No one is debating how CO2 works. What's the cost-benefit analysis on human action going forward? What are the feedback loops, in both directions, and how much does this matter?
In the 1920s, there were some who argued that aerial bombing would be more humane because they could be far more precise than field artillery, hitting only the target that you want to hit.
Wow, those people didn't understand the state of the art airforce technology of the time........during WW2 Germans would say, "If you want to be safe from bombers, find the thing they are trying to bomb and stand on it."
Why? Just to make the people responsible for the fiasco the lawyers and executives of the company SCO weep.
Why? They all got their paycheck and moved on. The investors lost some money. Darl McBride is now the CEO of ShoutTV. I'm never going to work there.
I do remember when SCO was a respectable member of the Linux community, and Caldera was seen as a reasonable distro alternative. Suse was in there, too.
Rockets are one thing, but ballistic shells are completely different. I don't think iron dome would be able to stop the artillery that North Korea has. (eventually, of course, modern weaponry would take it out, but not before massive damage is inflicted).
That explains why Kasich hasn't gotten as much support as I would have expected.
Vote for Hillary because Bill seemed ok, so she'll probably be kind of like him.
Previously, I supported Cruz, but his answer in the debate on his OPPOSITION to torture and his 'targeted' carpetbombing (an oxymoron) turned me against him.
To be fair, they were accurate answers in a lawyerly sort of way.
Re:You might be right, I was/am split. 3-way, he w
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio
I feel like the most recent debate did a good job revealing Rubio for who he is......a smooth campaigner with little actual experience. All the governors on the stage managed to have good, substance filled answers to various questions, but his didn't seem to have as much clarity behind them.
For example, here are the things people said (paraphrased):
Kasich - we need to help people with heroin addictions, and here is my plan to do it
Christy - we need to help people with heroin addictions, here is my plan, and I know it works because it worked in New Jersey.
Bush - we need to give more power to the states, and we're going to shift funding for schools, highways, and healthcare to the states.
Rubio - we shouldn't be focused on the rich, we should be focused on making more millionaires.
Can you see the difference? While Rubio's idea sounds great and is a fine philosophy, there isn't an obvious way to achieve it, and he didn't present a plan to do so. He's still at the philosophy stage, whereas the other three were at the practical implementation stage.
And Trump was just there putting on a show. Rhetoric FTW.
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split.
Maybe, but that assumes the other 60% is 'sane.' Some of those votes are guaranteed to go to Trump.
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative, and because he's more competent than Trump et al, but I don't think competency matters to most of the electorate.
I really wish it did, but the reality right now is that charisma matters more than competence, and Trump has it in spades, so he will win (which unfortunately means we'll have to listen to him for the next four years).
The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime.
This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.
That is not a situation anybody wants, including you.
You're dumb as a brick. Do you really think only people who are "on your side" post good articles? Or is it only people on the other side? Clearly that is what your original post suggested.
And you're wrong. People who are skeptics also refer to the IPCC report. As I said earlier, there are morons who don't understand the science on both sides, who have merely chosen a side, and then only see good on their side, and bad on the other side. That is clearly you.
I said (quote): "Most people who are worried about climate change are absolutely credulous-- they read garbage articles that could be debunked in two minutes of thinking."
You didn't actually read that link.
Keep up with the group-think though: maybe someday you'll have an original thought.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is debating how CO2 works. What's the cost-benefit analysis on human action going forward? What are the feedback loops, in both directions, and how much does this matter?
Concisely summarized.
In the 1920s, there were some who argued that aerial bombing would be more humane because they could be far more precise than field artillery, hitting only the target that you want to hit.
Wow, those people didn't understand the state of the art airforce technology of the time........during WW2 Germans would say, "If you want to be safe from bombers, find the thing they are trying to bomb and stand on it."
According to my reading, the law only addresses wired internet connections.
The senate is controlled by Republicans, too
I see. You just reminded me why I ignore all conversations that deal with SJW/GG/whatever else. Good day.
Which really worries me when I think about self-driving cars.
Explain it to me then. That would be more useful than the comment you wrote.
Why? Just to make the people responsible for the fiasco the lawyers and executives of the company SCO weep.
Why? They all got their paycheck and moved on. The investors lost some money. Darl McBride is now the CEO of ShoutTV. I'm never going to work there.
I do remember when SCO was a respectable member of the Linux community, and Caldera was seen as a reasonable distro alternative. Suse was in there, too.
Rockets are one thing, but ballistic shells are completely different. I don't think iron dome would be able to stop the artillery that North Korea has. (eventually, of course, modern weaponry would take it out, but not before massive damage is inflicted).
If you literally oppose every use of the word "SJW", as long as it doesn't have quotes, that's fairly amusing.
That explains why Kasich hasn't gotten as much support as I would have expected.
Vote for Hillary because Bill seemed ok, so she'll probably be kind of like him.
Previously, I supported Cruz, but his answer in the debate on his OPPOSITION to torture and his 'targeted' carpetbombing (an oxymoron) turned me against him.
To be fair, they were accurate answers in a lawyerly sort of way.
Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio
I feel like the most recent debate did a good job revealing Rubio for who he is......a smooth campaigner with little actual experience. All the governors on the stage managed to have good, substance filled answers to various questions, but his didn't seem to have as much clarity behind them.
For example, here are the things people said (paraphrased):
Kasich - we need to help people with heroin addictions, and here is my plan to do it
Christy - we need to help people with heroin addictions, here is my plan, and I know it works because it worked in New Jersey.
Bush - we need to give more power to the states, and we're going to shift funding for schools, highways, and healthcare to the states.
Rubio - we shouldn't be focused on the rich, we should be focused on making more millionaires.
Can you see the difference? While Rubio's idea sounds great and is a fine philosophy, there isn't an obvious way to achieve it, and he didn't present a plan to do so. He's still at the philosophy stage, whereas the other three were at the practical implementation stage.
And Trump was just there putting on a show. Rhetoric FTW.
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split.
Maybe, but that assumes the other 60% is 'sane.' Some of those votes are guaranteed to go to Trump.
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative, and because he's more competent than Trump et al, but I don't think competency matters to most of the electorate.
I really wish it did, but the reality right now is that charisma matters more than competence, and Trump has it in spades, so he will win (which unfortunately means we'll have to listen to him for the next four years).
? You have a one-sided worldview, you follow the crowd, and you can't see the good in other people's arguments. You lose at life.
NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA.
Then why do they make movies like this? Serious question.
The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime.
This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.
That is not a situation anybody wants, including you.
You just used SJW in your own post. Are you some kind of idiot savant?
You're dumb as a brick. Do you really think only people who are "on your side" post good articles? Or is it only people on the other side? Clearly that is what your original post suggested.
And you're wrong. People who are skeptics also refer to the IPCC report. As I said earlier, there are morons who don't understand the science on both sides, who have merely chosen a side, and then only see good on their side, and bad on the other side. That is clearly you.
Your comment seems a bit addled and disorganized, but if for some reason you are interested, I made a more lengthy commentary on the problems at Github here.
I'm somewhat concerned to find I'm not on that list. You must not have read my posts!
I don't see where this man ever exceeded his 'one free grope'.
You don't get a free grope, you nut-head.
No. Supervisor, therefore guilty.
I said (quote): "Most people who are worried about climate change are absolutely credulous-- they read garbage articles that could be debunked in two minutes of thinking."
You didn't actually read that link.
Keep up with the group-think though: maybe someday you'll have an original thought.
I really don't care. It's too much drama for me to care.
It's when the quality of the software decreases that I'll really look elsewhere.