There is zero scientific proof that it causes atmospheric warming. For you true believers, please cite the scientific paper that convinced you beyond doubt that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate warming.
You can't even be consistent from one sentence to another. "there zero proof it causes warming" to "prove it's the dominant driver". If someone met both of those, I'm sure the goalposts would move again. They didn't manage to remain consistent within two sentences.
The problem of these two guys is that they want renewable energy at the same price as coal plants which are directly and indirectly subsidized in many ways. In addition you normally do not pay for the environmental impact of extracting the coal from the soil. There for coal is much cheaper.
That's the answer. Rather than punishing the power user, the solution is to tax the coal. Increase the cost of the fuel to offset the damage to the environment as its take out of the ground. Then don't subsidize or penalize any fuel after that. The government can scrub the CO2 out of the air with the tax on extraction. But most likely, the increase in the price of fossil fuel will drive it to the niches it should be in, rather than primary mass power generation.
The "freedom" to own slaves was written into the Constitution. The war was to remove that freedom. The freedom to have a strong local governemnt was crushed in that war. My ancestors came to the US after the Civil War from areas without slavery, so whether the US did or didn't have slavery wouldn't have affected *my* rights.
The same holds true of World War II, one of the last cleanly justifiable wars. They weren't US citizens, but there was a large group of people being shoved into ovens whose freedom was won at the end of a rifle.
No, by the time their freedom was won, they were millions fewer than before. Their freedom was taken by an armed governemnt, and a much smaller number were freed at the end by different governments with guns.
Normally I'm a liberal against unnecessary war, but the military has also has it's place.
There was no standing military at the start of WWII. The world had enough with WWI. That we could go from no military power to the strength we had at the end just proves we don't need one. If we did, we'd make it again. Yes, it really is that simple.
It's easy to reject that which never happened. Some guys in the 1700s fought for lower taxes. Or is the war against the American Indians the one where my freedom to dominate the weak at the end of a gun was affirmed? The War on Drugs is fought by men bearing arms. How has that expanded my freedom? No, if it were as simple and clear as you state, you'd have some specifics. But you don't, because it didn't happen.
No, you demanded my legal background. I answered, and returned the question. You've lied and dodged the question ever since. My point is you are a lying sack of shit who attacks others qualifications, but refuses to give his own. Making you a hypocritical lying sack of shit. You originally said you wanted to compare our experiences. But you were lying then, you were just fishing for something to attack me over. Then you did. You are just mad that I replied in kind.
I worked in a law firm in a legal capacity. You have *never* stated you have. Have you? In what capacity?
Wrong. A death tax by definition is double taxation.
Nope. Person A is taxed once on the money. Person B gets it on the death of person A. The income for person B is taxed for the first time as a "death tax". Taxed once per person.
We have already run up the largest debt in the history of mankind.
And you want to fix the debt by cutting taxes.
It is time to starve the beast.
I was being sarcastic. We've been starving the beast since Reagan. Is it dead yet? At this point, the death by starvation will result in a complete economic collapse of the USA, and impact on the rest of the world. But the "starve the beast" supporters are generally survival nuts who would like to test their ability to survive anarchy (Mad Max style).
And the path that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin down was a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc. So I can't see how something that explicitly matches a definition you state you are familiar with is unfamiliar.
I've seen descriptions of the scene that fit the first definition on that page.
When I take the sum of the physical evidence, the incident went down about how Zimmerman described from contact on. What doesn't match a person of his claimed mindset, is the actions he took before.
I assert he was "lost". He didn't know where he was. He knew how to get home, how to leave the neighborhood, but not where he was at that point in time well enough to give someone a description of where he was. That's "lost". I find it comical that you've attacked every definition of every word I've used. And I've been able to use the first Google response to show my use consistent with standard American English (or popular global English, where no distinction is made in the definition between UK English and American English). And you continue with "lost". Your main complaint is the connotations of the words I use. Not the facts I describe. Makes me think your take on the evidence is more emotional than factual based.
If you can easily make yourself un-lost, that doesn't mean you are not lost. If you don't know where you are at that point in time, you are lost. Many years ago, I was on a family trip. Everyone was sleeping, but my sister, who was 20 or so at the time and driving. She woke everyone up when she got lost. She got off a freeway looking for a gas station, and there wasn't a matching entrance back on. Without knowing where we were, not even the city we were in, I directed her back to the Interstate. Turns out she got us lost in the bad part of Memphis.
Now, if someone wakes you up from a dead sleep, and you are in a place you've never seen before, in a city you've never been to before, are you "lost"? Does it matter if you make yourself un-lost within 5 minutes? I would say I was lost, as was Zimmerman.
The other thing in Zimmerman's story (same as the cop on the story this is based on) is that if you are facing a dangerous situation, and backup is on the way, why are you getting out of a safe car to go into a known dangerous situation? You don't have a duty to retreat. But that doesn't mean you have a duty to advance.
They did. The Ukraine isn't wanted by the RIAA or oil barons. The US government exists solely to serve the interests of billionaires. If you can't name a billionaire who wants us to be in the Ukraine, then we aren't.
We don't need any energy storage. We could go renewable tomorrow. We need the renewables to be built and used. We can go to about 10x the renewables used right now before we'll need storage. It took us 20 years to get there. So in the 200 years to build the rest, the energy storage will be trivial. Even if we had 100% renewable tomorrow, it wouldn't be a huge problem. Build excess capacity, and do inefficient things, like make H2 from water, and burn that in the peak times in the old natural gas plants (modified, of course). We can do it today, with no new tech. 100% renewables is "practical" today. It's only politics and economics that are holding it back. Oil is still cheap. You could increase the price of oil, without cutting the price of renewables to get the effect needed. That's what the carbon caps are about. Nukes are a red herring.
Yes. But it was true. American agents were on the ground in Russia when it was shut down, and Russia was offered the choice of shutting it down, or the US would violate its sovereignty to shut it down. That violation of sovereignty is an invasion. Foreign troops enforcing foreign laws against the wishes of the locals is an invasion. And it was planned and in motion before Russia caved and shut it down themselves, paying the mob to do it to keep the government's hands clean.
That you think reality silly doesn't make it any less true.
All it takes is a single person to crack it, and no knowledge is needed from anyone else. Search for a popular movie title and "free download" and you'll find 100 sites claiming to have it. At least 10% actually have it. No knowledge needed to crack it.
Bullcrap. No one believes in "information should be free" because otherwise they're all hypocrites.
Copyright is in exchange for opening up the copyrighted material to the Public Domain. That hasn't happened for many years. Happy Birthday, a poem from the 1800s set to a song from the 1800s is still in copyright, and when it finally expires (under current rules, they can be extended again), it will be about 200 years old. Copyright violated the rules. Not us. We are trying to honor copyright as conceived and written. Old and abandoned works are "free".
When the US sent CIA thugs to threaten the sovereignty of Russia if they didn't shut down AllOfMP3, despite AOMP3 never having broken any law in the US or Russia, everyone should have expected it.
AOMP3 was shut down by the Russian mob, not the government. It just happens that the mob was working for the government. That was used because the cartels that run the US wanted it shut down, and the law allowed it, so literally an invasion of Russia was threatened unless AllOfMP3 met with an untimely accident.
I give a fat fuck whether Kim was living in the USA, because a) he was doing business in the USA and b) if you assume that the long arm of the USA ends at our borders, you're a fucking moron who ignores history and the news.
Rarely does the US actually go after people. The US knows the names of many of the drug dealers sending drugs into the US, but goes after Kim with more vigor than murderous drug dealers. It doesn't really make sense.
Conceive of these? They are the actual events of people who "defended themselves" after deliberately chasing someone they thought dangerous. I didn't make them up. They are actual events.
Another problem is urban environments with Fire based non-transport ALS where theres an additional transfer of ALS care on scene to the transport crew invariably burns time. In a well coordinated system that should be minimal and the fire based EMS often provides a 3-5 minute jump on scene arrival time for EMS (typically these systems then have a somewhat lower density of transport ALS units than a pure transport only service).
Here the fire department is CPR trained, but CPR should be given only until the AED is connected and running. Then, it's AED only, because if CPR and the AED didn't bring them back (to a stable heartbeat), then nothing the fire department can do. The Ambulances are 5-10 minutes out, and in good cases, the fire department can beat them by 5 minutes or more. Though, in off-times the fire response will be worse. Most areas are covered by multiple overlapping crews, and if the nearest is deployed somewhere else, you'll be waiting a longer time for the next nearest to respond. And only in rural areas does fire respond to anything medical. The urban areas, fire responds to fires, car crashes, and cats in trees, but not medical emergencies not at one of those.
In the US, the scoop and run has some medically trained people in the back to do what they can, but it's most important to transport, and secondary is stabilizing. You stabilize when you can, but transport is higher priority. There are lots of things that can't be done in the back of an ambulance, so you transport them to where those things can be done. Speed is the best predictor of survival.
Is the picture in the first link accurate? If so, how is the #7 not at the top of an alley? "An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane, path, or passage way, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between, behind, or within buildings in the older parts of towns and cities."
It appears quite clear to me that Zimmerman cornered Martin in an alley, pacing across the main opening of it to the rest of the complex, and blocking Martin in.
Zimmerman never claimed that he was lost.
Really? You don't know the area, don't know the definition of an alley, and stick to unsubstantiated lies? Read the words under the first link. "Zimmerman said that’s when he thought to get out of his truck and look for a street sign, because he was still on the phone with non-emergency dispatch and wanted to give the dispatcher more information." Zimmerman was lost, in that he didn't know the name of the street he was on, so he walked to a different street to look for a street sign.
His account makes sense, only if you think that going to a different street to see what street you were on before was makes sense.
The preponderance of the evidence presented in the Zimmerman case indicate that, although he initially followed Martin on foot, by the time the shooting had occurred he was retreating to his vehicle.
No. That's not what happened. The trial was criminal. There was no civil suit. As such "preponderance of the evidence" was never the legal standard.
You are wrong on all points, yet so certain in your wrongness that you correct others when a simple Google search proves me 100% right.
Ah, so when a liar lies, he will win every argument. Pointing out a lying liar's lies with proof from previous posts makes the accuser the bad guy. I'm sorry I caught you in your lies and exposed them. I hurt your feelings. Though, if you stopped being a lying liar, such problems would probably decrease in the future.
Lying liar running because he knows he's caught in a lie detected. I lost the argument by exposing the lying lies and the lying liars that tell them.
Slashdot Mirror
Martin/Brown, on the other hand, did not have the duty nor the right to attack them for advancing.
So you can menace, stalk and threaten with impunity, but you can't hit first after being targeted for homicide?
There is zero scientific proof that it causes atmospheric warming. For you true believers, please cite the scientific paper that convinced you beyond doubt that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate warming.
You can't even be consistent from one sentence to another. "there zero proof it causes warming" to "prove it's the dominant driver". If someone met both of those, I'm sure the goalposts would move again. They didn't manage to remain consistent within two sentences.
It is actually who in that case. And who is acceptable in American English for all instances of whom, just possibly not preferred.
All I'm saying is that launching spacecraft is really expensive. Prohibitively.
Not if step 1 is to build a space elevator.
And you just proved you have no understanding of people. People use "oil" to mean "fossil fuel". It's wrong. But it's clear and consistent.
The problem of these two guys is that they want renewable energy at the same price as coal plants which are directly and indirectly subsidized in many ways. In addition you normally do not pay for the environmental impact of extracting the coal from the soil. There for coal is much cheaper.
That's the answer. Rather than punishing the power user, the solution is to tax the coal. Increase the cost of the fuel to offset the damage to the environment as its take out of the ground. Then don't subsidize or penalize any fuel after that. The government can scrub the CO2 out of the air with the tax on extraction. But most likely, the increase in the price of fossil fuel will drive it to the niches it should be in, rather than primary mass power generation.
The same holds true of World War II, one of the last cleanly justifiable wars. They weren't US citizens, but there was a large group of people being shoved into ovens whose freedom was won at the end of a rifle.
No, by the time their freedom was won, they were millions fewer than before. Their freedom was taken by an armed governemnt, and a much smaller number were freed at the end by different governments with guns.
Normally I'm a liberal against unnecessary war, but the military has also has it's place.
There was no standing military at the start of WWII. The world had enough with WWI. That we could go from no military power to the strength we had at the end just proves we don't need one. If we did, we'd make it again. Yes, it really is that simple.
It's easy to reject that which never happened. Some guys in the 1700s fought for lower taxes. Or is the war against the American Indians the one where my freedom to dominate the weak at the end of a gun was affirmed? The War on Drugs is fought by men bearing arms. How has that expanded my freedom? No, if it were as simple and clear as you state, you'd have some specifics. But you don't, because it didn't happen.
No, you demanded my legal background. I answered, and returned the question. You've lied and dodged the question ever since. My point is you are a lying sack of shit who attacks others qualifications, but refuses to give his own. Making you a hypocritical lying sack of shit. You originally said you wanted to compare our experiences. But you were lying then, you were just fishing for something to attack me over. Then you did. You are just mad that I replied in kind.
I worked in a law firm in a legal capacity. You have *never* stated you have. Have you? In what capacity?
Wrong. A death tax by definition is double taxation.
Nope. Person A is taxed once on the money. Person B gets it on the death of person A. The income for person B is taxed for the first time as a "death tax". Taxed once per person.
We have already run up the largest debt in the history of mankind.
And you want to fix the debt by cutting taxes.
It is time to starve the beast.
I was being sarcastic. We've been starving the beast since Reagan. Is it dead yet? At this point, the death by starvation will result in a complete economic collapse of the USA, and impact on the rest of the world. But the "starve the beast" supporters are generally survival nuts who would like to test their ability to survive anarchy (Mad Max style).
And the path that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin down was a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc. So I can't see how something that explicitly matches a definition you state you are familiar with is unfamiliar.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
I've seen descriptions of the scene that fit the first definition on that page.
When I take the sum of the physical evidence, the incident went down about how Zimmerman described from contact on. What doesn't match a person of his claimed mindset, is the actions he took before.
I assert he was "lost". He didn't know where he was. He knew how to get home, how to leave the neighborhood, but not where he was at that point in time well enough to give someone a description of where he was. That's "lost". I find it comical that you've attacked every definition of every word I've used. And I've been able to use the first Google response to show my use consistent with standard American English (or popular global English, where no distinction is made in the definition between UK English and American English). And you continue with "lost". Your main complaint is the connotations of the words I use. Not the facts I describe. Makes me think your take on the evidence is more emotional than factual based.
If you can easily make yourself un-lost, that doesn't mean you are not lost. If you don't know where you are at that point in time, you are lost. Many years ago, I was on a family trip. Everyone was sleeping, but my sister, who was 20 or so at the time and driving. She woke everyone up when she got lost. She got off a freeway looking for a gas station, and there wasn't a matching entrance back on. Without knowing where we were, not even the city we were in, I directed her back to the Interstate. Turns out she got us lost in the bad part of Memphis.
Now, if someone wakes you up from a dead sleep, and you are in a place you've never seen before, in a city you've never been to before, are you "lost"? Does it matter if you make yourself un-lost within 5 minutes? I would say I was lost, as was Zimmerman.
The other thing in Zimmerman's story (same as the cop on the story this is based on) is that if you are facing a dangerous situation, and backup is on the way, why are you getting out of a safe car to go into a known dangerous situation? You don't have a duty to retreat. But that doesn't mean you have a duty to advance.
They did. The Ukraine isn't wanted by the RIAA or oil barons. The US government exists solely to serve the interests of billionaires. If you can't name a billionaire who wants us to be in the Ukraine, then we aren't.
We don't need any energy storage. We could go renewable tomorrow. We need the renewables to be built and used. We can go to about 10x the renewables used right now before we'll need storage. It took us 20 years to get there. So in the 200 years to build the rest, the energy storage will be trivial. Even if we had 100% renewable tomorrow, it wouldn't be a huge problem. Build excess capacity, and do inefficient things, like make H2 from water, and burn that in the peak times in the old natural gas plants (modified, of course). We can do it today, with no new tech. 100% renewables is "practical" today. It's only politics and economics that are holding it back. Oil is still cheap. You could increase the price of oil, without cutting the price of renewables to get the effect needed. That's what the carbon caps are about. Nukes are a red herring.
Yes. But it was true. American agents were on the ground in Russia when it was shut down, and Russia was offered the choice of shutting it down, or the US would violate its sovereignty to shut it down. That violation of sovereignty is an invasion. Foreign troops enforcing foreign laws against the wishes of the locals is an invasion. And it was planned and in motion before Russia caved and shut it down themselves, paying the mob to do it to keep the government's hands clean.
That you think reality silly doesn't make it any less true.
DRM is fairly effective
All it takes is a single person to crack it, and no knowledge is needed from anyone else. Search for a popular movie title and "free download" and you'll find 100 sites claiming to have it. At least 10% actually have it. No knowledge needed to crack it.
Bullcrap. No one believes in "information should be free" because otherwise they're all hypocrites.
Copyright is in exchange for opening up the copyrighted material to the Public Domain. That hasn't happened for many years. Happy Birthday, a poem from the 1800s set to a song from the 1800s is still in copyright, and when it finally expires (under current rules, they can be extended again), it will be about 200 years old. Copyright violated the rules. Not us. We are trying to honor copyright as conceived and written. Old and abandoned works are "free".
He tried. The Ministry of Foreign investment (or something like that) blocked his purchase of the $50M house he's living in.
When the US sent CIA thugs to threaten the sovereignty of Russia if they didn't shut down AllOfMP3, despite AOMP3 never having broken any law in the US or Russia, everyone should have expected it.
AOMP3 was shut down by the Russian mob, not the government. It just happens that the mob was working for the government. That was used because the cartels that run the US wanted it shut down, and the law allowed it, so literally an invasion of Russia was threatened unless AllOfMP3 met with an untimely accident.
I give a fat fuck whether Kim was living in the USA, because a) he was doing business in the USA and b) if you assume that the long arm of the USA ends at our borders, you're a fucking moron who ignores history and the news.
Rarely does the US actually go after people. The US knows the names of many of the drug dealers sending drugs into the US, but goes after Kim with more vigor than murderous drug dealers. It doesn't really make sense.
Conceive of these? They are the actual events of people who "defended themselves" after deliberately chasing someone they thought dangerous. I didn't make them up. They are actual events.
Another problem is urban environments with Fire based non-transport ALS where theres an additional transfer of ALS care on scene to the transport crew invariably burns time. In a well coordinated system that should be minimal and the fire based EMS often provides a 3-5 minute jump on scene arrival time for EMS (typically these systems then have a somewhat lower density of transport ALS units than a pure transport only service).
Here the fire department is CPR trained, but CPR should be given only until the AED is connected and running. Then, it's AED only, because if CPR and the AED didn't bring them back (to a stable heartbeat), then nothing the fire department can do. The Ambulances are 5-10 minutes out, and in good cases, the fire department can beat them by 5 minutes or more. Though, in off-times the fire response will be worse. Most areas are covered by multiple overlapping crews, and if the nearest is deployed somewhere else, you'll be waiting a longer time for the next nearest to respond. And only in rural areas does fire respond to anything medical. The urban areas, fire responds to fires, car crashes, and cats in trees, but not medical emergencies not at one of those.
In the US, the scoop and run has some medically trained people in the back to do what they can, but it's most important to transport, and secondary is stabilizing. You stabilize when you can, but transport is higher priority. There are lots of things that can't be done in the back of an ambulance, so you transport them to where those things can be done. Speed is the best predictor of survival.
Troll? For asking a demanding and pretentious prick for his legal background, after said prick demanded the same of others?
Hilarious. I'm a troll for doing *exactly* what you did. Well, that and calling you a liar when your answer was a lie.
There were no alleys, blind or otherwise, in the development where Martin was shot.
http://www.hlntv.com/interacti... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Is the picture in the first link accurate? If so, how is the #7 not at the top of an alley? "An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane, path, or passage way, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between, behind, or within buildings in the older parts of towns and cities."
It appears quite clear to me that Zimmerman cornered Martin in an alley, pacing across the main opening of it to the rest of the complex, and blocking Martin in.
Zimmerman never claimed that he was lost.
Really? You don't know the area, don't know the definition of an alley, and stick to unsubstantiated lies? Read the words under the first link. "Zimmerman said that’s when he thought to get out of his truck and look for a street sign, because he was still on the phone with non-emergency dispatch and wanted to give the dispatcher more information." Zimmerman was lost, in that he didn't know the name of the street he was on, so he walked to a different street to look for a street sign.
His account makes sense, only if you think that going to a different street to see what street you were on before was makes sense.
The preponderance of the evidence presented in the Zimmerman case indicate that, although he initially followed Martin on foot, by the time the shooting had occurred he was retreating to his vehicle.
No. That's not what happened. The trial was criminal. There was no civil suit. As such "preponderance of the evidence" was never the legal standard.
You are wrong on all points, yet so certain in your wrongness that you correct others when a simple Google search proves me 100% right.
Such immense bias is why race riots happen.
Ah, so when a liar lies, he will win every argument. Pointing out a lying liar's lies with proof from previous posts makes the accuser the bad guy. I'm sorry I caught you in your lies and exposed them. I hurt your feelings. Though, if you stopped being a lying liar, such problems would probably decrease in the future.
Lying liar running because he knows he's caught in a lie detected. I lost the argument by exposing the lying lies and the lying liars that tell them.