It's actually a representative democracy. Republic simply means a country governed by an elected or non-dynastic leader, which is not mutually exclusive with democracy.
You will look back on the time when you held these ignorant views and feel embarrassed that you could be so naive. The science is good - your understanding of it is poor.
1. Our CO2 output is not "negligible" - the raw numbers demonstrate that rather well 2. The cooling trend of the last decade is not true - it has been heating, but at a level which is just under being statistically significant.
It doesn't help your point to make a couple of nonsensical statements which have been shown to be false time and time again.
They were escaping the burgeoning liberal climate, not some fascist hell-hole. Just because the Telegraph parrots the clichéd line doesn't make it so:)
Easy. Have each train know which track it is on, and receive the speed limits for all the tracks in the GPS window it is currently in. It'll then know how fast it should be travelling on its particular track, with no fear of confusion.
Nonsense. The US are there because when the Taliban offered to send OBL to the US after 9/11, the US wouldn't offer up evidence that OBL was guilty, so the US went in. The Taliban were no great admirers of Al Qaeda, until they found a common enemy, that is.
That is trivially easy to identify, which makes me wonder why no-one has done so already. If the funding perverts the science, the papers would be full of errors, and easy to spot. I take it you're not aware of the reports funded by an entity which turn out to directly harm said entity, otherwise you'd not be making these ridiculous assertions.
Sure - if you don't want to think about it. Or, maybe, the climate change is affecting different species differently. Polar bears are losing their hunting ground due to warmer seas, and corals are dying because of the ocean acidification, just as pests in temperate climates are spreading with their spreading temperate areas. No need for God or assuming climate change doesn't exist - just basic reading comprehension and a willingness to learn.
Oh dear. When someone attacks the funding of a scientific study instead of the findings of said study, they show themselves to not understand what these studies even are, or how they are conducted.
If the study was flawed, attack the flaws. If you don't know if the study was flawed or point out the mistakes in methodology or conclusion, then you can't criticise it for being flawed. It's that simple.
It happens - more often than you think - that studies funded by industries do not reach the conclusions the industries hoped they would. A study with sound methodology and conclusions is valid regardless of who picked up the tab.
How about learning about science from the scientific literature and not news media? It seems rather ridiculous to expect to be scientifically informed if you just follow the news.
Climate change has been talked about for closer to a century, first in generalisations, then with each successive discovery, its accuracy has improved. Now we (as a species) know which gasses would be responsible should climate change happen, and thanks to our (as a species) other scientific abilities, we can accurately measure the changes in climate as they happen, and look back over previous changes using varied-yet-corresponding sources. At this point this is what we know:
1. Carbon dioxide is very capable of changing the climate 2. The climate has been changing 3. The climate is currently changing 4. Human industry is outputting enough CO2 to affect the amount in the atmosphere 5. Our life on the Earth will go through unpleasant changes should CO2 continue to increase, such as food sources changing (either certain sources dwindling or relocating), wildlife being negatively affected (which has the real possibility of harming the parts of the global ecosystem which humanity relies on for vital sustenance), unpredictable weather patterns, and so on and so forth.
If you refuse to learn simply because you chose to listen to nonsense, you are lost. You should check out Potholer54's videos on YouTube to learn a bit about the science, the conclusions drawn from the science, and the evidence for the conclusions. Science doesn't use "smell-o-meters" for good reason.
I don't understand this mentality of people only seeing a return of investment when paying for schools if they happen to have children in those schools. We all rely on an educated workforce - that's what drives the economy. We all rely on those around us having an education whether we realise it or not. Our lives would be noticeably worse if those around us were uneducated, even if we and our children were.
Bzzzt. Incorrect. The pilots had already removed any chance of the plane recovering before the autopilot even had a chance. The autopilot thought it more prudent to continue its course than to let the pilots put it into a stall and nose-dive into the ground.
You are parroting the already-debunked anti-EU nonsense floating round the internet as if it's true. Heck, the story referenced in the article is 100% nonsense. It doesn't help you look too sane when you are getting all worked up about easily-disproved, absolute nonsense.
You want them to make travelling faster and safer, yet when there is talk of implementing measures which help this, you complain. Limiting top-end speeds helps achieve this, as it stops faster drivers slowing quickly (using more stopping distance) which increases traffic congestion. Jams are not usually due to capacity, but drivers changing their speed massively, which is amplified when the speeds involved are higher.
Instead of simply dismissing their findings simply because of a perceived conflict of interest, it would help your argument and your own credibility to instead find fault with their methodology.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact you're clearly insane makes me feel better about disagreeing with your positions in other threads. Thanks for that.
It's actually a representative democracy. Republic simply means a country governed by an elected or non-dynastic leader, which is not mutually exclusive with democracy.
Livid Larry? Something like that.
You will look back on the time when you held these ignorant views and feel embarrassed that you could be so naive. The science is good - your understanding of it is poor.
Don't bring logic to a stupid fight! Let the deniers misunderstand science and delight in demonstrating their ignorance to fellow deniers.
And all without independent verification or evidence of any kind! What a genius! ALL PRAISE THE MIGHTY TESLA!
1. Our CO2 output is not "negligible" - the raw numbers demonstrate that rather well
2. The cooling trend of the last decade is not true - it has been heating, but at a level which is just under being statistically significant.
It doesn't help your point to make a couple of nonsensical statements which have been shown to be false time and time again.
They were escaping the burgeoning liberal climate, not some fascist hell-hole. Just because the Telegraph parrots the clichéd line doesn't make it so :)
Usually it's the power companies who keep such hum records.
Easy. Have each train know which track it is on, and receive the speed limits for all the tracks in the GPS window it is currently in. It'll then know how fast it should be travelling on its particular track, with no fear of confusion.
So if everyone went out and fished as much as they want, and all the fish died out from overfishing, you'd be fine with that. Gotcha.
You also forgot to mention an intra-frame can describe its difference against future frames, too.
Of course - a driver should never assume anything.
Nonsense. The US are there because when the Taliban offered to send OBL to the US after 9/11, the US wouldn't offer up evidence that OBL was guilty, so the US went in. The Taliban were no great admirers of Al Qaeda, until they found a common enemy, that is.
You do know they had elections earlier this year, right?
That is trivially easy to identify, which makes me wonder why no-one has done so already. If the funding perverts the science, the papers would be full of errors, and easy to spot. I take it you're not aware of the reports funded by an entity which turn out to directly harm said entity, otherwise you'd not be making these ridiculous assertions.
Sure - if you don't want to think about it. Or, maybe, the climate change is affecting different species differently. Polar bears are losing their hunting ground due to warmer seas, and corals are dying because of the ocean acidification, just as pests in temperate climates are spreading with their spreading temperate areas. No need for God or assuming climate change doesn't exist - just basic reading comprehension and a willingness to learn.
Oh dear. When someone attacks the funding of a scientific study instead of the findings of said study, they show themselves to not understand what these studies even are, or how they are conducted.
If the study was flawed, attack the flaws. If you don't know if the study was flawed or point out the mistakes in methodology or conclusion, then you can't criticise it for being flawed. It's that simple.
It happens - more often than you think - that studies funded by industries do not reach the conclusions the industries hoped they would. A study with sound methodology and conclusions is valid regardless of who picked up the tab.
How about learning about science from the scientific literature and not news media? It seems rather ridiculous to expect to be scientifically informed if you just follow the news.
Climate change has been talked about for closer to a century, first in generalisations, then with each successive discovery, its accuracy has improved. Now we (as a species) know which gasses would be responsible should climate change happen, and thanks to our (as a species) other scientific abilities, we can accurately measure the changes in climate as they happen, and look back over previous changes using varied-yet-corresponding sources. At this point this is what we know:
1. Carbon dioxide is very capable of changing the climate
2. The climate has been changing
3. The climate is currently changing
4. Human industry is outputting enough CO2 to affect the amount in the atmosphere
5. Our life on the Earth will go through unpleasant changes should CO2 continue to increase, such as food sources changing (either certain sources dwindling or relocating), wildlife being negatively affected (which has the real possibility of harming the parts of the global ecosystem which humanity relies on for vital sustenance), unpredictable weather patterns, and so on and so forth.
If you refuse to learn simply because you chose to listen to nonsense, you are lost. You should check out Potholer54's videos on YouTube to learn a bit about the science, the conclusions drawn from the science, and the evidence for the conclusions. Science doesn't use "smell-o-meters" for good reason.
I don't understand this mentality of people only seeing a return of investment when paying for schools if they happen to have children in those schools. We all rely on an educated workforce - that's what drives the economy. We all rely on those around us having an education whether we realise it or not. Our lives would be noticeably worse if those around us were uneducated, even if we and our children were.
Hint: The story is made-up. It seems you're more short-sighted than the EU :)
Bzzzt. Incorrect. The pilots had already removed any chance of the plane recovering before the autopilot even had a chance. The autopilot thought it more prudent to continue its course than to let the pilots put it into a stall and nose-dive into the ground.
You are parroting the already-debunked anti-EU nonsense floating round the internet as if it's true. Heck, the story referenced in the article is 100% nonsense. It doesn't help you look too sane when you are getting all worked up about easily-disproved, absolute nonsense.
You want them to make travelling faster and safer, yet when there is talk of implementing measures which help this, you complain. Limiting top-end speeds helps achieve this, as it stops faster drivers slowing quickly (using more stopping distance) which increases traffic congestion. Jams are not usually due to capacity, but drivers changing their speed massively, which is amplified when the speeds involved are higher.
Instead of simply dismissing their findings simply because of a perceived conflict of interest, it would help your argument and your own credibility to instead find fault with their methodology.