about Ukraine, or even Russia really, despite all the attempts at scaremongering in the last few months (the fact that the scaremongering didn't work is further evidence that Americans don't care about Russia).
Not only does the average American not care about Ukraine, they would also have trouble finding it on a map. Russia is easy because it's big.
Reminds me that in the final debate last election, both Romney and Obama were bragging about how much oil they were going to drill up
Ultimately no one is willing to make the sacrifices required to cut CO2 output: the only hope is new technology (cheap electric cars, yay!) or that the reality doesn't go anywhere near the disasters predicted. And it will probably be a combination of both.
Threading is hard because cyclomatic complexity is increased by an order of magnitude as soon as you add a thread. That's so many more test cases you need to add.
It's manageable, but wise programmers tend to avoid threads when there is another option.
Nixon hadn't been charged with anything when he was pardoned by Ford.
Snowden has a fuckton of Western blood on his hands
[Citation Needed]
No because MACHINE LEARNING, didn't you hear?? Give us some money.
Secondly, as a question of curiosity, who do you consider to be the mainstream media, exactly? There's no malice here, I'm genuinely curious what the Trump supporter's side is. If you don't read mainstream media, then why would you feel like you're being manipulated? And if I evaluate both sides, and then side with the mainstream media, does that also make me manipulated?
The meme is so strong now that you'll see people on MSNBC or in the WSJ criticize 'mainstream media,' rather oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the mainstream media.
* He was pro-choice before he got involved in politics, so that's probably his real personal stance.
He's likely financed some abortions, in fact. My feel based on the last election is that he's decided late-term, last-minute abortions are kind of bad, so that's how he can justify calling himself pro-life.
He does not genuinely appear to have anti-trade views; he made many statements in favor of reduced barriers and outsourcing before he got involved in politics
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (I tried to find the interview for you, sorry; it was in April or something and there are too many search results on DT), he said that's kind of a negotiation strategy; you start with an extreme anti position, and then move towards the middle. So for example, he might 'moderate' his position and get Mexico to pay for half of the wall, then he Mexico feels like they got a good deal, Trump looks magnanimous, and he still got Mexico to pay for half of his hair-brained scheme.
Off-topic but also worth mentioning that Hillary had a really nice-looking suit today.
The president can also veto any bills produced by congress. He also appoints judges. So he has a lot of real power, but by design, only 1/3 of the power (with the court and legislature having the other 2/3).
It's a three-part leadership, where each part has powers specifically enumerated to limit the other parts. So, for example, the president is in charge of the military, but congress writes the military's paycheck.
So yes, your larger point that the president doesn't run the government is true.
This is the plan that is most likely to replace Obamacare. It is largely the same as Obamacare, including exchanges. It is designed to protect people like your sister, but
Whether it does or not of course depends on the details. You can look at it now and figure out if your sister will be ok.
I've heard Mexicans say the same thing about Enrique Peña Nieto.
What they don't realize is: we aren't making fun of those presidents. We're mostly ignoring them.
Trump has said he's mostly ok with the Republican congess' plan fwiw.
She lost by a couple percent. There are a lot of things she could have done differently that would have swayed things in her direction (Nate Silver says it well).