Analogue cell phones were first deployed in Japan, and then in the Nordic countries. Clearly your argument is nonsense. I'm sure it's a great weight off your mind to hand-waive the US's technological short-comings away by simply shrugging, mumbling "frist!", but it has no foundation in reality.
Prove that half of the 1%s label themselves as "liberal progressives". Do that, or your argument is nothing more than flapping your gums in a vain attempt to make a point.
And yes, you might be in the top 0.1% of the world, but as you aren't buying groceries from Kenya or getting taxed by Vietnam, it is clearly a pointless argument. You understand how countries work, right? How economies function? Taxes and tax burdens, right? Because the only way your "argument" makes any sense is if the answer to all of those is "no".
The logic behind the occupy movement stands, even if you are too dense to understand it.
The pause since 1998? Considering most climatologists use periods of 30 years to calculate trends, your 18-year period isn't interesting. It's also not interesting that you're either intentionally not mentioning the improvements to models which are doing a great job, or are merely ignorant of them yet assume you know it all.
Either way you are terrible at this. Really, really bad.
Nope. Sure, it's easy to just say "well, we're screwed because of overpopulation" and not do anything, but that's not the problem. Also you didn't show what particularly was "BS", you just assumed that it is, without showing your reasoning.
If it's not the warmest on record, of course they will be quiet. What's so hard to understand about this? The scientists are reporting their findings. If you choose to read too much in to it and interpret as something else, well, that's your problem.
I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. So far you've just cherry-picked some data after saying you're not cherry-picking, made some wild claims without supporting evidence, and then told everyone to stop discussing minima and maxima because you've had enough of it.
It seems your grasp of the topic is somewhat tenuous and flavoured more by anger than intellectual curiosity.
If the reason is based purely on race, it is racist by definition. If it's based on some vague characteristic shared by "them", it's xenophobic, and *possibly* racist (as 'race' is a nebulous term lacking a strict definition). You can't argue this away - these are the definitions of the words.
You didn't provide sources. Singling out a religion is entirely xenophobic, and panders to ignorance in order to get votes, at the expense of human beings.
But I'm sure you have some mental hoops you can jump through to make Trump some reasonable person in your mind.
You are making sweeping generalisations of an entire generation of artists. Think back to any time in history - was there a time when all musicians produced similar music? When they all thought alike? When they all shared a precise level of skill? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense, and appears precisely like the argument of someone feeling incredibly lost in a once-familiar territory. The problem might not be with the musicians (who apparently all started to become identical), but with you.
Older people have been complaining about the music of younger generations since music began.
You should look for music you like. If you expect your music to be spoon-fed to you, don't be surprised when it's anodyne slop. There are amazing artists out there who are releasing music not at all like you describe.
You don't seem to understand. Artists make very little from album sales. Sometimes literally nothing. Artists rely on live shows, merchandise, and maybe licensing their name/image to be used on products. Everything else goes through the record company, which takes the lion's share.
So yes, Napster did give a lot back. It gave great exposure to many artists, who then found large audiences to buy tickets to their shows and merchandise.
Easy, granddad. You do realise that two decades ago people your age now were saying the exact same thing? You are not even being original with your complaining.
And that explains the terrible public transport in US cities how, exactly? "Oh the nearest city is hundreds of miles away, so let's not bother funding our local buses or build tram infrastructure". Stop using that to excuse the pathetic state of public transport in the US. The problems will never be fixed if you just go "but we so biiiig!".
Why do you think the regulations put in place by the governments will suddenly disappear? They haven't so far, and seeing as the energy companies are not in charge of them, I don't know how this little dance plays out in your head. Bizarre.
You really didn't do very well at science lessons in school, did you? It's showing with every single post you make. It would be entertaining if it were not for real.
Did you honestly just say Africa was a country? No wonder you are so scared of Muslims - your education is clearly some sort of joke foisted upon the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Analogue cell phones were first deployed in Japan, and then in the Nordic countries. Clearly your argument is nonsense. I'm sure it's a great weight off your mind to hand-waive the US's technological short-comings away by simply shrugging, mumbling "frist!", but it has no foundation in reality.
Good argument! Thanks for that information. I really feel like you've added a lot to this conversation with your unique insight.
Prove that half of the 1%s label themselves as "liberal progressives". Do that, or your argument is nothing more than flapping your gums in a vain attempt to make a point.
And yes, you might be in the top 0.1% of the world, but as you aren't buying groceries from Kenya or getting taxed by Vietnam, it is clearly a pointless argument. You understand how countries work, right? How economies function? Taxes and tax burdens, right? Because the only way your "argument" makes any sense is if the answer to all of those is "no".
The logic behind the occupy movement stands, even if you are too dense to understand it.
The pause since 1998? Considering most climatologists use periods of 30 years to calculate trends, your 18-year period isn't interesting. It's also not interesting that you're either intentionally not mentioning the improvements to models which are doing a great job, or are merely ignorant of them yet assume you know it all.
Either way you are terrible at this. Really, really bad.
Nope. Sure, it's easy to just say "well, we're screwed because of overpopulation" and not do anything, but that's not the problem. Also you didn't show what particularly was "BS", you just assumed that it is, without showing your reasoning.
If it's not the warmest on record, of course they will be quiet. What's so hard to understand about this? The scientists are reporting their findings. If you choose to read too much in to it and interpret as something else, well, that's your problem.
The increase in energy in the atmosphere is called "global warming", and the effects seen from it are "climate change".
I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. So far you've just cherry-picked some data after saying you're not cherry-picking, made some wild claims without supporting evidence, and then told everyone to stop discussing minima and maxima because you've had enough of it.
It seems your grasp of the topic is somewhat tenuous and flavoured more by anger than intellectual curiosity.
If the reason is based purely on race, it is racist by definition. If it's based on some vague characteristic shared by "them", it's xenophobic, and *possibly* racist (as 'race' is a nebulous term lacking a strict definition). You can't argue this away - these are the definitions of the words.
You didn't provide sources. Singling out a religion is entirely xenophobic, and panders to ignorance in order to get votes, at the expense of human beings.
But I'm sure you have some mental hoops you can jump through to make Trump some reasonable person in your mind.
Massive generalisations ahoy, granddad!
You are making sweeping generalisations of an entire generation of artists. Think back to any time in history - was there a time when all musicians produced similar music? When they all thought alike? When they all shared a precise level of skill? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense, and appears precisely like the argument of someone feeling incredibly lost in a once-familiar territory. The problem might not be with the musicians (who apparently all started to become identical), but with you.
Older people have been complaining about the music of younger generations since music began.
You should look for music you like. If you expect your music to be spoon-fed to you, don't be surprised when it's anodyne slop. There are amazing artists out there who are releasing music not at all like you describe.
You don't seem to understand. Artists make very little from album sales. Sometimes literally nothing. Artists rely on live shows, merchandise, and maybe licensing their name/image to be used on products. Everything else goes through the record company, which takes the lion's share.
So yes, Napster did give a lot back. It gave great exposure to many artists, who then found large audiences to buy tickets to their shows and merchandise.
Easy, granddad. You do realise that two decades ago people your age now were saying the exact same thing? You are not even being original with your complaining.
Go on - show us your graph where this is the case. Surely you have one, otherwise you'd not make such a claim...
And that explains the terrible public transport in US cities how, exactly? "Oh the nearest city is hundreds of miles away, so let's not bother funding our local buses or build tram infrastructure". Stop using that to excuse the pathetic state of public transport in the US. The problems will never be fixed if you just go "but we so biiiig!".
Why do you think the regulations put in place by the governments will suddenly disappear? They haven't so far, and seeing as the energy companies are not in charge of them, I don't know how this little dance plays out in your head. Bizarre.
Everyone tagging this story "police state" apparently has no idea what constitutes a police state.
You really didn't do very well at science lessons in school, did you? It's showing with every single post you make. It would be entertaining if it were not for real.
Of course climate science is hard if you think Al Gore is a climate scientist. You're really terrible at this.
He isn't, though.
Thanks for proving his point so deftly.
Did you honestly just say Africa was a country? No wonder you are so scared of Muslims - your education is clearly some sort of joke foisted upon the rest of the world.
You might want to read some history, as you are sounding like an 8-year-old who knows just enough to make himself look ridiculous.