Does your "potentially toxic aid" center around things like industrial chemical waste that actually caused harm, or into "scandals" like using perfectly harmless humanure as fertilizer?
I knew a fellow who was about 5 miles off the liberal side of the scale that wouldn't drink Coca-Cola because they gave Indians "bags of human shit" as fertilizer, claiming they passed off their toxic sewage as a charity aid... the truth is, without a sewage infrastructure, it's easy to build a single site's toilet infrastructure to collect and compost human waste into high-quality fertilizer. Such composting produces (by way of bacterial metabolism) elevated temperatures which kill off human-toxic viruses, bacteria, and parasites (worms can't even survive it). Fermentation must be aerobic--fresh air needs circulation into the pile. Anaerobic fermentation supports other growth, which produces a lot of sulfides (terrible rotting odor); aerobic fermentation produces mainly CO2 and water, no real odor. Aerobic fermentation raises the temperature because the bacteria involved are thermophiles, while non-thermophilic bacteria (i.e. most other stuff) can't take the heat.
But I have seen toxic waste passed off as fertilizer too, or dumped into rivers. Some real terrible shit out there.
Why are global warming predictions all set far enough out that all of your detractors will be dead by then and hopefully if you're wrong nobody will remember?
UH, no. They would use too much, drink too quickly. People are pretty stupid.
Pepsi fixes this. Put your water in a 2 liter Pepsi bottle without the label, set it atop your roof for 30-45 minutes in the sun. It is now sanitary and safe to drink. Even the water in Mexico can be drunk.
I particularly lied the part about intellectual property theft being so toxic. It's like saying: "When you meet a girl who has spent her whole life living to Christian values, and she in college when she's 23 gives an old school friend she's known for 15 years who has had an STD test in the past month and came up clean a blow job and immediately contracts HIV and her life is ruined overnight, you get a good feeling for what the dangers of STDs mean."
These kinds of theft-to-ruination stories are so extremely rare we write every single one of them into the history books as monumental events. From the capacitor plans a Taiwanese company's strategic hacker stole (incomplete stabilizer, so they produce the caps that explode on motherboards) to Shitman of Bloodlust Software taking his ball and going home after his source code for NESticle was stolen and released, we've marked them all as major historical events.
So is this a game where you design and pilot rockets, and the simulator is good enough that you armchair engineers and armchair astronauts who don't know wtf you're doing predictably can't get off the ground?
Because there's also a game called Spice where you can build bitchin' guitar amps...
It's too much exposure to American-style journalism. One day we'll all talk like this.
Speaking of talking, I saw your girlfriend at the mall talking to two boys the other day. Wait until you find out what was said! It seemed like the perfect setup, two tall, well-chiseled college boys with one smokin' hot blonde. This was the scene at the Sears, when Mary Beth needed to find a new iron. The girl's shopping trip was interrupted when the first possibly well-hung boy approached him, striking up a conversation. Before long, he offered to call a friend; and that's when the second steel-hewn adonis joined the conversation. The first saleman was so incompetent that he had to call another salesman to figure out how to close up an extendable ironing board.
From my perspective, a 16 year old girl is fairly mature, having been through the whole hormones thing and come through enough life experiences flirting with boys and being targeted and horned after for years. I mean it starts in middle school, and they have boobs they have boys hitting on them.
14 year old girls being very much interested in sexual exploration is a real thing. 20, 30, 40 year old guys being very much capable of capitalizing on that to the supreme detriment of these young girls who will do anything unquestioningly is a real thing. 16 year old girls having immensely better sense than 14 year old girls in this regard is a real thing.
Let that sink in. 16 year old girls have immensely better sense and are better equipped to handle this situation.
Now: consider I'm comparing the student loan thing to sexual predation of 12-14 year old girls.
Because that really is where we stand. You're overestimating peoples' competence in understanding finances.
In the case of student loans, it's because their first experience with debt wasn't an $800 credit card that caused them trouble but a $300,000 school loan that cost them $1.5M to pay off. They're young, naive, and ripe for the taking.
To put it into perspective: Legal college loans are morally equivalent to legalizing sex with anyone 10 years and older. Especially that sweet spot around 12-14 where they have none of the suspicion and all of the romanticism, and you can sweet talk them into anything--love 'em and leave 'em, give them tons of STDs, knock 'em up, pass them around to your friends to pay off your debts, the works. The whole while they're thinking, this is great. Until it isn't, then they're like, my life is horrible and I'm left with a broken vag and ass and fucking strange diseases and somebody's kid I don't know who....
That's basically what student loans do.
Regular bankruptcy is more an economics thing: there's no way this person is ever going to meaningfully pay this off, inflation is going to marginalize the damage his non-payment does, so it's less damaging to society to give him a pass and mark that he's an idiot and you don't want to let him borrow money ever.
That's called "trivia", not "most basic fact." Your grievance is like saying, "Chevy built the Chevy Virgil back in 1970, and it broke in half on the test course! It also liked to backfire because of a loose bolt on the carburator plate, but instead of fixing it with a locknut they recalled it and fixed the exhaust so it'd backfire away from the fuel tank instead of towards it!" and you're like, "It was the Chevy VEGA! Obviously none of your shit is accurate!" Trivia.
Yes I know, it's either "Goldman" or "Those Motherfuckers".
I didn't say Goldman Sachs issues mortgages, although during this time they did buy up a mortgage company and had it issuing mortgages to anyone that walked through the door. I forget which. It's one of those niggling details you read, form an opinion about, and then forget about because you don't care for trivia.
They do, however, buy up debt. They buy and sell and short loans. They even insure those loans, then sell them to someone else--thus if the loan defaults, someone else takes the hit *and* they get an insurance pay-out. Buying up a bunch of mortgages, packaging them together, and selling them off is a viable business strategy--it's one Goldman Sachs has used, in fact, during the turn of the century.
Salt water, wonderful! How much salt in the water?!
It's more complicated than that, and it's based on a scale that's rather arbitrary with water boiling at 60 degrees. Farenheit multiplied all the numbers by 4 and recalibrated.
More than 12 different purebreeds or crossbreeds were identified as perpetrators, including German shepherds (n = 35), pit bulls (n = 33), rottweilers (n = 9), and Dobermans (n = 7). Most (54%) animals were contained (ie, leashed, fenced, in-house) at the time of injury. Fewer (46%) were provoked prior to biting. Significantly more pit bull injuries (94% vs 43%, P <.001) were the consequence of unprovoked attacks and involved freely roaming animals (67% vs 41%, P <.01).
So, second-hand reports (from who? The parents?) of "my child wasn't doing anything and that dog wasn't on a leash and it attacked my sweet angel!" say that the attacks were UNPROVOKED.
As for injuries, 35 German Shepherd, 33 Pitbull, 9 Rotties, 7 Dobies. 84 total, 40% pittbullsand 42% Shepherds.
It doesn't specify how severe any of the injuries are. I would point out that German Shepherds will fuck you up. If they don't like you they will fuck you up. Doberman and Rotties aren't nearly as aggressive. Shepherds have a tendency to be more disciplined by nature: they'll take owner cues seriously, and won't attack someone the owner appears to accept. These are the kinds of dogs that can be docile or aggressive--they might let you come in freely, or they might tear you apart if you enter the house alone--but will typically remain docile if you're being escorted by their owner in either case. If you attack someone in front of their GS, you should have a prepared will on file.
Rotties on the other hand tend to specifically defend children. It's unsurprising that there aren't a lot of rottweiler bites reported for children. Most likely those bites are probably nips from the dog trying to control the child--they've been known to go and get a child that's wandering off and drag it back by force, usually without inflicting any damage. Speculation, but you know. There's a really obvious reason your kid is going to get a bite from a rottweiler, and it tends to not be a bad bite. This is different from a German Shepherd deciding it doesn't like you.
In other words, this data isn't very useful. It tells me there were more uncontrolled pitbulls and more bites that parents decided to bring in; when I got bit by dogs my parents didn't take me to the hospital. What it doesn't tell me is anything about total interaction with dogs of various types; severity of bites; or a real explanation of if the dog was being provoked (that data is suspect; it always will be). It doesn't tell me what kind of owners the dogs in question had either, or how the dogs were handled.
This is all important stuff. There's a repeated conjecture that pit bulls seem dangerous because drug dealers get them because they look mean, and then the dogs are abused and beaten and left to roam free and they wind up being aggressive, and so that's the cross-section we get. That's unsubstantiated; but it's an important consideration: is there a confounding here?
I've listed plenty of lurking variables and potential confounding issues for the abstract you linked. Can't see the whole paper.
They don't have more jaw strength than any other dog their size that doesn't have particularly strong/weak jaw strength per mass for the Canus Lupus Familiarus species. Labs bite just as hard and Shepherds are more destructive. Ever wrestled a Rottie?
You can add pitbulls being dangerous to the list too. They're more aggressive than Golden Retrievers... in fact, golden retrievers are the only thing less aggressive than pit bulls. Even mistreated pit bulls which have become aggressive re-integrate well and become docile, sociable dogs without much of any particular effort.
Of course, a girl gets mauled by a husky, shows up on page 17 of a local paper. A girl gets mauled by a pit bull, shows up on the front page of 288 national newspapers as "Pit Bull Mauls 3 Year Old Girl To Death!" News isn't interested in it. Then the statistics come, and they use a cross section of news reports because there's no real central reporting agency for animal bites. Then the news reports that pit bulls are the #1 cause of dog attacks based on some study they found... which amounts to a count of articles the news published about pit bull maulings!
Slashdot Mirror
But they have all that shit they can use to refertilize the land!
Does your "potentially toxic aid" center around things like industrial chemical waste that actually caused harm, or into "scandals" like using perfectly harmless humanure as fertilizer?
I knew a fellow who was about 5 miles off the liberal side of the scale that wouldn't drink Coca-Cola because they gave Indians "bags of human shit" as fertilizer, claiming they passed off their toxic sewage as a charity aid... the truth is, without a sewage infrastructure, it's easy to build a single site's toilet infrastructure to collect and compost human waste into high-quality fertilizer. Such composting produces (by way of bacterial metabolism) elevated temperatures which kill off human-toxic viruses, bacteria, and parasites (worms can't even survive it). Fermentation must be aerobic--fresh air needs circulation into the pile. Anaerobic fermentation supports other growth, which produces a lot of sulfides (terrible rotting odor); aerobic fermentation produces mainly CO2 and water, no real odor. Aerobic fermentation raises the temperature because the bacteria involved are thermophiles, while non-thermophilic bacteria (i.e. most other stuff) can't take the heat.
But I have seen toxic waste passed off as fertilizer too, or dumped into rivers. Some real terrible shit out there.
Still profitable? You talk as if paying your debts off isn't profit.
Why are global warming predictions all set far enough out that all of your detractors will be dead by then and hopefully if you're wrong nobody will remember?
UH, no. They would use too much, drink too quickly. People are pretty stupid.
Pepsi fixes this. Put your water in a 2 liter Pepsi bottle without the label, set it atop your roof for 30-45 minutes in the sun. It is now sanitary and safe to drink. Even the water in Mexico can be drunk.
"Peacekeeping troops" because bringing guns, ammo, and body armor is different here than there.
I wish the UN would shrivel and fall off already.
I particularly lied the part about intellectual property theft being so toxic. It's like saying: "When you meet a girl who has spent her whole life living to Christian values, and she in college when she's 23 gives an old school friend she's known for 15 years who has had an STD test in the past month and came up clean a blow job and immediately contracts HIV and her life is ruined overnight, you get a good feeling for what the dangers of STDs mean."
These kinds of theft-to-ruination stories are so extremely rare we write every single one of them into the history books as monumental events. From the capacitor plans a Taiwanese company's strategic hacker stole (incomplete stabilizer, so they produce the caps that explode on motherboards) to Shitman of Bloodlust Software taking his ball and going home after his source code for NESticle was stolen and released, we've marked them all as major historical events.
There is no solar panel decay in space.
That's the idea, except the gas station is called Sol and it's supplying fuel to everywhere remotely.
You dufus.
I have this idea where we use a twig cut from a white ash to locate water by holding it above the ground and walking.
We should use that to prospect for oil.
So is this a game where you design and pilot rockets, and the simulator is good enough that you armchair engineers and armchair astronauts who don't know wtf you're doing predictably can't get off the ground?
Because there's also a game called Spice where you can build bitchin' guitar amps...
It's too much exposure to American-style journalism. One day we'll all talk like this.
Speaking of talking, I saw your girlfriend at the mall talking to two boys the other day. Wait until you find out what was said! It seemed like the perfect setup, two tall, well-chiseled college boys with one smokin' hot blonde. This was the scene at the Sears, when Mary Beth needed to find a new iron. The girl's shopping trip was interrupted when the first possibly well-hung boy approached him, striking up a conversation. Before long, he offered to call a friend; and that's when the second steel-hewn adonis joined the conversation. The first saleman was so incompetent that he had to call another salesman to figure out how to close up an extendable ironing board.
That's risk reduction. If they don't pay the debt, they've paid plenty of interest.
Most adults who have had mortgages can't do it.
From my perspective, a 16 year old girl is fairly mature, having been through the whole hormones thing and come through enough life experiences flirting with boys and being targeted and horned after for years. I mean it starts in middle school, and they have boobs they have boys hitting on them.
14 year old girls being very much interested in sexual exploration is a real thing. 20, 30, 40 year old guys being very much capable of capitalizing on that to the supreme detriment of these young girls who will do anything unquestioningly is a real thing. 16 year old girls having immensely better sense than 14 year old girls in this regard is a real thing.
Let that sink in. 16 year old girls have immensely better sense and are better equipped to handle this situation.
Now: consider I'm comparing the student loan thing to sexual predation of 12-14 year old girls.
Because that really is where we stand. You're overestimating peoples' competence in understanding finances.
In the case of student loans, it's because their first experience with debt wasn't an $800 credit card that caused them trouble but a $300,000 school loan that cost them $1.5M to pay off. They're young, naive, and ripe for the taking.
To put it into perspective: Legal college loans are morally equivalent to legalizing sex with anyone 10 years and older. Especially that sweet spot around 12-14 where they have none of the suspicion and all of the romanticism, and you can sweet talk them into anything--love 'em and leave 'em, give them tons of STDs, knock 'em up, pass them around to your friends to pay off your debts, the works. The whole while they're thinking, this is great. Until it isn't, then they're like, my life is horrible and I'm left with a broken vag and ass and fucking strange diseases and somebody's kid I don't know who....
That's basically what student loans do.
Regular bankruptcy is more an economics thing: there's no way this person is ever going to meaningfully pay this off, inflation is going to marginalize the damage his non-payment does, so it's less damaging to society to give him a pass and mark that he's an idiot and you don't want to let him borrow money ever.
Because they're 18 and stupid and easily fleeced when we've told them their whole lives that they need a college education.
It's "low carbon", whatever that's good for.
That's called "trivia", not "most basic fact." Your grievance is like saying, "Chevy built the Chevy Virgil back in 1970, and it broke in half on the test course! It also liked to backfire because of a loose bolt on the carburator plate, but instead of fixing it with a locknut they recalled it and fixed the exhaust so it'd backfire away from the fuel tank instead of towards it!" and you're like, "It was the Chevy VEGA! Obviously none of your shit is accurate!" Trivia.
Yes I know, it's either "Goldman" or "Those Motherfuckers".
I didn't say Goldman Sachs issues mortgages, although during this time they did buy up a mortgage company and had it issuing mortgages to anyone that walked through the door. I forget which. It's one of those niggling details you read, form an opinion about, and then forget about because you don't care for trivia.
They do, however, buy up debt. They buy and sell and short loans. They even insure those loans, then sell them to someone else--thus if the loan defaults, someone else takes the hit *and* they get an insurance pay-out. Buying up a bunch of mortgages, packaging them together, and selling them off is a viable business strategy--it's one Goldman Sachs has used, in fact, during the turn of the century.
Salt water, wonderful! How much salt in the water?!
It's more complicated than that, and it's based on a scale that's rather arbitrary with water boiling at 60 degrees. Farenheit multiplied all the numbers by 4 and recalibrated.
94% vs 43%?
Ah. You're wrong.
More than 12 different purebreeds or crossbreeds were identified as perpetrators, including German shepherds (n = 35), pit bulls (n = 33), rottweilers (n = 9), and Dobermans (n = 7). Most (54%) animals were contained (ie, leashed, fenced, in-house) at the time of injury. Fewer (46%) were provoked prior to biting. Significantly more pit bull injuries (94% vs 43%, P < .001) were the consequence of unprovoked attacks and involved freely roaming animals (67% vs 41%, P < .01).
So, second-hand reports (from who? The parents?) of "my child wasn't doing anything and that dog wasn't on a leash and it attacked my sweet angel!" say that the attacks were UNPROVOKED.
As for injuries, 35 German Shepherd, 33 Pitbull, 9 Rotties, 7 Dobies. 84 total, 40% pittbullsand 42% Shepherds.
It doesn't specify how severe any of the injuries are. I would point out that German Shepherds will fuck you up. If they don't like you they will fuck you up. Doberman and Rotties aren't nearly as aggressive. Shepherds have a tendency to be more disciplined by nature: they'll take owner cues seriously, and won't attack someone the owner appears to accept. These are the kinds of dogs that can be docile or aggressive--they might let you come in freely, or they might tear you apart if you enter the house alone--but will typically remain docile if you're being escorted by their owner in either case. If you attack someone in front of their GS, you should have a prepared will on file.
Rotties on the other hand tend to specifically defend children. It's unsurprising that there aren't a lot of rottweiler bites reported for children. Most likely those bites are probably nips from the dog trying to control the child--they've been known to go and get a child that's wandering off and drag it back by force, usually without inflicting any damage. Speculation, but you know. There's a really obvious reason your kid is going to get a bite from a rottweiler, and it tends to not be a bad bite. This is different from a German Shepherd deciding it doesn't like you.
In other words, this data isn't very useful. It tells me there were more uncontrolled pitbulls and more bites that parents decided to bring in; when I got bit by dogs my parents didn't take me to the hospital. What it doesn't tell me is anything about total interaction with dogs of various types; severity of bites; or a real explanation of if the dog was being provoked (that data is suspect; it always will be). It doesn't tell me what kind of owners the dogs in question had either, or how the dogs were handled.
This is all important stuff. There's a repeated conjecture that pit bulls seem dangerous because drug dealers get them because they look mean, and then the dogs are abused and beaten and left to roam free and they wind up being aggressive, and so that's the cross-section we get. That's unsubstantiated; but it's an important consideration: is there a confounding here?
I've listed plenty of lurking variables and potential confounding issues for the abstract you linked. Can't see the whole paper.
They don't have more jaw strength than any other dog their size that doesn't have particularly strong/weak jaw strength per mass for the Canus Lupus Familiarus species. Labs bite just as hard and Shepherds are more destructive. Ever wrestled a Rottie?
I have the perfect teaching tool we should be using as early as first grade!
It's a numerical computer...
You can add pitbulls being dangerous to the list too. They're more aggressive than Golden Retrievers... in fact, golden retrievers are the only thing less aggressive than pit bulls. Even mistreated pit bulls which have become aggressive re-integrate well and become docile, sociable dogs without much of any particular effort.
Of course, a girl gets mauled by a husky, shows up on page 17 of a local paper. A girl gets mauled by a pit bull, shows up on the front page of 288 national newspapers as "Pit Bull Mauls 3 Year Old Girl To Death!" News isn't interested in it. Then the statistics come, and they use a cross section of news reports because there's no real central reporting agency for animal bites. Then the news reports that pit bulls are the #1 cause of dog attacks based on some study they found... which amounts to a count of articles the news published about pit bull maulings!