cat/proc/cpuinfo [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...] model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [...]
If you say that's the case, it must be! It's not as if you are frequently wrong or anything, so everyone should just listen to what you say and accept it as perfect fact.
Did no one ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? If every country was contented to just not be the worst, what would that do to the world?
"Muzzies"? Really? Are you 11 years old? The rest of your post contained absolutely nothing of any use to anyone - just a rambling about something which has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, drenched in xenophobia and reeking of abject, comfortable ignorance.
Clearly you'd not want Jewish settlements if you just happened to be born where Israel wants to build a settlement, as you'd be absolutely fucked. But as that doesn't fit into your wonderfully childish worldview, I'm sure you'll ignore that and carry on attacking people who are different to you, for no other reason than your tiny, scared mind yearns to do so.
Your ignorance is astounding, and your desire to be ignorant even more so.
Then that's something really messed up with the US. In more saner countries the armed forces do not report to the government but to the head of state (who is not part of the government). That means the government has to ask to use the army, and can't turn it on the people, as the head of state would not allow it. Should the government wrest control of the armed forces from the head of state, no amount of guns in public hands would achieve anything.
Of course there is a way to legislate that out of existence - do what more saner countries do, and require lockable secure storage for guns in the home. No locker, no guns. It also helps reduce the number of illegal, untraceable guns in circulation by making it much harder for burglars to steal the guns and fence them. You also still have your guns in case the King of England starts pushing you around.
That was the case hundreds of years ago, but now we have armies with orders of magnitude more weaponry and support that any citizenry can muster. Trying to use 18th century logic in the 21st century will not end well, as seen every week.
When a non-climatologist decries the whole field of climatology as bunk, it's not really worth countering. It's like when you do it - it just doesn't change anything.
You seem to think idle predictions made in the popular press are the same as predictions made by models? No wonder you are so confused about all of this - you seem to think newspapers == journals.
You also missed out the many qualifiers used for the predictions (in the sources you just linked to), such as "could be ice free" instead of "will be ice free", and "could face bankruptcy" instead of "will be bankrupt", indicating either that you don't know the arguments being made, that you want to deceive people, or that you are just incredibly sloppy with your arguments. Pick at least one.
Considering the vast amount of evidence has been out there for years and years and years and yet you are here on slashdot spouting the most ignorant of nonsense, it's not reflecting well on you. You find the energy to get really upset about something, but not the energy to get really informed about the same thing. That's tragic. I have bouts of laziness too, but if I let my thinking get tainted by such apathy I would feel like I let my educators (and myself) down.
Dr. David Evans who gained his PhD in electrical engineering? That guy? I guess if he's the best you've got, you're going to go with his argument... You seem to have a fantastic misunderstanding of the scientific method and community if you think overturning great swathes of scientific research is something scientists don't want. Really. It's bordering on pathetic.
Seeing as the barriers to tackling AGW are not material but political, it can be tackled at the same time as the other things you mentioned. Simply saying "he is right" without offering any actual evidence beyond the shallowest of anecdotes does not a good argument make.
You've not thought this through, have you? If you start to suspect people based on superficial qualities (as your fear seems to be making you do), those you actually should be scared of will simply hide among those who do not share these same qualities, then you're back to square one and have been a massive xenophobic douche in the process, alienating the very communities you should be working with to fix whatever problems need fixing.
You have previously shown that you don't know the difference between Islam and Islamism, so I don't really think you're qualified to comment on this topic. You always pop up in the comments section in stories like this, spout some degenerate knuckle-dragging nonsense that condemns over 1.6 billion people with a single sentence, then flit back to your xenophobic life as if nothing happened.
And if you remove the rest of the world's poor people (as that's what you are referring to - poor people are more likely to commit crime than richer people, and urban minorities are more likely to be poor) their crime rates are even lower. The US does not have a monopoly on poor people. What's your point again? Or are you just trying to make excuses for a broken system?
A country can be a republic and a democracy... Did you mean "representative democracy" instead of "republic", and "direct democracy" instead of "democracy"? That's the only way your post would make sense...
Unless his peers are being paid by the local municipality to perform some civic duty, I'd say your question is rather specious. If some people in an organization are acting like assholes, and the rest of the organization doesn't do anything to stop them, what should someone not in the organization think of it? Cops have a duty to encourage trust between themselves and the people they police - sticking together to protect guilty cops is the exact opposite, and ends up in the situation we currently see.
Police in other countries are afforded a great deal of respect, so clearly it's not impossible.
Yes, and they are openly admitted to as being something to work on, throughout the ranks of the police force. Major changes are made in the police forces concerned, and the level of professionalism increases. Compare that with the US where these cases are fought tooth and nail by the concerned police department, and little to nothing comes of them.
You are making the case against the US's police force and for the German police force's way of handling things. I don't know if that was your intention...
Slashdot Mirror
Other countries seem to have solved the "cabs are crap" problem without needing Uber...
According to your skewed perception, I'm sure it does.
Umm...
All the evidence apart from the logs held on the hard disk...
If you say that's the case, it must be! It's not as if you are frequently wrong or anything, so everyone should just listen to what you say and accept it as perfect fact.
Did no one ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? If every country was contented to just not be the worst, what would that do to the world?
Grow up. The future begs you.
"Muzzies"? Really? Are you 11 years old? The rest of your post contained absolutely nothing of any use to anyone - just a rambling about something which has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, drenched in xenophobia and reeking of abject, comfortable ignorance.
Clearly you'd not want Jewish settlements if you just happened to be born where Israel wants to build a settlement, as you'd be absolutely fucked. But as that doesn't fit into your wonderfully childish worldview, I'm sure you'll ignore that and carry on attacking people who are different to you, for no other reason than your tiny, scared mind yearns to do so.
Your ignorance is astounding, and your desire to be ignorant even more so.
Then that's something really messed up with the US. In more saner countries the armed forces do not report to the government but to the head of state (who is not part of the government). That means the government has to ask to use the army, and can't turn it on the people, as the head of state would not allow it. Should the government wrest control of the armed forces from the head of state, no amount of guns in public hands would achieve anything.
Of course there is a way to legislate that out of existence - do what more saner countries do, and require lockable secure storage for guns in the home. No locker, no guns. It also helps reduce the number of illegal, untraceable guns in circulation by making it much harder for burglars to steal the guns and fence them. You also still have your guns in case the King of England starts pushing you around.
That was the case hundreds of years ago, but now we have armies with orders of magnitude more weaponry and support that any citizenry can muster. Trying to use 18th century logic in the 21st century will not end well, as seen every week.
When a non-climatologist decries the whole field of climatology as bunk, it's not really worth countering. It's like when you do it - it just doesn't change anything.
It's pH not Ph. You're hurting your already sketchy credibility with every post. Every. Single. Post.
Keep going! It's hilarious.
You seem to think idle predictions made in the popular press are the same as predictions made by models? No wonder you are so confused about all of this - you seem to think newspapers == journals.
You also missed out the many qualifiers used for the predictions (in the sources you just linked to), such as "could be ice free" instead of "will be ice free", and "could face bankruptcy" instead of "will be bankrupt", indicating either that you don't know the arguments being made, that you want to deceive people, or that you are just incredibly sloppy with your arguments. Pick at least one.
Considering the vast amount of evidence has been out there for years and years and years and yet you are here on slashdot spouting the most ignorant of nonsense, it's not reflecting well on you. You find the energy to get really upset about something, but not the energy to get really informed about the same thing. That's tragic. I have bouts of laziness too, but if I let my thinking get tainted by such apathy I would feel like I let my educators (and myself) down.
Apart from all the models which have, you are entirely correct.
Dr. David Evans who gained his PhD in electrical engineering? That guy? I guess if he's the best you've got, you're going to go with his argument... You seem to have a fantastic misunderstanding of the scientific method and community if you think overturning great swathes of scientific research is something scientists don't want. Really. It's bordering on pathetic.
Seeing as the barriers to tackling AGW are not material but political, it can be tackled at the same time as the other things you mentioned. Simply saying "he is right" without offering any actual evidence beyond the shallowest of anecdotes does not a good argument make.
You've not thought this through, have you? If you start to suspect people based on superficial qualities (as your fear seems to be making you do), those you actually should be scared of will simply hide among those who do not share these same qualities, then you're back to square one and have been a massive xenophobic douche in the process, alienating the very communities you should be working with to fix whatever problems need fixing.
You have previously shown that you don't know the difference between Islam and Islamism, so I don't really think you're qualified to comment on this topic. You always pop up in the comments section in stories like this, spout some degenerate knuckle-dragging nonsense that condemns over 1.6 billion people with a single sentence, then flit back to your xenophobic life as if nothing happened.
And if you remove the rest of the world's poor people (as that's what you are referring to - poor people are more likely to commit crime than richer people, and urban minorities are more likely to be poor) their crime rates are even lower. The US does not have a monopoly on poor people. What's your point again? Or are you just trying to make excuses for a broken system?
A country can be a republic and a democracy... Did you mean "representative democracy" instead of "republic", and "direct democracy" instead of "democracy"? That's the only way your post would make sense...
Unless his peers are being paid by the local municipality to perform some civic duty, I'd say your question is rather specious. If some people in an organization are acting like assholes, and the rest of the organization doesn't do anything to stop them, what should someone not in the organization think of it? Cops have a duty to encourage trust between themselves and the people they police - sticking together to protect guilty cops is the exact opposite, and ends up in the situation we currently see.
Police in other countries are afforded a great deal of respect, so clearly it's not impossible.
Yes, and they are openly admitted to as being something to work on, throughout the ranks of the police force. Major changes are made in the police forces concerned, and the level of professionalism increases. Compare that with the US where these cases are fought tooth and nail by the concerned police department, and little to nothing comes of them.
You are making the case against the US's police force and for the German police force's way of handling things. I don't know if that was your intention...
Because kids are renowned for their great decision making skills. I think you just proved FlyHelicopter's point...
Aaah so your family is all fucked up, so you want to take it out on everyone else's kids in a brutal manner. Gotcha.
Your logic is laughable.