How is permanently cutting out a trade dependency a broken window fallacy? That's practically the definition of economic investment. I'm not trying to articulate a "creates jobs" argument here.
Is there a point to this post, exactly? I mean, I get the capacity variation is both a real concern and a common kind of FUD regarding solar, but this data point isn't about that.
It's about how rapidly a changeover in energy production to sustainable can occur. Germany was one of the world's biggest nuclear energy producers(France being the leader of that pack), and they've gone from that to one of the biggest solar producers in only a year or so.
With a really large economy, without losing much GDP. The point that's being demonstrated is that a power infrastructure changeover can be done without sacrificing being a first world nation along the way.
And of course, the BLP rules of wikipedia help establish that all such material is posted in good faith. If you have a reliable source that says X about the subject, it can go a long way to help establish in court that you believed, in good faith, that what you said was true.
If the editors here had been skirting that rule... well... it could work out badly for them.
Only they've worked a little harder on inventing games that are totally unfun without cheats.
Intentionally including busywork in games so you can pay to avoid it. Slowing your rate of activity down to fewer decisions/hour than playing chess against your granddad. So you can pay to speed it up.
Of course, those cons make all sorts of claims to help the gullible along. Being a conman just requires no compunction against lying.
"Oh, didn't you know? It's against state law for psychics to play the lottery. I'm kinda breaking the rules by telling you the numbers. So keep it quiet."
Oh, yeah, it's not like I was responding to a specific incorrect assertion of fact, or anything. Please pretend I was responding to some "greater" debate rather than one of the many specific kinds of ignorance that comprise the denialist position.
Well, no, since the plaintiffs of the case were arguing that they should not be allowed to be regulated at all it's not backwards, so much as not as precise as necessary.
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.
My own personal solution is to remove as much advertising from everything I can(screw your financial viability if that's what you depend on), and to avoid every single brand name I can on all occasions where possible.
Which is why advertising is a poison to society and must be destroyed. The set of advertising that is tolerable: (i.e. makes you think "That is an excellent point and I should reconsider my purchasing") is so heavily outpaced by the kind that's hellbent on being emotionally and psychologically manipulative to get you to do things against your own interest that it would be entirely acceptable collateral damage in my opinion.
Because subs have tight clausterphobic environments, a need for constant quiet, severe rationing, constant work to keep sailors busy, and a chain of command to shit all over you.
Clearly they're just too nice an environment to count.
No, it's pretty damn sexist when it's used for an excuse.
I know exactly how crazy that sounds if I imagine myself in the role of an idiot who likes being sexist. I understand your position. And your position is super duper shitty.
I just want to reemphasize that you are not "sort of" sexist or sexist in the "that guy hit on a girl" sexist, but in the "I am just deciding that a gender is like X for made up reasons" totally evil backwards shitty kinda sexist.
Like you are the worst. You are fucked up and wear your wrongness as a badge of honor and it is absolutely shameful.
"Maybe women are fundamentally different form men" is sexist.
"You're ignoring the fact that men and women have different interests"
Jesus Christ. It's like 0% of bigots can even recognize the basic idea that maybe you shouldn't generalize human beings like that. It's absolutely sexist.
How this goes: "It's not sexist if it's true" "But there's absolutely no evidence to say it's true" "I WANNA KEEP THE GIRLS OUT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"
You should be ashamed of yourself. You're awful. Terrible. Like a shitty human being.
Slashdot Mirror
How is permanently cutting out a trade dependency a broken window fallacy? That's practically the definition of economic investment. I'm not trying to articulate a "creates jobs" argument here.
Not to be disagreeable, but the US is investing in more renewables. Not a ton, but some.
Is there a point to this post, exactly? I mean, I get the capacity variation is both a real concern and a common kind of FUD regarding solar, but this data point isn't about that.
It's about how rapidly a changeover in energy production to sustainable can occur. Germany was one of the world's biggest nuclear energy producers(France being the leader of that pack), and they've gone from that to one of the biggest solar producers in only a year or so.
With a really large economy, without losing much GDP. The point that's being demonstrated is that a power infrastructure changeover can be done without sacrificing being a first world nation along the way.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the details of libel laws, but I was relatively sure that good faith belief is all that is required.
Pay to stop playing, of course.
And of course, the BLP rules of wikipedia help establish that all such material is posted in good faith. If you have a reliable source that says X about the subject, it can go a long way to help establish in court that you believed, in good faith, that what you said was true.
If the editors here had been skirting that rule... well... it could work out badly for them.
Only they've worked a little harder on inventing games that are totally unfun without cheats.
Intentionally including busywork in games so you can pay to avoid it.
Slowing your rate of activity down to fewer decisions/hour than playing chess against your granddad. So you can pay to speed it up.
Of course, those cons make all sorts of claims to help the gullible along. Being a conman just requires no compunction against lying.
"Oh, didn't you know? It's against state law for psychics to play the lottery. I'm kinda breaking the rules by telling you the numbers. So keep it quiet."
Sorry, he didn't kill anyone, particularly not anyone black, it won't stand up in a Florida court.
Oh, yeah, it's not like I was responding to a specific incorrect assertion of fact, or anything. Please pretend I was responding to some "greater" debate rather than one of the many specific kinds of ignorance that comprise the denialist position.
Well, no, since the plaintiffs of the case were arguing that they should not be allowed to be regulated at all it's not backwards, so much as not as precise as necessary.
Which is why we have a summary and article.
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.
Absorption spectra do not exist.
--A very important lesson to us all.
My own personal solution is to remove as much advertising from everything I can(screw your financial viability if that's what you depend on), and to avoid every single brand name I can on all occasions where possible.
Which is why advertising is a poison to society and must be destroyed. The set of advertising that is tolerable: (i.e. makes you think "That is an excellent point and I should reconsider my purchasing") is so heavily outpaced by the kind that's hellbent on being emotionally and psychologically manipulative to get you to do things against your own interest that it would be entirely acceptable collateral damage in my opinion.
Question: what does he get out of people paying attention to him?
You got it backwards. Navy experience gets people into the tech industry, not the other way around.
Because subs have tight clausterphobic environments, a need for constant quiet, severe rationing, constant work to keep sailors busy, and a chain of command to shit all over you.
Clearly they're just too nice an environment to count.
Ok, as far as I can tell, the main point you're trying to express here was "I am crazy and can barely manage to turn words into sentences"
No, it's pretty damn sexist when it's used for an excuse.
I know exactly how crazy that sounds if I imagine myself in the role of an idiot who likes being sexist. I understand your position. And your position is super duper shitty.
Or you know, you could just stop being in denial about the very fundamental way in which you are actively failing as a decent human being.
I just want to reemphasize that you are not "sort of" sexist or sexist in the "that guy hit on a girl" sexist, but in the "I am just deciding that a gender is like X for made up reasons" totally evil backwards shitty kinda sexist.
Like you are the worst. You are fucked up and wear your wrongness as a badge of honor and it is absolutely shameful.
"I just want to ascribe all total differences to fundamental biological differences, you baby, who I'm also going to generalize"
You're a moron, and a sexist, and congrats on holding the species back for no reason.
I mean, that's obvious, but just in case anyone is too hopeful.
"Maybe women are fundamentally different form men" is sexist.
"You're ignoring the fact that men and women have different interests"
Jesus Christ. It's like 0% of bigots can even recognize the basic idea that maybe you shouldn't generalize human beings like that. It's absolutely sexist.
How this goes:
"It's not sexist if it's true"
"But there's absolutely no evidence to say it's true"
"I WANNA KEEP THE GIRLS OUT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"
You should be ashamed of yourself. You're awful. Terrible. Like a shitty human being.