I buy plenty of books from Google's store. The first thing I do is decrypt them so I can read them in FBReader. Both Google's and Kobo's store use the Adobe DRM, so it's pretty trivial to decrypt.
Assange's largest immediate problem are that British authorities will grab him if ever tries to leave the Embassy in anything other than a coffin, and then he will doubtless spend some time in a British prison for evading arrest and defying a British court, before being trundled off to Sweden. Now maybe there's some secret deal between Sweden and the United States, but Assange has never actually provided such evidence, despite being a guy who prides himself on knowing all the secrets. From what I can see, the whole point of the conspiracy theory is that Assange needs to preserve his cult of personality by trying to bury his own alleged misconduct in Sweden with grand tales of conspiracy.
Except science studies gender dysphoria and has found some evidence that gender identity is more complex than your simplistic view of things. In other words, your view isn't scientific, it's merely a comfortable fable you tell yourself because you don't want to deal with what science actually has to say. But that's your problem, not Manning's.
The fact is that there are some people here who sit some distance along the autism spectrum, probably more than a few people with Asperger's, who are neurologically wired to view the world in very narrow and rigid ways. They need to define gender in the simplest form possible, it's just the way their brains work. They don't want to see the world as nuanced, it's too hard, and it's just much easier to demand, no matter ludicrously, that the world fit into the confines they are emotionally comfortable with. Stack that group along side the religious nuts for which sexuality is something to be feared, and you have a social movement who insists that if you have a penis or a vagina or XX or XY chromosomes, then that's the beginning and the end, and doubtless where the sex chromosomes don't jive with the external genitalia, I'm sure they'll just insist that that person is a freak.
Because he's a fucking asshole, and wants the whole world to know that he's a fucking asshole. This is the Age of Asshole, where freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, where being rude and demeaning must be celebrated, and where anyone who thinks there should be some decorum is an SJW warrior whose trying to keep the Asshole down!!!!
Except of course we know these brave warriors of assholeishness probably aren't talking to their landlords, loans officers, bosses like that, or their coworkers, or their moms and dads, because if they did, they'd be unemployed and homeless, which is where people who don't have the emotional control or wits to moderate tone and speech often end up.
So decorum and manners are of no value at all to you? You basically feel entitled to be as rude and awful as you please? Well go for it. Yes, the government won't haul your ass into court for being an asshole, but I think you'll find your life will be worse for it. Because of course even someone like you knows there are social rules.
And what do you call someone who is born with the primary sexual characteristics of one gender, but the sex chromosomes of another? You may believe that you have a simple answer, but that's mainly because you appear to be simple.
And since the power is so broadly defined, each President must decide their own standard. There may be some some argument that Obama's position on the use of the pardon may amount to something of a constitutional convention surrounding who is eligible for a pardon (I've never made much study of pardons in particular, but I'm assuming some scholars have done the work), but constitutional conventions only apply so long as everyone decides they apply, and since the power of pardon has only one person at a time interpreting it; that is the President himself, Obama is free to abide by his predecessors' views on pardons, or reject it, so long as he doesn't overreach (which, so far as I can tell, would only apply if he attempted to pardon someone who had impeached and convicted). I suppose that means if Nixon had stuck around to be impeached and removed from office, then Ford could not have pardoned him, but because Nixon resigned before the inevitable happened, Ford was able to give him an unlimited blanket pardon, and since so far as I'm aware Nixon broke no state laws (Washington DC not being a state, and basically being under Federal jurisdiction), he had no worry of ever having to face a trial for any crimes he may have committed while in office.
Indeed. There have been some links found between gender dysphoria and genetics and/or developmental variables - http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/art...
Now obviously I can't can say if Manning's gender dysphoria (that is believe what she was diagnosed with) has its roots in this, but the "feeling" that some people have of being one gender when their apparent physical gender is the opposite has been known for quite some time. As it is, if someone has gone through some degree of gender reassignment, insisting upon calling them by a pronoun that no longer describes their psychological or physical gender as it stands now seems rather absurd.
There are people whose chromosomes are of one gender but whose external genitalia are of another, as a matter of fetal development. Sexuality is more than genitals and chromosomes, even without the involvement of surgery.
You're just pissed because the hardcoded callback IPs make your host file software redundant, at least so far as Win10 goes (and, so far as I understand it, Win7 and 8/8.1 as well).
I'll sit back now and wait for you to stalk me for a few hours. Watching you get unhinged and demonstrate your manic phase with grandiose claims and threats.
I don't think there's anything illegitimate about it. It's just that he's mentally ill, and that the software in question really doesn't work where an OS or software manufacturer hard codes callback IP addresses. I went to his page about six months ago, and was fascinated to see screenshots from what was either XP or Server 2003, which said a lot not only about the software, but about APK's state of mind. He's also made a number of posts over the years that suggest he's a good old fashioned netkook, maybe the last of that ancient breed. So, like all good netkooks, he has a fixation, which in his case is his obsession with the hosts file.
In general terms, satisfying the average need (in other words, helping the largest number of people possible) is satisfying the business need. There are any number of outlier scenarios that simply cannot be rationally created. The masses, as you put it, are by a very large degree, well within usage patterns where EVs would work the large majority of the time. It is a pretty small minority, overall, no more than probably 20-25% for which EVs are not viable, and I don't think anyone is proposing that those people be forced to use an EV.
And, just in case you're the least bit interested, there is an explanation as to why the differential between CO2 PPM increases and observed surface temperature rises, largely because of that substance that covers 2/3s of the planet:
But I'm sure you will handwave that away. Once again some random poster on the Internet with no actual ability to assess the data thinks they're moronic strawman somehow topples an entire field of research.
I'll ask you once again to provide citations where climatologists claim PPM and temperature should rise in lockstep? You keep foisting this strawman, which is entirely of your own creation (or rather, the creation of someone like the Heartland Institute, I doubt very much you made it up yourself). Until you provide such citations and can demonstrate that this is what the climatologists are actual stating should be observed, you're just repeating a strawman, a logical fallacy, either because you're ignorant, or you're a liar.
And once again you trot out your strawman that PPM and temperature rise should rise in lockstep. If you can point to a citation where any climatologists make that claim, go for it. Otherwise you're just trying to win a debate through fallacy and dishonesty
The citation shows increased PPM of CO2 and increased temperature. No model I am aware of requires that PPM and temperature rise to be in lockstep. That's simply a pseudo-skeptic strawman argument.
Everything I'm seeing in the way of urbanization, population density and commute statistics suggests that EVs would work in the large majority of scenarios in North America and Europe. Yes, there are outliers, and certainly there are scenarios that Americans regularly partake in which will push past EV limits, but to base an entire transportation strategy on scenarios that are either infrequent or in a very sharp minority seems utterly illogical to me. Simply put, most people do not drive hundreds of miles in a single driving session per day, most people live in urban areas where average commute times are below 30 minutes and distances are in fact below 20 miles one way. It sounds to me like the majority of North Americans could drive EVs with little significant impact on day to day driving habits.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy plenty of books from Google's store. The first thing I do is decrypt them so I can read them in FBReader. Both Google's and Kobo's store use the Adobe DRM, so it's pretty trivial to decrypt.
Assange's largest immediate problem are that British authorities will grab him if ever tries to leave the Embassy in anything other than a coffin, and then he will doubtless spend some time in a British prison for evading arrest and defying a British court, before being trundled off to Sweden. Now maybe there's some secret deal between Sweden and the United States, but Assange has never actually provided such evidence, despite being a guy who prides himself on knowing all the secrets. From what I can see, the whole point of the conspiracy theory is that Assange needs to preserve his cult of personality by trying to bury his own alleged misconduct in Sweden with grand tales of conspiracy.
I hadn't heard Obama had pardoned Paul Manafort.
Except there is, and it's called gender dysphoria and studies on twins show that it can either have a genetic or fetal developmental cause.
Except science studies gender dysphoria and has found some evidence that gender identity is more complex than your simplistic view of things. In other words, your view isn't scientific, it's merely a comfortable fable you tell yourself because you don't want to deal with what science actually has to say. But that's your problem, not Manning's.
The fact is that there are some people here who sit some distance along the autism spectrum, probably more than a few people with Asperger's, who are neurologically wired to view the world in very narrow and rigid ways. They need to define gender in the simplest form possible, it's just the way their brains work. They don't want to see the world as nuanced, it's too hard, and it's just much easier to demand, no matter ludicrously, that the world fit into the confines they are emotionally comfortable with. Stack that group along side the religious nuts for which sexuality is something to be feared, and you have a social movement who insists that if you have a penis or a vagina or XX or XY chromosomes, then that's the beginning and the end, and doubtless where the sex chromosomes don't jive with the external genitalia, I'm sure they'll just insist that that person is a freak.
Because he's a fucking asshole, and wants the whole world to know that he's a fucking asshole. This is the Age of Asshole, where freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, where being rude and demeaning must be celebrated, and where anyone who thinks there should be some decorum is an SJW warrior whose trying to keep the Asshole down!!!!
Except of course we know these brave warriors of assholeishness probably aren't talking to their landlords, loans officers, bosses like that, or their coworkers, or their moms and dads, because if they did, they'd be unemployed and homeless, which is where people who don't have the emotional control or wits to moderate tone and speech often end up.
So decorum and manners are of no value at all to you? You basically feel entitled to be as rude and awful as you please? Well go for it. Yes, the government won't haul your ass into court for being an asshole, but I think you'll find your life will be worse for it. Because of course even someone like you knows there are social rules.
And what do you call someone who is born with the primary sexual characteristics of one gender, but the sex chromosomes of another? You may believe that you have a simple answer, but that's mainly because you appear to be simple.
They're trying to show how anti-PC they are, and in general, these days, being anti-PC largely seems to be the equivalent of being obnoxious and rude.
And since the power is so broadly defined, each President must decide their own standard. There may be some some argument that Obama's position on the use of the pardon may amount to something of a constitutional convention surrounding who is eligible for a pardon (I've never made much study of pardons in particular, but I'm assuming some scholars have done the work), but constitutional conventions only apply so long as everyone decides they apply, and since the power of pardon has only one person at a time interpreting it; that is the President himself, Obama is free to abide by his predecessors' views on pardons, or reject it, so long as he doesn't overreach (which, so far as I can tell, would only apply if he attempted to pardon someone who had impeached and convicted). I suppose that means if Nixon had stuck around to be impeached and removed from office, then Ford could not have pardoned him, but because Nixon resigned before the inevitable happened, Ford was able to give him an unlimited blanket pardon, and since so far as I'm aware Nixon broke no state laws (Washington DC not being a state, and basically being under Federal jurisdiction), he had no worry of ever having to face a trial for any crimes he may have committed while in office.
Indeed. There have been some links found between gender dysphoria and genetics and/or developmental variables - http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/art...
Now obviously I can't can say if Manning's gender dysphoria (that is believe what she was diagnosed with) has its roots in this, but the "feeling" that some people have of being one gender when their apparent physical gender is the opposite has been known for quite some time. As it is, if someone has gone through some degree of gender reassignment, insisting upon calling them by a pronoun that no longer describes their psychological or physical gender as it stands now seems rather absurd.
There are people whose chromosomes are of one gender but whose external genitalia are of another, as a matter of fetal development. Sexuality is more than genitals and chromosomes, even without the involvement of surgery.
You're just pissed because the hardcoded callback IPs make your host file software redundant, at least so far as Win10 goes (and, so far as I understand it, Win7 and 8/8.1 as well).
I'll sit back now and wait for you to stalk me for a few hours. Watching you get unhinged and demonstrate your manic phase with grandiose claims and threats.
I don't think there's anything illegitimate about it. It's just that he's mentally ill, and that the software in question really doesn't work where an OS or software manufacturer hard codes callback IP addresses. I went to his page about six months ago, and was fascinated to see screenshots from what was either XP or Server 2003, which said a lot not only about the software, but about APK's state of mind. He's also made a number of posts over the years that suggest he's a good old fashioned netkook, maybe the last of that ancient breed. So, like all good netkooks, he has a fixation, which in his case is his obsession with the hosts file.
In general terms, satisfying the average need (in other words, helping the largest number of people possible) is satisfying the business need. There are any number of outlier scenarios that simply cannot be rationally created. The masses, as you put it, are by a very large degree, well within usage patterns where EVs would work the large majority of the time. It is a pretty small minority, overall, no more than probably 20-25% for which EVs are not viable, and I don't think anyone is proposing that those people be forced to use an EV.
And, just in case you're the least bit interested, there is an explanation as to why the differential between CO2 PPM increases and observed surface temperature rises, largely because of that substance that covers 2/3s of the planet:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
But I'm sure you will handwave that away. Once again some random poster on the Internet with no actual ability to assess the data thinks they're moronic strawman somehow topples an entire field of research.
I'll ask you once again to provide citations where climatologists claim PPM and temperature should rise in lockstep? You keep foisting this strawman, which is entirely of your own creation (or rather, the creation of someone like the Heartland Institute, I doubt very much you made it up yourself). Until you provide such citations and can demonstrate that this is what the climatologists are actual stating should be observed, you're just repeating a strawman, a logical fallacy, either because you're ignorant, or you're a liar.
The whole "percentage" thing appears to have you confused
Ah I see, so your personal and anecdotal claims just totally undermine actual statistics.
By "large parts of the population" you mean relatively small minorities.
And once again you trot out your strawman that PPM and temperature rise should rise in lockstep. If you can point to a citation where any climatologists make that claim, go for it. Otherwise you're just trying to win a debate through fallacy and dishonesty
The citation shows increased PPM of CO2 and increased temperature. No model I am aware of requires that PPM and temperature rise to be in lockstep. That's simply a pseudo-skeptic strawman argument.
In other words, you want to keep the term pretty nebulous because you intend on basing your argument on indefinite semantics.
Everything I'm seeing in the way of urbanization, population density and commute statistics suggests that EVs would work in the large majority of scenarios in North America and Europe. Yes, there are outliers, and certainly there are scenarios that Americans regularly partake in which will push past EV limits, but to base an entire transportation strategy on scenarios that are either infrequent or in a very sharp minority seems utterly illogical to me. Simply put, most people do not drive hundreds of miles in a single driving session per day, most people live in urban areas where average commute times are below 30 minutes and distances are in fact below 20 miles one way. It sounds to me like the majority of North Americans could drive EVs with little significant impact on day to day driving habits.