The post clearly objected to the article by challenging it with a question already answered. It was a stupid challenge, thus obviously nothing other than a shittily worded: "My opinion is the opposite of fact, so I object to reality."
So, do what you are told, even if the request is illegal? How do you know the request is legal without having time? How do you get advice on the matter if you are barred from talking about it?
'Secure in your person and papers', indeed. When was the last time those words actually meant something? Did they ever mean anything?
I just thought of an amazing conspiracy theory. The number one place felony arrests are made is in traffic stops. That's how they caught McVeigh (amongst others). They can't force people to carry papers on them if they are on mass transit or walking. So force cars to be the only practical transport, and you've created a "papers please" society. So, is there a conspiracy to force people into cars in the USA?
I think this is a stretch of imagination. If the USA was a bad as this statement makes us appear to be, then why is Ladar Levison free and able to talk to us? I would think he'd have disappeared without a sound and Lavabit would've been confiscated quietly.
What makes you think they don't allow a few through to give the illusion of rule of law. Those that did get sent to Gitmo didn't make the news.
Like Russia killed Solzhenitsyn? And for all the complaints about Taiwan, we are hearing about it. So either they don't try that hard, or they try really hard and are really bad at it.
Go buy a battery (a common thing) that was made in the USA. By anything that runs on electricity that wasn't made in, or contain a chip made in Taiwan, Japan or China. Go on. Try it.
And a small amount of food, many industrialized nations having rules that exclude the hormoned GMO products from the US. Oranges are about all I see from the USA, and some other less popular fruits. A few high-price clothing lines are still made in the US. And I think mowers, and a few tractors, but the Chinese versions are getting more widely available. And of course luxury items like boats. But yes, Hollywood is one of the largest maker of US exports (certainly the most visible).
Raw GDP includes the "value added" by a microwave heating a patty and served in a McValueless meal. There is no easy way to measure "factory manufacturing", so it comes down to two sides fighting about making the numbers up. Neither numbers are correct, and neither side will work with the other to come up with realistic numbers. From what I can see the US doesn't "make" much anymore. But it's hard to tell. Also, often the "hard" manufacturing is done outside the US, and final assembly is done in the US, distorting and masking the actual manufacturing effort. It's hard to gauge accurately, so anyone who claims to "know" an answer is immediately suspect.
Why would I need to meet your requirements to gain my freedom of speech to decry the abuses of the USA? Or are you saying that so long as the USA is the second worse place on the planet, there's always somewhere worse, therefore, it isn't "that bad" (TM).
The questions asked were answered quite plainly in the article. Asking them and hoping people won't read the article to realize they were stupid questions is the anti-science of a Luddite. The article was an analysis of the result of a NOAA study. They credit the NOAA study, and anyone questioning the data should take it up with NOAA, not those that use NOAA's numbers. Or do you not even know the basics of how cites and attributions work?
I'm ignorant of science? Tell us again how water under pressure melts only at 0C.
Water under a glacier is liquid at temperatures much colder than 0C. Perhaps you should learn more about chemistry and such before commenting on it.
Furthermore, it takes a long time and a lot of heat to melt the Antarctic and Greenland. We're talking around a millennium even in the worst case.
To melt it, maybe. To warm up the glaciers such that they flow faster than they build up, resulting in large masses of ice flowing into the ocean, nope, you are 100% wrong. Again.
Then say "In my opinion, I feel that the journalism in this article to be poor." whining about the lack of sources when they are clearly there makes you a liar.
I'd go back and quote your inconsistent and lying statements, but whenever I do, the A/C says "that one wasn't mine" or otherwise weasles out of responsibility for ones words.
That you have the source. You are attacking an intrepretation without addressing the data. If you have a problem with the data, state it. Instead, you complain that the article cites all sources for data, but doesn't include a detailed analysis of the data. What's the point of a cite is some A/C is too lazy/stupid to follow a cite? I'm not quite sure what's stopping you from getting my point.
The HuffPost article was to visualize results of the NOAA report. Why do you hate it when someone explores the meaning of a report? It should be buried and we should burn more oil to compensate for any carbon in the buried report?
The report was examining NOAA data in relation to nuclear plants. You are questioning the source. The answer is NOAA. The report has nothing to do with NOAA, and it's outside the study's scope. The relevant information is included. NOAA. If you have an issue with NOAA's estimates, then take it up with them, not the people pointing out that the best case under NOAA's projections is still a Very Bad Thing.
I don't understand how you don't get this. You are asking for [citation needed] They gave one. Where's you issue again? That the conclusion doesn't agree with your personal opinion?
The point is anyone who asks such questions in that manner is objecting. It's a stupid rhetorical "trick" to claim [citation needed] without expressing an opinion themselves, nor supporting their obvious opinion. It's just lazy.
No, I'd never seen that. It was just coincidence that I picked a problem that's been looked at but not solved before. That's considered an unsolved problem. The answer is "1" but it can't be proven. It's obvious from the data, and questioning the data won't change the outcome. But it makes for a "controversy". A fake one invented by the mega-rich trying to confuse the issue.
Your sources are biased pro-sun activists. They sent emails to someone once, and got paid for it. It's a scandal. A scandal related to pro-sun zealots is proof that they've always been lying.
Slashdot Mirror
The post clearly objected to the article by challenging it with a question already answered. It was a stupid challenge, thus obviously nothing other than a shittily worded: "My opinion is the opposite of fact, so I object to reality."
No, sorry, they were not.
The questions asked were about the source of the data. The source of the data was given. What was the problem?
Ice speed increases a few percent per degree Celsius increase in air temperature on normal glaciers, not exactly a dramatic change.
http://www.livescience.com/454... Sometimes a small change can have a large effect.
Can someone please point me to the alleged Right to Privacy in the Constitution, because I don't see one.
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments again.
When did this guy get a jury trial?
So, do what you are told, even if the request is illegal? How do you know the request is legal without having time? How do you get advice on the matter if you are barred from talking about it?
'Secure in your person and papers', indeed. When was the last time those words actually meant something? Did they ever mean anything?
I just thought of an amazing conspiracy theory. The number one place felony arrests are made is in traffic stops. That's how they caught McVeigh (amongst others). They can't force people to carry papers on them if they are on mass transit or walking. So force cars to be the only practical transport, and you've created a "papers please" society. So, is there a conspiracy to force people into cars in the USA?
I think there is a difference between "refuses to comply" and "fails to comply" but the articles don't do a good job of explaining which.
We have more freedoms than anyone else. We just aren't allowed to exercise them. Why can't you communists understand that?
I think this is a stretch of imagination. If the USA was a bad as this statement makes us appear to be, then why is Ladar Levison free and able to talk to us? I would think he'd have disappeared without a sound and Lavabit would've been confiscated quietly.
What makes you think they don't allow a few through to give the illusion of rule of law. Those that did get sent to Gitmo didn't make the news.
Like Russia killed Solzhenitsyn? And for all the complaints about Taiwan, we are hearing about it. So either they don't try that hard, or they try really hard and are really bad at it.
Go buy a battery (a common thing) that was made in the USA. By anything that runs on electricity that wasn't made in, or contain a chip made in Taiwan, Japan or China. Go on. Try it.
And a small amount of food, many industrialized nations having rules that exclude the hormoned GMO products from the US. Oranges are about all I see from the USA, and some other less popular fruits. A few high-price clothing lines are still made in the US. And I think mowers, and a few tractors, but the Chinese versions are getting more widely available. And of course luxury items like boats. But yes, Hollywood is one of the largest maker of US exports (certainly the most visible).
Raw GDP includes the "value added" by a microwave heating a patty and served in a McValueless meal. There is no easy way to measure "factory manufacturing", so it comes down to two sides fighting about making the numbers up. Neither numbers are correct, and neither side will work with the other to come up with realistic numbers. From what I can see the US doesn't "make" much anymore. But it's hard to tell. Also, often the "hard" manufacturing is done outside the US, and final assembly is done in the US, distorting and masking the actual manufacturing effort. It's hard to gauge accurately, so anyone who claims to "know" an answer is immediately suspect.
Why would I need to meet your requirements to gain my freedom of speech to decry the abuses of the USA? Or are you saying that so long as the USA is the second worse place on the planet, there's always somewhere worse, therefore, it isn't "that bad" (TM).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... USA tied for 19/20 so there are 18 countries beating the USA. At least in government corruption.
The questions asked were answered quite plainly in the article. Asking them and hoping people won't read the article to realize they were stupid questions is the anti-science of a Luddite. The article was an analysis of the result of a NOAA study. They credit the NOAA study, and anyone questioning the data should take it up with NOAA, not those that use NOAA's numbers. Or do you not even know the basics of how cites and attributions work?
I'm ignorant of science? Tell us again how water under pressure melts only at 0C.
On this planet, water melts at around 0C.
Water under a glacier is liquid at temperatures much colder than 0C. Perhaps you should learn more about chemistry and such before commenting on it.
Furthermore, it takes a long time and a lot of heat to melt the Antarctic and Greenland. We're talking around a millennium even in the worst case.
To melt it, maybe. To warm up the glaciers such that they flow faster than they build up, resulting in large masses of ice flowing into the ocean, nope, you are 100% wrong. Again.
Then say "In my opinion, I feel that the journalism in this article to be poor." whining about the lack of sources when they are clearly there makes you a liar.
I'd go back and quote your inconsistent and lying statements, but whenever I do, the A/C says "that one wasn't mine" or otherwise weasles out of responsibility for ones words.
That you have the source. You are attacking an intrepretation without addressing the data. If you have a problem with the data, state it. Instead, you complain that the article cites all sources for data, but doesn't include a detailed analysis of the data. What's the point of a cite is some A/C is too lazy/stupid to follow a cite? I'm not quite sure what's stopping you from getting my point.
The HuffPost article was to visualize results of the NOAA report. Why do you hate it when someone explores the meaning of a report? It should be buried and we should burn more oil to compensate for any carbon in the buried report?
Maybe at some point the ocean will heat up enough that we can eat the ocean like stew.
The report was examining NOAA data in relation to nuclear plants. You are questioning the source. The answer is NOAA. The report has nothing to do with NOAA, and it's outside the study's scope. The relevant information is included. NOAA. If you have an issue with NOAA's estimates, then take it up with them, not the people pointing out that the best case under NOAA's projections is still a Very Bad Thing.
I don't understand how you don't get this. You are asking for [citation needed] They gave one. Where's you issue again? That the conclusion doesn't agree with your personal opinion?
The point is anyone who asks such questions in that manner is objecting. It's a stupid rhetorical "trick" to claim [citation needed] without expressing an opinion themselves, nor supporting their obvious opinion. It's just lazy.
No, I'd never seen that. It was just coincidence that I picked a problem that's been looked at but not solved before. That's considered an unsolved problem. The answer is "1" but it can't be proven. It's obvious from the data, and questioning the data won't change the outcome. But it makes for a "controversy". A fake one invented by the mega-rich trying to confuse the issue.
Your sources are biased pro-sun activists. They sent emails to someone once, and got paid for it. It's a scandal. A scandal related to pro-sun zealots is proof that they've always been lying.