That is not how language works. For example, the word "henge" was invented to describe Stonehenge, but under the modern definition of "henge", it ceases to be one. That does not mean that now no henges exist.
You never miss a chance to show the world just how bigoted you are. It's a fantastic service, as it allows people to ignore your every word, safe in the knowledge they missed absolutely nothing of pertinence to the discussion. Hint: you are confusing fundamentalist Muslims with moderate Muslims. That is intellectual laziness of the highest calibre.
Other countries don't have these problems with taxis, so it might be worthwhile to see what those countries are doing, as opposed to just throwing it all in and surrendering to Uber...
Translation: "I am confused. All these big words and weird concepts. I don't get them. I do, however, hate regulation so I will kick and scream and fuss and complain about this, showing everyone how much I don't know and how little I care about educating myself, and how much I value a good bout of rage".
Very true - not all businesses need regulation, but ones where members of the public put their trust in a stranger and engage in a potentially-dangerous activity in order to fulfil a basic human need ("going somewhere") should probably have some regulation...
Then you are poking fun at NASA and the USGS, who have been monitoring Alaskan glaciers and how their melting relates to the increase in earthquakes. I don't know why you're talking about Greenland and Antarctica, and conveniently forget to mention the Himalayan glaciers which have been receding for years and years.
Either you are wrong or all the evidence is wrong. I wonder which is more likely? If you have some evidence of your own, go present it and get your Nobel prize!
Yet another one of your pithy, throw-away sentences which shows you really aren't bothered in understanding this topic, but in venting your frustration at your perceived enemies. Cite your sources and you won't look so chronically out of touch with reality.
You are confusing "you" with "everyone". Yet again. You do this frequently, and it would go some way towards explaining why you hold some rather bizarre opinions of the world and those who live in it.
You seem to be conveniently assuming that once used, those elements can never be re-used via recycling. You are also assuming that our current method of creating solar panels is the only possible way, which is clearly nonsensical. To claim these clearly helps your argument, for sure, but it shows you are either ignorant, or being disingenuous. Neither is a particularly noble trait. You should ask yourself the same question you asked the OP, as it appears eerily fitting.
You do realise that calling someone a whore isn't necessarily sexist, as it simply means "prostitute" - a person willing to perform various favors for money. That is a perfect description of lobbyists, who are paid to do just that. As for Malkin's insane ramblings, they carry no weight, as she has a terrible track record for intentionally causing offence to others through vitriolic and highly vicious language. Calling someone a slut, however, is sexist, as slut specifically means a woman with many casual sexual partners.
Of course you don't realise it, as you are blinded by the whole left/right spectrum, as it makes things so easy for you. Not having to think for yourself is fun, right?
WordPress's codebase is a fucking mess, which has a great part to play in the clusterfuck of security which is WordPress. Expecting developers to code great plugins on top of a shitty codebase is asking for trouble.
But if used widely, it would stop more CO2 entering the atmosphere from vehicles, making the problem more manageable. One problem with your nautical analogy - people are bailing.
High CO2 helps some plants, and hinders others. You might get more wheat with higher CO2, but it will have less nutritional quality, so you need to eat more anyway. The "CO2 = plant food" argument, while true, is a gross oversimplification without any use.
You can just look at the statistics and research into the matter to see that driving that long without breaks is inherently unsafe. You might have been lucky once, twice, or even a handful of times, but like luck in a game of Russian roulette, it does not make the activity safe. You are wrong, not the OP.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not how language works. For example, the word "henge" was invented to describe Stonehenge, but under the modern definition of "henge", it ceases to be one. That does not mean that now no henges exist.
You never miss a chance to show the world just how bigoted you are. It's a fantastic service, as it allows people to ignore your every word, safe in the knowledge they missed absolutely nothing of pertinence to the discussion. Hint: you are confusing fundamentalist Muslims with moderate Muslims. That is intellectual laziness of the highest calibre.
They learned from the best - Israel.
Every nation gets the government it deserves
- Joseph de Maistre
Other countries don't have these problems with taxis, so it might be worthwhile to see what those countries are doing, as opposed to just throwing it all in and surrendering to Uber...
Translation: "I am confused. All these big words and weird concepts. I don't get them. I do, however, hate regulation so I will kick and scream and fuss and complain about this, showing everyone how much I don't know and how little I care about educating myself, and how much I value a good bout of rage".
Very true - not all businesses need regulation, but ones where members of the public put their trust in a stranger and engage in a potentially-dangerous activity in order to fulfil a basic human need ("going somewhere") should probably have some regulation...
Then you are poking fun at NASA and the USGS, who have been monitoring Alaskan glaciers and how their melting relates to the increase in earthquakes. I don't know why you're talking about Greenland and Antarctica, and conveniently forget to mention the Himalayan glaciers which have been receding for years and years.
Either you are wrong or all the evidence is wrong. I wonder which is more likely? If you have some evidence of your own, go present it and get your Nobel prize!
Energy bills don't have to double, and the US and EU emit more CO2 per year than China does, for example.
You don't appear to be being productive either.
You probably shouldn't trot out the "narrow worldview" argument given the dubious logical content of some of your other posts...
Says Mr. "The whole problem with most 'Green Power' solutions is they are little more than excuses to pick people's pockets". Brilliant work, Sparky.
Save your breath - this is the guy who wrote the following (without sources or analysis) just a few posts down:
The whole problem with most "Green Power" solutions is they are little more than excuses to pick people's pockets.
If someone can say that with a straight face, they are not willing to learn, and seem to be proud of that fact.
Yet another one of your pithy, throw-away sentences which shows you really aren't bothered in understanding this topic, but in venting your frustration at your perceived enemies. Cite your sources and you won't look so chronically out of touch with reality.
You are confusing "you" with "everyone". Yet again. You do this frequently, and it would go some way towards explaining why you hold some rather bizarre opinions of the world and those who live in it.
You seem to be conveniently assuming that once used, those elements can never be re-used via recycling. You are also assuming that our current method of creating solar panels is the only possible way, which is clearly nonsensical. To claim these clearly helps your argument, for sure, but it shows you are either ignorant, or being disingenuous. Neither is a particularly noble trait. You should ask yourself the same question you asked the OP, as it appears eerily fitting.
You do realise that calling someone a whore isn't necessarily sexist, as it simply means "prostitute" - a person willing to perform various favors for money. That is a perfect description of lobbyists, who are paid to do just that. As for Malkin's insane ramblings, they carry no weight, as she has a terrible track record for intentionally causing offence to others through vitriolic and highly vicious language. Calling someone a slut, however, is sexist, as slut specifically means a woman with many casual sexual partners.
Of course you don't realise it, as you are blinded by the whole left/right spectrum, as it makes things so easy for you. Not having to think for yourself is fun, right?
Read this.
WordPress's codebase is a fucking mess, which has a great part to play in the clusterfuck of security which is WordPress. Expecting developers to code great plugins on top of a shitty codebase is asking for trouble.
Very mature! You not knowing about something doesn't make it not exist.
But if used widely, it would stop more CO2 entering the atmosphere from vehicles, making the problem more manageable. One problem with your nautical analogy - people are bailing.
High CO2 helps some plants, and hinders others. You might get more wheat with higher CO2, but it will have less nutritional quality, so you need to eat more anyway. The "CO2 = plant food" argument, while true, is a gross oversimplification without any use.
You can just look at the statistics and research into the matter to see that driving that long without breaks is inherently unsafe. You might have been lucky once, twice, or even a handful of times, but like luck in a game of Russian roulette, it does not make the activity safe. You are wrong, not the OP.
Thank you for that chilling insight into redneck life. We now return to our scheduled programming...
You sound dangerously close to an AGW denialist, which doesn't really surprise me :)