Bullshit, none of his pipelines happened. We won the wars, didn't build the pipelines over the mountains. Oil companies wouldn't agree to use them if we built them, it would be stupid, so why are you dragging them in?
If he makes the prediction, and is wrong, and the next time a potential war is in the news he makes the same prediction, still with no information, then yes, that is a lie.
The lie is the part where he claims to have some knowledge about it, and is going to tell you.
If he was only saying he's guessing, and admitted he was wrong last time, then that would be honest. But he doesn't do that.
He never "exposed propaganda," he told you he was exposing propaganda, and you believed him. Then when the events happened, and we found out the truth, we found out he wasn't exposing propaganda, he was just spewing his own political propaganda. But you never did that, you never reconsidered your initial evaluation; you already decided he gave you knowledge, so when actual events refuted it, you didn't even notice.
You could even go back in time, using hindsight, and check: What did he claim, and in the end did he have real reasons to be claiming it? Did he have special secret knowledge about US propaganda? Or not? If not, those are called lies.
Maybe he was right once, as you say. He's still the world most idiotic geographer.
And no, it isn't "easy to be wrong." When you claim to know the answer, did you? It is easy for him to be wrong every time, because he makes wild hand-wavy assertions of fact when he doesn't actually have facts.
And he still makes the same idiot predictions about everything being about oil, even when he was always wrong in the past.
He's always been wrong about international events involving war. Always. He always predicts that if the US wins the conflict, we'll plunder this and that, force some country to do some stupid thing we've never demanded, and build an idiot's pipeline from the ocean over a mountain. When somebody is predicting a pipeline from Turkey over the fucking Balkans, you should know already that they're a complete idiot who is perfectly happy making predictions about shit they're totally clueless on. Pipelines go downhill to the sea. The only time they go over a mountain is when the nearest ocean has seasonal ice. Then they go to the nearest bit of coast that has a good harbor.
And we never fucking plunder anything, you don't get to plunder, this is not the 1800s; winning a foreign war doesn't even give you control over the natural resources! Civil wars, yeah, the winning side gets control. But occupational wars cost money they don't result in a payday at the end when you auction off the rights to the country's resources; another thing Chomsky has incorrectly predicted again and again.
Also, be advised that while Chomsky won the academic battle you point at, it isn't still believed to be true. LOL Just like, Freud's theories are not still considered to be true. The only field still using Chomsky's language paradigm is computer science, because we can simply assert the paradigms we want, and Chomsky's concept of how language works is very useful for modeling computer instructions. But it isn't actually how the brain processes language. That's been understood for a long time.
It isn't even the linguists defending continued belief in his theories; it is his political followers who want his linguistic theories to be Totally Unquestionably Righteous.
For the same reasons as above, I'm much more afraid of China doing it, because they can use the information for any purpose. And they do.
Here in the USA, the government can only do certain, narrowly defined things. And when it comes to my data, it is really hard for them to use it in a way that harms me. They can't give it out, and they can't use it against me without a bunch of processes where I have substantial rights.
In China you don't even have the right to a lawyer, or to see evidence against you. There are no standards of evidence that restrict what data they can use. They don't need to have a warrant first in order to later use it against you.
If the NSA slurps my data, they didn't have a warrant, and they can't use it against me. They can use it target a missile in Iraq, but here at home they can't even use it to give me a parking ticket.
Most of the damage from smoking comes in the form of significantly decreased quality of life in the later years. People usually seem otherwise-healthy until they start losing their breath and never get it back.
It takes away an average 3 years of actual life, plus 15 extra years of being sick before you die.
Qatar also has food subsidies, but they're decreasing them to spend the money getting ready for the World Cup in 2022. But they import 40% of their food from Saudi Arabia, so see above.
Do you fucking ever notice that other people contradicted you? Did you know it is possible for them to understand, and still say something different?
You don't have to announce it to the whole world that completely lack "theory of mind" whenever you're confused. You look like a real dumbass waving your hand around like that and making noises.
Isan is semi-arid. They have great farm production on years when they have enough irrigation. But a significant part of that irrigation comes from the Mekong river, and other countries are using it upstream and downstream, so you can't always use it for a second crop.
It is totally normal for production to vary widely from year to year based on rainfall patterns.
In Central Thai they have the opposite problem; some years there is too much flooding for a second crop. Isan has floods too, but they're more localized flash floods below highlands; in Central Thai the main rivers overflow and cover nearly all the farmland for an extended period.
I have cousins in Isan but luckily they're not farmers.
Where I live not even the cheapest brand of generic milk has rBST.
There is probably some place in town that sells one, but you'd have to really go looking for it.
Those people who whine about chemicals, but also don't read the labels on the food they buy, are just hilarious.
Another thing I find hilarious; the labels that the government makes them put on the milk that says "* blah blah its all the same, don't badmouth Saint rBST" simply makes it easier to verify that I'm choosing the one I want without it.
Thailand only even provides a 6th grade education for free to most people. In cities you get up to 8th grade free in many cases. Free high school for poor people requires being a really good student and passing an entrance exam.
The reason they provide a free 6th grade education is that it is required of the Buddhist monks to teach the classes.
They're a developing nation, with mostly-developed cities.
Most farming is still done with manual labor, not with technology; that's the reason they have an easy time meeting EU standards. The standards already included traditional farming practices. They use pesticides and fertilizer, and that's about the only technology they use. Grain silos have stairs, where people carry the sacks to the top and dump them in. Fruits are harvested from trees using poles with baskets on the end.
Food is important in Thailand, but good luck buying fresh vegetables that aren't wilted. They're not industrialized enough to have that. The first two things Thai Americans notice when they get here; traffic is much safer and more orderly, and the food quality is much much higher. They notice the food quality because they buy a lot raw ingredients, and don't usually choose fast food. (They expect low quality food to be 50% hot peppers, that's why American fast food doesn't appeal to them)
Choices don't need to be proven, to you personally, to be beneficial for them to have a right to exist.
It seems obvious that EU standards depend on what the people there want, not on what you want, or what you consider proven. Maybe they're simply concerned about it, and consider concerns to meet the standard for regulation?
Get over yourself, just because you have a big head doesn't mean you know what is or isn't safe.
I'm nearly a cheesivor, but I can't really imagine dying of a dairy shortage. Crying from a dairy shortage, that I can imagine. But dying?!
Without dairy, there might actually be more food available rather than less, because dairy cows take up a lot of pasture that would otherwise be growing high yield crops.
It's a matter of national security. Why do you think we need a goddamn wall? The Mexicans will come for our cheese and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Why build a wall for that? We have a cheese surplus, maybe we just need cheese mortars to push them back. Cheaper, and longer range than a wall. Ingenuity is the American Way, not just passive defenses like a stupid boring wall.
When Person A says something dumb, and Person B says something else dumb that changes the focus, that's called the "give and take of conversation," it does not in any way imply that Person B misunderstood anything. Usually it implies that they think what Person A said was either too stupid, or they're actually making a different joke because they didn't think it was funny enough.
Good luck finding milk with added hormones in the US!
Every brand in the store, including the cheapest generic brands, have that stupid government label advising that milk without hormones is the same as milk with hormones; right after the label saying that this milk doesn't have added hormones. This has been true for 10+ years on the west coast.
If this sounds [pejorative] to you, it just means you're a [pejorative].
All labeling is this way; if you think the ingredients list is written in the Common Tongue, it means you have no idea what you're shoveling into your face.
Learn to speak Food Label English. Every phrase is technical jargon. Only a small subset of that jargon refers to natural ingredients, the rest refer instead to standards of similarity. The words "chocolate candy" do not contain the phrase "chocolate." That's because they're jargon, and "chocolate candy" is a single identifier, not a compound phrase made from two identifiers, as you apparently thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, none of his pipelines happened. We won the wars, didn't build the pipelines over the mountains. Oil companies wouldn't agree to use them if we built them, it would be stupid, so why are you dragging them in?
If he makes the prediction, and is wrong, and the next time a potential war is in the news he makes the same prediction, still with no information, then yes, that is a lie.
The lie is the part where he claims to have some knowledge about it, and is going to tell you.
If he was only saying he's guessing, and admitted he was wrong last time, then that would be honest. But he doesn't do that.
He never "exposed propaganda," he told you he was exposing propaganda, and you believed him. Then when the events happened, and we found out the truth, we found out he wasn't exposing propaganda, he was just spewing his own political propaganda. But you never did that, you never reconsidered your initial evaluation; you already decided he gave you knowledge, so when actual events refuted it, you didn't even notice.
You could even go back in time, using hindsight, and check: What did he claim, and in the end did he have real reasons to be claiming it? Did he have special secret knowledge about US propaganda? Or not? If not, those are called lies.
I hope he at least gave himself a gold star.
Maybe he was right once, as you say. He's still the world most idiotic geographer.
And no, it isn't "easy to be wrong." When you claim to know the answer, did you? It is easy for him to be wrong every time, because he makes wild hand-wavy assertions of fact when he doesn't actually have facts.
And he still makes the same idiot predictions about everything being about oil, even when he was always wrong in the past.
He's always been wrong about international events involving war. Always. He always predicts that if the US wins the conflict, we'll plunder this and that, force some country to do some stupid thing we've never demanded, and build an idiot's pipeline from the ocean over a mountain. When somebody is predicting a pipeline from Turkey over the fucking Balkans, you should know already that they're a complete idiot who is perfectly happy making predictions about shit they're totally clueless on. Pipelines go downhill to the sea. The only time they go over a mountain is when the nearest ocean has seasonal ice. Then they go to the nearest bit of coast that has a good harbor.
And we never fucking plunder anything, you don't get to plunder, this is not the 1800s; winning a foreign war doesn't even give you control over the natural resources! Civil wars, yeah, the winning side gets control. But occupational wars cost money they don't result in a payday at the end when you auction off the rights to the country's resources; another thing Chomsky has incorrectly predicted again and again.
Also, be advised that while Chomsky won the academic battle you point at, it isn't still believed to be true. LOL Just like, Freud's theories are not still considered to be true. The only field still using Chomsky's language paradigm is computer science, because we can simply assert the paradigms we want, and Chomsky's concept of how language works is very useful for modeling computer instructions. But it isn't actually how the brain processes language. That's been understood for a long time.
It isn't even the linguists defending continued belief in his theories; it is his political followers who want his linguistic theories to be Totally Unquestionably Righteous.
For the same reasons as above, I'm much more afraid of China doing it, because they can use the information for any purpose. And they do.
Here in the USA, the government can only do certain, narrowly defined things. And when it comes to my data, it is really hard for them to use it in a way that harms me. They can't give it out, and they can't use it against me without a bunch of processes where I have substantial rights.
In China you don't even have the right to a lawyer, or to see evidence against you. There are no standards of evidence that restrict what data they can use. They don't need to have a warrant first in order to later use it against you.
If the NSA slurps my data, they didn't have a warrant, and they can't use it against me. They can use it target a missile in Iraq, but here at home they can't even use it to give me a parking ticket.
You could always just break the filter off and smoke it without the cigarette.
Most of the damage from smoking comes in the form of significantly decreased quality of life in the later years. People usually seem otherwise-healthy until they start losing their breath and never get it back.
It takes away an average 3 years of actual life, plus 15 extra years of being sick before you die.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
https://www.arabianbusiness.co...
https://www.albawaba.com/busin...
Qatar also has food subsidies, but they're decreasing them to spend the money getting ready for the World Cup in 2022. But they import 40% of their food from Saudi Arabia, so see above.
You whooshed yourself again?!?!
Do you fucking ever notice that other people contradicted you? Did you know it is possible for them to understand, and still say something different?
You don't have to announce it to the whole world that completely lack "theory of mind" whenever you're confused. You look like a real dumbass waving your hand around like that and making noises.
Isan is semi-arid. They have great farm production on years when they have enough irrigation. But a significant part of that irrigation comes from the Mekong river, and other countries are using it upstream and downstream, so you can't always use it for a second crop.
It is totally normal for production to vary widely from year to year based on rainfall patterns.
In Central Thai they have the opposite problem; some years there is too much flooding for a second crop. Isan has floods too, but they're more localized flash floods below highlands; in Central Thai the main rivers overflow and cover nearly all the farmland for an extended period.
I have cousins in Isan but luckily they're not farmers.
Where I live not even the cheapest brand of generic milk has rBST.
There is probably some place in town that sells one, but you'd have to really go looking for it.
Those people who whine about chemicals, but also don't read the labels on the food they buy, are just hilarious.
Another thing I find hilarious; the labels that the government makes them put on the milk that says "* blah blah its all the same, don't badmouth Saint rBST" simply makes it easier to verify that I'm choosing the one I want without it.
Even food stamps weren't created to prevent hunger, they were created to maintain a market for farmers to sell their products.
Don't presume that just because "preventing hunger" is one of the benefits, that it was also one of the reasons.
Starving people aren't spending money on food, that is the problem that the government regulates to alleviate.
The purpose of food reserves are to protect the food market, not to do piddly shit like protect people's lives.
They are strategic reserves, not reserve charity.
Thailand only even provides a 6th grade education for free to most people. In cities you get up to 8th grade free in many cases. Free high school for poor people requires being a really good student and passing an entrance exam.
The reason they provide a free 6th grade education is that it is required of the Buddhist monks to teach the classes.
They're a developing nation, with mostly-developed cities.
Most farming is still done with manual labor, not with technology; that's the reason they have an easy time meeting EU standards. The standards already included traditional farming practices. They use pesticides and fertilizer, and that's about the only technology they use. Grain silos have stairs, where people carry the sacks to the top and dump them in. Fruits are harvested from trees using poles with baskets on the end.
Food is important in Thailand, but good luck buying fresh vegetables that aren't wilted. They're not industrialized enough to have that. The first two things Thai Americans notice when they get here; traffic is much safer and more orderly, and the food quality is much much higher. They notice the food quality because they buy a lot raw ingredients, and don't usually choose fast food. (They expect low quality food to be 50% hot peppers, that's why American fast food doesn't appeal to them)
Choices don't need to be proven, to you personally, to be beneficial for them to have a right to exist.
It seems obvious that EU standards depend on what the people there want, not on what you want, or what you consider proven. Maybe they're simply concerned about it, and consider concerns to meet the standard for regulation?
Get over yourself, just because you have a big head doesn't mean you know what is or isn't safe.
I'm nearly a cheesivor, but I can't really imagine dying of a dairy shortage. Crying from a dairy shortage, that I can imagine. But dying?!
Without dairy, there might actually be more food available rather than less, because dairy cows take up a lot of pasture that would otherwise be growing high yield crops.
We have a record amount of cheese because NOBODY wants it.
If things are that bad, give it me, I eat that much cheese every week!
It's a matter of national security. Why do you think we need a goddamn wall? The Mexicans will come for our cheese and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Why build a wall for that? We have a cheese surplus, maybe we just need cheese mortars to push them back. Cheaper, and longer range than a wall. Ingenuity is the American Way, not just passive defenses like a stupid boring wall.
Stop "whooshing" yourself.
You're the one who missed the point.
When Person A says something dumb, and Person B says something else dumb that changes the focus, that's called the "give and take of conversation," it does not in any way imply that Person B misunderstood anything. Usually it implies that they think what Person A said was either too stupid, or they're actually making a different joke because they didn't think it was funny enough.
It took me a minute to figure out that you were using the word for Irish moonshine as a nickname for Vodkachest.
Knock it off or I'll start singing Kevin Barry.
I think the USDA 5lb cheese blocks they used to give to poor people is the implied size metric when using length.
To bad with you! You can get them in the sandwich shop.
That's just... really not true. At all.
It is a toy.
Selling it as a food means they don't have to do product safety testing, they just have to use GRAS ingredients.
Children spray it at each other. It is a festive accessory. And it is presumably safer to make a mess with than things not "edible."
That's also why it comes in such bright non-food colors.
Good luck finding milk with added hormones in the US!
Every brand in the store, including the cheapest generic brands, have that stupid government label advising that milk without hormones is the same as milk with hormones; right after the label saying that this milk doesn't have added hormones. This has been true for 10+ years on the west coast.
More likely, we always had good chocolate, it just isn't what mommy bought you. She bought you the Hershey's or the Nestle.
If this sounds [pejorative] to you, it just means you're a [pejorative].
All labeling is this way; if you think the ingredients list is written in the Common Tongue, it means you have no idea what you're shoveling into your face.
Learn to speak Food Label English. Every phrase is technical jargon. Only a small subset of that jargon refers to natural ingredients, the rest refer instead to standards of similarity. The words "chocolate candy" do not contain the phrase "chocolate." That's because they're jargon, and "chocolate candy" is a single identifier, not a compound phrase made from two identifiers, as you apparently thought.