Could be real, but this could just as easily be fake. He could have programmed that finger with that implant ahead of time. We see him program a different finger and have no proof or evidence that this was the only finger saved. It could be reading the finger behind the implant which was already set up to unlock the phone. Need lots more evidence before I could believe such a simple hack would work.
The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same. I think the most you'll find are papers that suggest global change could result in positive things in some areas. I don't know of any saying that climate change is not happening.
The problem with this argument is the climategate emails themselves were said that they were not allowing anti-global warming papers to be in peer reviewed journals ("will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"), so saying they the no man made global warming argument is invalid because because it isn't in peer reviewed journals isn't really a fair argument.
First off, he didn't lie about the WND. But that is besides the point. Let's say he DID lie to congress (though his statement was 100% true). He was not under oath during the State of the Union address where he "lied." Clinton was under oath when he lied. That is called perjury my friend, and that is a felony. BIG difference.
Here are the estimated measurements extrapolated from the picture with a known screen size (just compared by pixel ratios)
Screen = 4.5 in in Diag.
Width = 7 in
Height = 3 in
Buttons =.35 in
Thumb Pad = 1.125 in
-Izrun
All right. I see what you mean. A couple of my points were off, but I didn't feel like doing research before. Here are the facts (by percent of GDP) (from the governement)
Now, Clinton should only get blamed for half of the 1992 deficit, because he was only in office half the year. The same with the 2002 surplus. So that makes the total average deficits:
Clinton: -1.20625%
Bush: -0.7875%
The numbers are also based on proposed GDP fron current growth. If the tax cut does what it supposed to do (and almost always does), then this deficit might just go away (see below). So you see, this might be the "largest deficit ever," but it is not even close to that by percentage of GDP (actually, the
last time the deficit was this low before the.com boom was in 1981. My point in the previous post was not that Bush's deficit isn't bad (I think the government needs to cut spending, which neither party wants to do), but that this "biggest deficit ever" basically means nothing.
As far as Clinton's budget goes, I found something interesting while looking. Take a look at his proposed budget for 1996. He did not know about
the surplus from the.com bubble. His budget estimated that the deficit from 1996 - 2000 would be as shown below:
1996: -2.7
1997: -2.7
1998: -2.4
1999: -2.3
2000: -2.1
Doesn't quite look as pretty, does it. If the tax cuts do as they should, Bush's deficit could go away as Clinton's did. Isn't that exactly what Bush's is for 2004, and Clinton didn't even have a war on terror to take care of....
You do realize that by percentage points, the deficit is smaller than it has been in years, right?
Let's say you make $1000 a month, and you spend 1100 bucks a month. You're running a 100 dollar deficit, which is 10%. Now, let's say you make $10,000 a month, and spend $10,200 a month. You're running a 200 dollar deficit, but it's only a 2% deficit. Which is worse? By your (and other liberals) math, the 100 dollar deficit is better. By my (conservative) math, the $200, 2% deficit is better.
So I look at this as the deficit will be the smallest percent of our GDP since before Clinton, whereas you see it as the largest amount ever. You tell me which makes more sense (hint, my way, which follows logic).
Slashdot Mirror
Could be real, but this could just as easily be fake. He could have programmed that finger with that implant ahead of time. We see him program a different finger and have no proof or evidence that this was the only finger saved. It could be reading the finger behind the implant which was already set up to unlock the phone. Need lots more evidence before I could believe such a simple hack would work.
Interesting point. Unfortunately you framed it in a bigoted rant and will subsequently be ignored.
The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same. I think the most you'll find are papers that suggest global change could result in positive things in some areas. I don't know of any saying that climate change is not happening.
The problem with this argument is the climategate emails themselves were said that they were not allowing anti-global warming papers to be in peer reviewed journals ("will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"), so saying they the no man made global warming argument is invalid because because it isn't in peer reviewed journals isn't really a fair argument.
Are Belong to Us?
First off, he didn't lie about the WND. But that is besides the point. Let's say he DID lie to congress (though his statement was 100% true). He was not under oath during the State of the Union address where he "lied." Clinton was under oath when he lied. That is called perjury my friend, and that is a felony. BIG difference.
Here are the estimated measurements extrapolated from the picture with a known screen size (just compared by pixel ratios) Screen = 4.5 in in Diag. Width = 7 in Height = 3 in Buttons = .35 in
Thumb Pad = 1.125 in
-Izrun
- 1992: -4.7% 1993: -3.9%
- 1994: -2.9%
- 1995: -2.2%
- 1996: -1.4%
- 1997: -0.3% see end of post for more info)
- 1998: +0.8%
- 1999: +1.4%
- 2000: +2.4% 2001: +1.3% 2002: -1.5% 2003: -2.8% (estimated) 2004: -2.7% (estimated)
Now, Clinton should only get blamed for half of the 1992 deficit, because he was only in office half the year. The same with the 2002 surplus. So that makes the total average deficits:- Clinton: -1.20625%
- Bush: -0.7875%
The numbers are also based on proposed GDP fron current growth. If the tax cut does what it supposed to do (and almost always does), then this deficit might just go away (see below). So you see, this might be the "largest deficit ever," but it is not even close to that by percentage of GDP (actually, the last time the deficit was this low before theAs far as Clinton's budget goes, I found something interesting while looking. Take a look at his proposed budget for 1996. He did not know about the surplus from the
- 1996: -2.7
- 1997: -2.7
- 1998: -2.4
- 1999: -2.3
- 2000: -2.1
Doesn't quite look as pretty, does it. If the tax cuts do as they should, Bush's deficit could go away as Clinton's did. Isn't that exactly what Bush's is for 2004, and Clinton didn't even have a war on terror to take care of....You do realize that by percentage points, the deficit is smaller than it has been in years, right? Let's say you make $1000 a month, and you spend 1100 bucks a month. You're running a 100 dollar deficit, which is 10%. Now, let's say you make $10,000 a month, and spend $10,200 a month. You're running a 200 dollar deficit, but it's only a 2% deficit. Which is worse? By your (and other liberals) math, the 100 dollar deficit is better. By my (conservative) math, the $200, 2% deficit is better. So I look at this as the deficit will be the smallest percent of our GDP since before Clinton, whereas you see it as the largest amount ever. You tell me which makes more sense (hint, my way, which follows logic).