It appears it's not actually hypocrisy, just you not understanding the position. If you don't understand it, it's not unreasonable that you would deem it hypocritical even when it's nothing of the sort. The "woman's right to choose" is referring to women being given the choice of what happens to their own bodies, not the bodies of their children. It's about women being able to abort should they want to, not whether they can give their children vaccines.
I wonder what else you have completely ass-backwards...
There is a difference between a strict immigration policy and an impossible-to-access immigration policy, which for the vast majority of Mexicans is precisely the policy the US has. Assuming all strict immigration policies are the same is naive beyond belief, and probably one of the reasons positions like yours get some degree of ridicule.
There is a strong difference between using racism to correct imbalance and using racism to extend it. If you can't see that, I weep for democracy, as you are not informed, yet are convinced you are.
Also, grow up. You sound like a pre-teen screaming insults, not an adult.
Sure - they've torn it apart in hastily-written, error-drenched angry blog posts, but nothing peer reviewed. If it was as easy as you say, it would have been disproved by now by the countless scores of scientists trying to poke holes in these findings. But it hasn't. So you are demonstrably wrong. I wonder what other closely-held beliefs you have which are based on things you've misunderstood, or on feel-good nonsense people have fed you. The mind boggles.
There are a variety of reasons for the sea to get more acidic, yes. It has been demonstrated time and time again that CO2 emissions contribute a great part of the acidification. You not knowing that doesn't change anything, except maybe lowering your reputation as clearly you are arguing from a position of ignorance. This stuff has been demonstrated time and time again, but with seemingly every post you make you include some half-baked claim not backed up by current understanding, and expect everyone to just nod and praise you as some sort of sage. You are not. You are ignorant of the basic science, you are ignorant of the publications which disagree with you, and you are ignorant of just how much of a fool you look when you trot out these useless canards.
You appear to be out of your depth. The facts you are clinging to in order to make your point are flat-out incorrect. It might help for you to get your science down before telling others to do the same.
I stopped reading at #4 as clearly you are lacking some knowledge vital to understanding this topic. If only you channelled your rage into learning - you'd be less ignorant and far less angry.
You keep stating this when it's patently false. In fact, in 2015 the EU had its lowest CO2 emissions since 1990.
It might help you to stay abreast of that which you use to condemn. It will help you to avoid situations like this, where you make an argument drenched in drama, based on something you, or someone you trust, made up.
Nope. Basic non-intelligence-based profiling is ineffective, as the terrorists will simply adapt to avoid it. Then you end up paying for the profiling while reaping none of the rewards.
Your last point is just bizarre and says a lot about how you see your fellow man.
Because we all pay for the pollution made by oil companies, whereas they only have to shoulder the same burden as everyone else, while directly profiting from it. It's not too hard to understand. Their business model is predicated on not having to clean up after themselves. Societies the world over have sought ways to limit companies making money of the misery of others, yet these are still holding out, due to their large influence.
Your understanding of history and politics is laughable. I'm sure you thought it was better, but all you managed to achieve is demonstrating just how inaccurate your perception of the world is. Tragic stuff.
Your argument is incredibly superficial. You are using some good words, but the argument behind them is vapid at best. If you were right, the scores of people far more educated than you, with positions of power etc., would have torn this whole debate apart. As they haven't, you might want to consider whether you are barking up the wrong tree or not. The signs are not good.
People can concentrate on more than one thing at once. You are possibly an exception, which would explain your apparent confusion. Yes, the reaction from some was over the top, but that does nothing to change the fact that someone made a stupid mistake and tarnished the image of their organisation by not being as professional as decorum would expect. And none of this has anything to do with a specific piece of research.
I get it - you are clearly rather old (or your mentality is, or both), rather grumpy, and out of touch with the world around you. You see all this talk of people trying to be better to each other, and you realise that will never be you, so you get angry with it. Deep-down you know you are wrong, and that's where the anger comes from. So much anger. What a waste.
Or you could wait for the US details to be released, and then make a judgement. Not as much fun, I know, but at least then you won't look like some deranged muppet who values making points more than making points correctly.
Which means your trite "oh just get a car!" comment is entirely pointless and does not apply in any way to this discussion. You can't have it both ways.
That's not a problem on its own, as some people want to work that way. It's trivial to install your own node local repository which upstreams all requests to the real repositories, which gives you what you want without telling everyone else to do just what you want.
Kik wanted to open source some of their code, and wanted to release it with that name. That's where the problem came from. Don't misrepresent it, please.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears it's not actually hypocrisy, just you not understanding the position. If you don't understand it, it's not unreasonable that you would deem it hypocritical even when it's nothing of the sort. The "woman's right to choose" is referring to women being given the choice of what happens to their own bodies, not the bodies of their children. It's about women being able to abort should they want to, not whether they can give their children vaccines.
I wonder what else you have completely ass-backwards...
There is a difference between a strict immigration policy and an impossible-to-access immigration policy, which for the vast majority of Mexicans is precisely the policy the US has. Assuming all strict immigration policies are the same is naive beyond belief, and probably one of the reasons positions like yours get some degree of ridicule.
There is a strong difference between using racism to correct imbalance and using racism to extend it. If you can't see that, I weep for democracy, as you are not informed, yet are convinced you are.
Also, grow up. You sound like a pre-teen screaming insults, not an adult.
"Invade" - that would be cute if it wasn't such a horrific mischaracterisation of desperate people simply trying to provide for their families.
You really are a crackpot. Every argument you've made has been based on a faulty understanding of basic science.
Sure - they've torn it apart in hastily-written, error-drenched angry blog posts, but nothing peer reviewed. If it was as easy as you say, it would have been disproved by now by the countless scores of scientists trying to poke holes in these findings. But it hasn't. So you are demonstrably wrong. I wonder what other closely-held beliefs you have which are based on things you've misunderstood, or on feel-good nonsense people have fed you. The mind boggles.
There are a variety of reasons for the sea to get more acidic, yes. It has been demonstrated time and time again that CO2 emissions contribute a great part of the acidification. You not knowing that doesn't change anything, except maybe lowering your reputation as clearly you are arguing from a position of ignorance. This stuff has been demonstrated time and time again, but with seemingly every post you make you include some half-baked claim not backed up by current understanding, and expect everyone to just nod and praise you as some sort of sage. You are not. You are ignorant of the basic science, you are ignorant of the publications which disagree with you, and you are ignorant of just how much of a fool you look when you trot out these useless canards.
You appear to be out of your depth. The facts you are clinging to in order to make your point are flat-out incorrect. It might help for you to get your science down before telling others to do the same.
I stopped reading at #4 as clearly you are lacking some knowledge vital to understanding this topic. If only you channelled your rage into learning - you'd be less ignorant and far less angry.
You keep stating this when it's patently false. In fact, in 2015 the EU had its lowest CO2 emissions since 1990.
It might help you to stay abreast of that which you use to condemn. It will help you to avoid situations like this, where you make an argument drenched in drama, based on something you, or someone you trust, made up.
It is impressive, though. You not liking Tesla has no bearing on that.
SO EDGY!
But... guns! Guns are there to protect people from the government. An armed populace can't be pushed around.
Apparently that's all nonsense.
Nope. Basic non-intelligence-based profiling is ineffective, as the terrorists will simply adapt to avoid it. Then you end up paying for the profiling while reaping none of the rewards.
Your last point is just bizarre and says a lot about how you see your fellow man.
Because we all pay for the pollution made by oil companies, whereas they only have to shoulder the same burden as everyone else, while directly profiting from it. It's not too hard to understand. Their business model is predicated on not having to clean up after themselves. Societies the world over have sought ways to limit companies making money of the misery of others, yet these are still holding out, due to their large influence.
Your understanding of history and politics is laughable. I'm sure you thought it was better, but all you managed to achieve is demonstrating just how inaccurate your perception of the world is. Tragic stuff.
Your argument is incredibly superficial. You are using some good words, but the argument behind them is vapid at best. If you were right, the scores of people far more educated than you, with positions of power etc., would have torn this whole debate apart. As they haven't, you might want to consider whether you are barking up the wrong tree or not. The signs are not good.
People can concentrate on more than one thing at once. You are possibly an exception, which would explain your apparent confusion. Yes, the reaction from some was over the top, but that does nothing to change the fact that someone made a stupid mistake and tarnished the image of their organisation by not being as professional as decorum would expect. And none of this has anything to do with a specific piece of research.
I get it - you are clearly rather old (or your mentality is, or both), rather grumpy, and out of touch with the world around you. You see all this talk of people trying to be better to each other, and you realise that will never be you, so you get angry with it. Deep-down you know you are wrong, and that's where the anger comes from. So much anger. What a waste.
FTP! Cute!
The US data will be released next week, apparently.
Or you could wait for the US details to be released, and then make a judgement. Not as much fun, I know, but at least then you won't look like some deranged muppet who values making points more than making points correctly.
There are loads of trains the world over that go 100mph. More than 100 years ago. A lot more, in fact.
Which means your trite "oh just get a car!" comment is entirely pointless and does not apply in any way to this discussion. You can't have it both ways.
That's not a problem on its own, as some people want to work that way. It's trivial to install your own node local repository which upstreams all requests to the real repositories, which gives you what you want without telling everyone else to do just what you want.
Choice is good.
Kik wanted to open source some of their code, and wanted to release it with that name. That's where the problem came from. Don't misrepresent it, please.