Well, there are a few of us who aren't deniers. Not many, but a few. Some AGW stories I get modded into oblivion by the pseudo-skeptics, but other times I actually get modded up.
So you have one of the terrorists in the Bataclan attack, but there were also EU nationals in the Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo attacks.
As to the period of disruption, with several major banks saying they're pulling out of London, you're looking at the diminishment of the City, which is one of the major economic engines of Britain.
All I see here is the usual Brexit tripe which amounts to "Migration bad, Europe bad, everything will just be fine!" But if that were the case, then why were the chief Brexiteers yacking on about ECC membership during the referendum campaign, almost as if they knew damned well that Europe was Britain's most significant trading partner, and loss of open access to the Common Market would be enormously damaging.
A similar thing happened to global silver prices due to Quin China's opium trade, at first as silver flowed into China as it exported opium, and then reversed itself when the opium was then shipped back to China.
How many terror attacks can you link to freedom of movement? And the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone (which is different than the EU) and it is pretty clear Germany wants Greece to remain as well.
And if the Brits had enough of it, how come so many Brexiteers were hanging on to the hope of remaining in the ECC (which, by the way, would still mean some degree of freedom of movement).
Frankly, I think Brexit was just an episode of national pique, and I suspect if you reran the referendum now, with at least some of the ramifications becoming clear (such as Norway objecting to continued British membership in the ECC), Remain would have a solid win.
It does not have an intrinsic value that makes it worth weighting an entire currency on, and it is, in fact, rather vulnerable to price collapses itself. Both gold and silver have been witness to significant depreciation events, such as when the Chinese Empire began bleeding its silver reserves in the 18th and 19th century.
Metal-based currencies are no panacea, and are highly inflexible, and worst of all, don't do anything to stave off worst case scenarios like recessions and depressions.
Except Brussels itself is a construct of all the EU members, and it is the pooled sovereignty of all EU members that counts. This claim that Brussels is some sort of overlord that controls Europe demonstrates a great ignorance of what the EU is.
Beyond that, all but the most hardened Brexiteers would love to stay in the Common Market, which was why they kept talking about how Britain could still remain part of the ECC.
The fact is that metals-based currencies are far more arbitrary in valuation of a currency than a fiat currency. Why should a currency for any nation be entirely unlinked from factors like trade surpluses/deficits, GDP, interest rates and the like? What is it about gold that makes it so great for pegging a currency to? Saying "gold-backed is better" is really just picking an arbitrary element, giving it an arbitrary value, and somehow that is supposed to be a good way to value a currency?
What exactly does "sovereignty" mean here? Britain is literally sending out feelers all over the world looking for trade deals that will, now wait for it, limit its sovereignty. That is the nature of treaties.
But if you reject any statistic showing institutional biases, then how will you know you suffer an unconscious one? The knee jerk reaction around here is to attack any study that demonstrates such a bias
In and of itself, it may not be an issue, but when the justification for the lower number of women in IT is "they need to grow a spine", then maybe, just maybe, there are actual job place factors involved.
Why should anybody need to be "hard" to have a fucking job in an IT department? Why does one need a "spine"? Are you fucking incapable of treating coworkers decently? Do you have some sort of mental disorder that requires you to be a fucking twat?
If you're a manager and your making decisions on bonuses, promotions and pay and you're even unconsciously taking gender, race, religion or ethnicity into account, then you're a bigot.
It is, in fact, the very worst kind of bigotry, and it has a name; institutional racism. It's the kind of racism that even people who consider themselves non-racists can exhibit, where they, often unconsciously, stack the deck against some employees based on racial, ethnic or gender cues.
And then all the white males in the IT department show up on Slashdot and say "Well, maybe the woman and blacks don't wanna be computer programmers!"
And the only conclusion you can reach is that women are incompetent and "not interested". Have you ever pondered that people with attitudes like yours might be part of the problem?
And what if the conditions of work are preventing them? And I'm not just talking about the "usual" conditions like a lack of affordable daycare and the like which often keep women from better employment. What if there are certain groups within this industry, or in any industry really, who are hostile to women being there?
You do understand Clinton is going to win, and there are now reasonable odds that those "hippies" will control the Senate. Hell, they may even get Texas's electoral votes.
At worst Clinton represents much the same course in international affairs as has been going on for eight years. It's hardly dangerous, and Clinton would hardly be the first president to have a policy of containing Russia. In fact, that's been general US policy, save for about fifteen years after the collapse of the USSR, since the end of the Second World War.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there are a few of us who aren't deniers. Not many, but a few. Some AGW stories I get modded into oblivion by the pseudo-skeptics, but other times I actually get modded up.
So you have one of the terrorists in the Bataclan attack, but there were also EU nationals in the Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo attacks.
As to the period of disruption, with several major banks saying they're pulling out of London, you're looking at the diminishment of the City, which is one of the major economic engines of Britain.
All I see here is the usual Brexit tripe which amounts to "Migration bad, Europe bad, everything will just be fine!" But if that were the case, then why were the chief Brexiteers yacking on about ECC membership during the referendum campaign, almost as if they knew damned well that Europe was Britain's most significant trading partner, and loss of open access to the Common Market would be enormously damaging.
A similar thing happened to global silver prices due to Quin China's opium trade, at first as silver flowed into China as it exported opium, and then reversed itself when the opium was then shipped back to China.
How many terror attacks can you link to freedom of movement? And the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone (which is different than the EU) and it is pretty clear Germany wants Greece to remain as well.
And if the Brits had enough of it, how come so many Brexiteers were hanging on to the hope of remaining in the ECC (which, by the way, would still mean some degree of freedom of movement).
Frankly, I think Brexit was just an episode of national pique, and I suspect if you reran the referendum now, with at least some of the ramifications becoming clear (such as Norway objecting to continued British membership in the ECC), Remain would have a solid win.
It does not have an intrinsic value that makes it worth weighting an entire currency on, and it is, in fact, rather vulnerable to price collapses itself. Both gold and silver have been witness to significant depreciation events, such as when the Chinese Empire began bleeding its silver reserves in the 18th and 19th century.
Metal-based currencies are no panacea, and are highly inflexible, and worst of all, don't do anything to stave off worst case scenarios like recessions and depressions.
Except Brussels itself is a construct of all the EU members, and it is the pooled sovereignty of all EU members that counts. This claim that Brussels is some sort of overlord that controls Europe demonstrates a great ignorance of what the EU is.
Beyond that, all but the most hardened Brexiteers would love to stay in the Common Market, which was why they kept talking about how Britain could still remain part of the ECC.
The fact is that metals-based currencies are far more arbitrary in valuation of a currency than a fiat currency. Why should a currency for any nation be entirely unlinked from factors like trade surpluses/deficits, GDP, interest rates and the like? What is it about gold that makes it so great for pegging a currency to? Saying "gold-backed is better" is really just picking an arbitrary element, giving it an arbitrary value, and somehow that is supposed to be a good way to value a currency?
What exactly does "sovereignty" mean here? Britain is literally sending out feelers all over the world looking for trade deals that will, now wait for it, limit its sovereignty. That is the nature of treaties.
But if you reject any statistic showing institutional biases, then how will you know you suffer an unconscious one? The knee jerk reaction around here is to attack any study that demonstrates such a bias
In and of itself, it may not be an issue, but when the justification for the lower number of women in IT is "they need to grow a spine", then maybe, just maybe, there are actual job place factors involved.
Why should anybody need to be "hard" to have a fucking job in an IT department? Why does one need a "spine"? Are you fucking incapable of treating coworkers decently? Do you have some sort of mental disorder that requires you to be a fucking twat?
If you're a manager and your making decisions on bonuses, promotions and pay and you're even unconsciously taking gender, race, religion or ethnicity into account, then you're a bigot.
So the answer to the question is "Yes, we're a back of sexist assholes where I work, so women should just put up with pricks because 'spines'!"
And you have some actual evidence to back up that all the problems have been solved?
It is, in fact, the very worst kind of bigotry, and it has a name; institutional racism. It's the kind of racism that even people who consider themselves non-racists can exhibit, where they, often unconsciously, stack the deck against some employees based on racial, ethnic or gender cues.
And then all the white males in the IT department show up on Slashdot and say "Well, maybe the woman and blacks don't wanna be computer programmers!"
And the only conclusion you can reach is that women are incompetent and "not interested". Have you ever pondered that people with attitudes like yours might be part of the problem?
And what if the conditions of work are preventing them? And I'm not just talking about the "usual" conditions like a lack of affordable daycare and the like which often keep women from better employment. What if there are certain groups within this industry, or in any industry really, who are hostile to women being there?
Had she been charged with something?
Your description of that particular murder and the actual murder bear no resemblance to each other.
You do understand Clinton is going to win, and there are now reasonable odds that those "hippies" will control the Senate. Hell, they may even get Texas's electoral votes.
And does that hold true for Trump?
No, what's being said is that this is a manufactured scandal
The persecution complex Trump's supporters exhibit ought to keep him business for years.
While I think Chomsky is a horse"s ass, do you actually have quotes of him praising Pol Pot?
At worst Clinton represents much the same course in international affairs as has been going on for eight years. It's hardly dangerous, and Clinton would hardly be the first president to have a policy of containing Russia. In fact, that's been general US policy, save for about fifteen years after the collapse of the USSR, since the end of the Second World War.