We might not die from it, but a lot of horrible things can happen without everyone dying. It would be scary if local climates suitable for agriculture move to areas with poor soil, no infrastructure, and no history of farming. It will also suck should pests start to move closer to people and unprepared-crops, spreading disease and lowering yields in the process. Saying we shouldn't consider scary things scary because everyone won't die is rather, well, strange, to say the least.
The standard procedure, as far as I know (not being an expert), is upon noticing the fire, the pilots would have shut down all the circuits on the plane in order to find out if one was responsible for the fire. That would make using the radio difficult, if not impossible. Pilots do three things in order: 1. Aviate. 2. Navigate. 3. Communicate. Not getting to 3 can be expected under stressful circumstances.
Does it, though? I've seen loads of claims of this behaviour, but usually it's just some muppet complaining about malware protection or getting confused about something.
Chrome's entire existence is to provide a good experience using Google's websites, some which people pay for (and so are not "the product", as the trite saying goes), and some which are ad supported.
You might want to slow down on the idiot-calling - you might end up being called one yourself.
Is it spyware, though? Repeating it again and again is not enough to make it so - is there an actual study out there showing this? One which includes captured packets showing unrequested data transmission to Google for nefarious action?
I think it doesn't really help your position to confuse an off-the-cuff remark from a scientist, outside their published work, with "the message of climate change". That's about as good an explanation of bias in effect that I can think of in this context. Seriously. You are terrible at this.
Without any citations (to papers, not newspaper articles), your post is precisely indistinguishable from the frantic keyboard-mashing of any other denialist. Using terms like "bit cooler" and "roughly" really aren't helping you right now.
There you go again showing everyone that you really don't understand this. Just because a certain location has a momentary low temperature does not magically mean that it was cold there for an entire year. You're not too good at this whole "science" thing.
So you get your science information from the press? No wonder you are so confused! And for you to actually say that in the middle of a discussion, instantly removing any credibility you had, with just a few small words, is truly staggering. Incredible stuff.
Correlation does not imply causation, as you should very well know. You are assuming that the only difference between the peaceful and the violent is the religion of those involved, which is clearly specious beyond belief. You seem to forget that if we applied your logic to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Christianity immediately becomes nothing more than a code-word for rampant terrorism. I doubt you'd agree with the findings of that logic, yet you seem more than willing to accept it when applied to people you don't seem too worried about or knowledgeable of. That speaks volumes about your willingness to throw over a billion people under the bus for some short-lived, fictional feeling of understanding, instead of actually undertaking the task of learning the complex reasons as to why there is an overlap between certain religions, a certain region, certain minerals, and certain forms of rather belligerent foreign policy.
Or you can just make stuff up which absolves you of any complicity. I guess that's easier, so just do that and hope the bad men go away on their own volition.
They do say that, but then they confuse Northern Europe with the world, and then it just gets pathetic, much like every single piece of "global warming is a myth!" hysteria out there. You are better than this, Mr. Dude.
Have you looked at the data Chrome sends around? It might surprise you. Of course that would require you to retire the old canard of "YOU ARE THE PRODUCT! blarf!" and actually come up with real arguments against them, so I doubt you'll actually do it.
Who agrees with him means absolutely nothing. You say "political opinion" like he said something about minimum wage or foreign policy - he didn't. He actually gave financial support to a group which actively tried to deny human rights. It was political action, not opinion, which was his undoing.
And no, I didn't change my profile picture. There is also a world of difference between publishing a satirical magazine and funding human rights violations.
Puritans were in favour of discrimination, so I'm not sure what your point is. He publicly funded an organisation which tried to actively deny peoples' human rights. If you don't have a problem with that, you might want to re-evaluate various parts of your life.
The guy who gave money to groups which sought to actively deny fundamental human rights? He chose his position through ignorance - those he hates had no such luxury.
Probably because it's a list of untrue "facts", followed by a sprawling extrapolation of a single person's experiences with the rest of the world. Just because you like the cut of his jib doesn't excuse the factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies employed in the process.
Top technology jobs are also found the world over, albeit with most being located in the US
Bollywood and Nollywood both turn out more movies, and the dreck from Hollywood isn't exactly anything to crow about. Look at how many Hollywood movie production is done in Europe - judging from your attitude, it might surprise you
6 of the top 10 universities are in the US, not 9
Then let's not even get to US healthcare, death penalties, terrible infrastructure, horrific internet access, crime rates, violence, the IRS, and so on. Not so rosy. If they don't manage to become the best in their field at something, they are still at the mercy of those..
The American dream is just that - a dream. Why are you concerned about the top of everything? Most people don't get to the top, so they will be missing out on what's in the middle, which is a damn-sight better in Europe than in the US, as people have far more social security over here than they do in the US (healthcare, benefits, vacation time, labor laws, etc.), better quality of life, and better life expectancy to boot.
That's your definition of equality. What's actually happening is the plethora of feminist groups (and their varied ideals) are trying to fight the negative impacts of law, societal pressures, etc. on women. You can call it whatever you want, but that's just showing your willingness to be ignorant, which is hardly anything to be proud of. You basically said "I don't understand feminism, so here's my impression of it. 'BLAAH BLAAAH BLAAAAAH'! I'm so clever! I won't bother finding out if my gut-instinct is correct, I'll just assume it, because I'm awesome". Not everyone is as clueless as you, and when they read your blather, they will know whoever wrote it is an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
We might not die from it, but a lot of horrible things can happen without everyone dying. It would be scary if local climates suitable for agriculture move to areas with poor soil, no infrastructure, and no history of farming. It will also suck should pests start to move closer to people and unprepared-crops, spreading disease and lowering yields in the process. Saying we shouldn't consider scary things scary because everyone won't die is rather, well, strange, to say the least.
The standard procedure, as far as I know (not being an expert), is upon noticing the fire, the pilots would have shut down all the circuits on the plane in order to find out if one was responsible for the fire. That would make using the radio difficult, if not impossible. Pilots do three things in order: 1. Aviate. 2. Navigate. 3. Communicate. Not getting to 3 can be expected under stressful circumstances.
Does it, though? I've seen loads of claims of this behaviour, but usually it's just some muppet complaining about malware protection or getting confused about something.
Chrome's entire existence is to provide a good experience using Google's websites, some which people pay for (and so are not "the product", as the trite saying goes), and some which are ad supported.
You might want to slow down on the idiot-calling - you might end up being called one yourself.
Is it spyware, though? Repeating it again and again is not enough to make it so - is there an actual study out there showing this? One which includes captured packets showing unrequested data transmission to Google for nefarious action?
Does it actually phone home, though? I've seen lots of puffy-faced, breathless posts complaining about this, but not a Wireshark trace in sight...
I think it doesn't really help your position to confuse an off-the-cuff remark from a scientist, outside their published work, with "the message of climate change". That's about as good an explanation of bias in effect that I can think of in this context. Seriously. You are terrible at this.
Without any citations (to papers, not newspaper articles), your post is precisely indistinguishable from the frantic keyboard-mashing of any other denialist. Using terms like "bit cooler" and "roughly" really aren't helping you right now.
There you go again showing everyone that you really don't understand this. Just because a certain location has a momentary low temperature does not magically mean that it was cold there for an entire year. You're not too good at this whole "science" thing.
So you get your science information from the press? No wonder you are so confused! And for you to actually say that in the middle of a discussion, instantly removing any credibility you had, with just a few small words, is truly staggering. Incredible stuff.
You'd have a great point, but you don't seem to be able to recognize the difference between rhetoric and science...
Correlation does not imply causation, as you should very well know. You are assuming that the only difference between the peaceful and the violent is the religion of those involved, which is clearly specious beyond belief. You seem to forget that if we applied your logic to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Christianity immediately becomes nothing more than a code-word for rampant terrorism. I doubt you'd agree with the findings of that logic, yet you seem more than willing to accept it when applied to people you don't seem too worried about or knowledgeable of. That speaks volumes about your willingness to throw over a billion people under the bus for some short-lived, fictional feeling of understanding, instead of actually undertaking the task of learning the complex reasons as to why there is an overlap between certain religions, a certain region, certain minerals, and certain forms of rather belligerent foreign policy.
Or you can just make stuff up which absolves you of any complicity. I guess that's easier, so just do that and hope the bad men go away on their own volition.
They do say that, but then they confuse Northern Europe with the world, and then it just gets pathetic, much like every single piece of "global warming is a myth!" hysteria out there. You are better than this, Mr. Dude.
Or, ignoring your weird false dichotomies, you could believe the actual science which shows "doing nothing" is not an option.
So fighting for human rights is being a SJW? And you use SJW like it's a bad thing? Just think about that for a second.
Have you looked at the data Chrome sends around? It might surprise you. Of course that would require you to retire the old canard of "YOU ARE THE PRODUCT! blarf!" and actually come up with real arguments against them, so I doubt you'll actually do it.
Who agrees with him means absolutely nothing. You say "political opinion" like he said something about minimum wage or foreign policy - he didn't. He actually gave financial support to a group which actively tried to deny human rights. It was political action, not opinion, which was his undoing.
And no, I didn't change my profile picture. There is also a world of difference between publishing a satirical magazine and funding human rights violations.
Puritans were in favour of discrimination, so I'm not sure what your point is. He publicly funded an organisation which tried to actively deny peoples' human rights. If you don't have a problem with that, you might want to re-evaluate various parts of your life.
The guy who gave money to groups which sought to actively deny fundamental human rights? He chose his position through ignorance - those he hates had no such luxury.
According to those statistics, the most commonly used browser to access w3schools.com is Chrome. w3schools.com != web.
Probably because it's a list of untrue "facts", followed by a sprawling extrapolation of a single person's experiences with the rest of the world. Just because you like the cut of his jib doesn't excuse the factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies employed in the process.
Then let's not even get to US healthcare, death penalties, terrible infrastructure, horrific internet access, crime rates, violence, the IRS, and so on. Not so rosy. If they don't manage to become the best in their field at something, they are still at the mercy of those..
The American dream is just that - a dream. Why are you concerned about the top of everything? Most people don't get to the top, so they will be missing out on what's in the middle, which is a damn-sight better in Europe than in the US, as people have far more social security over here than they do in the US (healthcare, benefits, vacation time, labor laws, etc.), better quality of life, and better life expectancy to boot.
That's your definition of equality. What's actually happening is the plethora of feminist groups (and their varied ideals) are trying to fight the negative impacts of law, societal pressures, etc. on women. You can call it whatever you want, but that's just showing your willingness to be ignorant, which is hardly anything to be proud of. You basically said "I don't understand feminism, so here's my impression of it. 'BLAAH BLAAAH BLAAAAAH'! I'm so clever! I won't bother finding out if my gut-instinct is correct, I'll just assume it, because I'm awesome". Not everyone is as clueless as you, and when they read your blather, they will know whoever wrote it is an idiot.
We're doing fine, thanks. Cheap or free healthcare, good schools, great infrastructure, great vacation time & other benefits.
But keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear, please. It's funny :)
Vandalism is an act, activism is a motive. The two are entirely orthogonal.
"Too Drunk to Fuck" by the Dead Kennedies.