As I've already said, sometimes it only takes a little bit to put a system out of balance. If your tires capacity if 35 psi, and you put in 40 and you get a blowout, is it the fault of the 35 or the additional 5? You can have a system that with little input goes from stable to chaotic. You can introduce perturbation up to a point and one tiny bit more and everything goes crazy. It's non-linear.
We don't have control over volcanoes. The volcanoes were there before humans and will be there after. We have control over that additional amount though. We can do something about that. We can do something about the man-made part of man-made global warming.
Logic without science is how you end up thinking that the Earth is flat.
As I've already said, your argument shows that when you learned logic and science, something didn't stick.
"Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”
I notice you didn't attribute that quote, so let me help you: that's from a statement given by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the FCC's vote to repeal Net Neutrality rules. I will bet that every single person reading this is aware that Ajit Pai is just a sleazy shill for telecoms, and seeks only to strengthen those monopolies. He's a piece of shit.
In case you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a photo of Ajit Pai:
I didn't realize that Woody Allen was selected partially because of his penis, and not because he made successful movies. Do you have proof of your claim? And the whole "published authors" claim is BS. Anyone can publish a book in 2018. Finally, male authors are more commercially successful than females so your claim that the "marketplace preferred women" is complete BS and you are lying. But you are PopeRatzo and we expect that. My proof is here: https://pudding.cool/2017/06/b...
Dumbshit, dod you look at the link you cited? The graph ends in 2015.
Which ones specially (names) were selected partially based on their sex? It should be easy for you to answer because you said "almost all of them".
I'll give you 98:
Here is a list of the first 100 film directors listed alphabetically. There are exactly two that are women. Now, do you really think that there is something about having a penis that is a requirement to direct a movie?
Before you answer, remember that there was a time when there was a similar discrepancy among published authors. You'd have maybe two women out of 100 published authors. There was a belief that men were just better writers, naturally. Today, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men. There is no affirmative action for authors. You have to produce sales or you don't get published. The free market in action.
The ONLY paradigm to use is the annual coal, oil and gas consumption. Using those figures there is little guessing. They have been computed to be 29 gigatons per year. Compare that to the 750 gigatons of CO2 estimated to be moving through the Carbon cycle each year. That's 3.8% of the total. Recent studies have shown that volcanoes release 600 million tons per year, a six fold increase in the last two decades. Will that figure increase some more?
It's not the 2000 calories you eat a day that will make you fat, it's the additional 250 you eat on top that will.
Sometimes, it's just a little bit that will put a system out of balance. We can't really do anything about the volcanoes. We can do something about digging/blasting/fracking holes in the ground to pull out fossil fuels to burn that will make up the additional 29 gigatons per year.
You want to impose your black and white on the world (perhaps because it makes for more entertaining arguments) and my science background leads me to be pretty non-judgemental.
Moral equivalence is the ultimate judgement.
In the end we're just both old fools sniping back and forth at each other on a website whose best days are long past it (perhaps much like us:) ).
There are maybe 1500 volcanoes that are known to have been active in the past 10,000 years. There are 1,200,000,000 motor vehicles in the world that operate day after day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Year after year.
These are vastly more powerful than a car exhaust so if we are going to abandon science how are you going to show that a car exhausts damage the environment while erupting volcanoes, forest fires etc. do not?
Nobody says they don't contribute to climate change, but volcanoes do not contribute to man-made climate change. But you change the things you can. You stop digging. You do what you can, instead of being paralyzed by the things you can't fix immediately.
For every example you can come up with there is an opposite just as "logical" counter example which is why logic is not going to help you.
Gotta be honest with you, bro: your "logic" is for shit.
There is a good reason that the "cradle of civilization" was in an arid semi-desert region: blight and pests are of little problem only in those climates, and in those areas nearly all the modern crops came to be. What can be grown in Iraq without pesticides cannot be grown in most of France without pesticides.
That's horseshit. California feeds most of the country to one extent or another, and we've got the most stringent pesticide reduction program in the US.
We can have crops without pesticides. We can't have crops without bees.
any more than we pulled out of Japan. NK is still a military threat to SK anyway. And why would SK spend money on defense when we're doing it for them?
Asian press has been reporting that the US out of South Korea will be one of Kim's conditions. It's not unprecedented. In 1991, Bush Sr removed all US nukes from South Korea.
The biggest U.S. military presence in Asia is in Japan
That's true, but it's not the same as saying the biggest US bases and airfields are in South Korea. Desiderio Army Airfield is listed as the biggest and busiest US airfield in Asia. Maybe my information is out of date though.
Either way, we've got a lot of personnel and materiel over there. It'll be interesting to see what losing those bases does to those South Korean local economies.
It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.
But providers know insurance companies will be buying more, and often negotiate bulk pricing with them - it's one of the reasons for the in network/out of network distinction.
You just made one of the best arguments for single-payer health care instead of insurance based health care.
Also, how is it "bulk pricing" if they're paying for the surgeries one at a time?
NASA doesn't want to disturb the Nazi base under the Lunar ice cap, so they cancelled the project. And all because the president said they were some "very fine people".
Slashdot Mirror
As I've already said, sometimes it only takes a little bit to put a system out of balance. If your tires capacity if 35 psi, and you put in 40 and you get a blowout, is it the fault of the 35 or the additional 5? You can have a system that with little input goes from stable to chaotic. You can introduce perturbation up to a point and one tiny bit more and everything goes crazy. It's non-linear.
We don't have control over volcanoes. The volcanoes were there before humans and will be there after. We have control over that additional amount though. We can do something about that. We can do something about the man-made part of man-made global warming.
As I've already said, your argument shows that when you learned logic and science, something didn't stick.
That didn't stop you from you from grabbing my ass.
I notice you didn't attribute that quote, so let me help you: that's from a statement given by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the FCC's vote to repeal Net Neutrality rules. I will bet that every single person reading this is aware that Ajit Pai is just a sleazy shill for telecoms, and seeks only to strengthen those monopolies. He's a piece of shit.
In case you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a photo of Ajit Pai:
https://www.google.com/search?...:
Brad Thor is Danielle Steele for men.
I didn't realize that Woody Allen was selected partially because of his penis, and not because he made successful movies. Do you have proof of your claim? And the whole "published authors" claim is BS. Anyone can publish a book in 2018. Finally, male authors are more commercially successful than females so your claim that the "marketplace preferred women" is complete BS and you are lying. But you are PopeRatzo and we expect that. My proof is here: https://pudding.cool/2017/06/b...
Dumbshit, dod you look at the link you cited? The graph ends in 2015.
I'll give you 98:
Here is a list of the first 100 film directors listed alphabetically. There are exactly two that are women. Now, do you really think that there is something about having a penis that is a requirement to direct a movie?
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls05...
Before you answer, remember that there was a time when there was a similar discrepancy among published authors. You'd have maybe two women out of 100 published authors. There was a belief that men were just better writers, naturally. Today, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men. There is no affirmative action for authors. You have to produce sales or you don't get published. The free market in action.
It's not the 2000 calories you eat a day that will make you fat, it's the additional 250 you eat on top that will.
Sometimes, it's just a little bit that will put a system out of balance. We can't really do anything about the volcanoes. We can do something about digging/blasting/fracking holes in the ground to pull out fossil fuels to burn that will make up the additional 29 gigatons per year.
Moral equivalence is the ultimate judgement.
These are the good old days, my friend.
Moral equivalence is weak and beneath you. It indicates a lack of discernment and is the facile argument of cowards.
I'm a Nobel winning physicist and expert in sensing bullshit and fallacious appeals to authority.
If you're such an expert in complex systems, why couldn't you figure out how to create a Slashdot account?
There are maybe 1500 volcanoes that are known to have been active in the past 10,000 years. There are 1,200,000,000 motor vehicles in the world that operate day after day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Year after year.
Nobody says they don't contribute to climate change, but volcanoes do not contribute to man-made climate change. But you change the things you can. You stop digging. You do what you can, instead of being paralyzed by the things you can't fix immediately.
Gotta be honest with you, bro: your "logic" is for shit.
Does it have to be one or the other?
You missed the news. APK and me are buds now.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
If you take out the amount of corn that's used to produce ethanol, it falls to about 4th on the top food crops.
An entomologist who only managed to figure out how to create a Slashdot account last Thursday?
That's horseshit. California feeds most of the country to one extent or another, and we've got the most stringent pesticide reduction program in the US.
We can have crops without pesticides. We can't have crops without bees.
Definitely. We need to think about maintaining our strategic reserve of fake boobs. I mean, I can live without fossil fuels...
The US still has about 40 bases in Germany. Also a base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel, that is surprisingly big.
Even though a bunch of bases in Germany closed, we have a lot of "co-bases" with NATO left where the main force is American.
Asian press has been reporting that the US out of South Korea will be one of Kim's conditions. It's not unprecedented. In 1991, Bush Sr removed all US nukes from South Korea.
The US still has lots of bases and airfields on the European mainland, though, doesn't it?
That's true, but it's not the same as saying the biggest US bases and airfields are in South Korea. Desiderio Army Airfield is listed as the biggest and busiest US airfield in Asia. Maybe my information is out of date though.
Either way, we've got a lot of personnel and materiel over there. It'll be interesting to see what losing those bases does to those South Korean local economies.
It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.
Oh, I've got it alright. In fact, I've got so much of it that I'm full of it.
You just made one of the best arguments for single-payer health care instead of insurance based health care.
Also, how is it "bulk pricing" if they're paying for the surgeries one at a time?
NASA doesn't want to disturb the Nazi base under the Lunar ice cap, so they cancelled the project. And all because the president said they were some "very fine people".