Nuclear fans say weirder shit than the Flat-Earthers. Sometimes I wonder if Nuclear Advocacy is just a performance art, or if some of you actually believe that shit.
You're one of these people who pretend both to have knowledge, and to not have any knowledge, at the same time.
Which is it? Do you know something about mergers and acquisitions, or not? Do you know if your words are exceptions that easily prove the rule, for example?
Setting up a straw man is bad enough, but do you have to be so weak and wishy-washy about it? I'd think when you're working with a pure straw man you could at least come to a powerful conclusion.
And the obvious question is, can a Chinese person create their own US company, and compete with Whirlpool here? Yes. Yes they can. Can a US person do that in China? No. No they cannot.
That does not square with the storms being worse, though.
If everything was the same value/cost as in the past, wouldn't stronger average hurricanes equal greater damage?
Sounds like somebody derp'd and hand-waved right past the math they were leaning on.
Your main mistake, and a common one, was that you didn't figure out what the article was about. You read the headline, and the headline was phrased in such a way that it matched your prejudices, and so you assumed that the content supported whatever claims you might make.
What that article actually says is that global GDP went up, and so (predictably) did the value of infrastructure damaged in disasters; and that if you do the chart showing cost of damage in dollars, it trends up, and if you do the same thing with the chart in percent of GDP, it trends down.
That tells you fucking nothing about how much the increased severity of storms costs. And it doesn't even try to. It merely is showing that you shouldn't rush to judgment about the causes of a trend line going up or down, or just point at charts and say "climate change." But you didn't understand that message at all, and instead, you fucking pointed at it and said, "see, not climate change." Fucking moron! If the lesson says "X is not the correct answer here," that does not imply that the answer is -X.
When they talk about "State's Rights" and confuse your poor helpless little brain with their propaganda, what they meant was that they wanted their laws from south to apply in other State's. They didn't mean they wanted the state of Georgia to choose the rules in the State of Georgia, what they meant was that when they traveled to a different State, or to a Federal Territory, they wanted Georgia laws to somehow still apply to that traveler, instead of the local laws in the place they they were visiting.
That's an obviously not-workable policy, but it is what popped up out of their politics in the actual past. The North said no, because obviously the State you're in is the State who has the right to determine the local law. And no fucking way that the North was going to let you bring slaves with you on a business trip to a non-slave State. That's just absurd. But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
The only fight to preserve a threatened culture was that hundreds of thousands of volunteers fought to preserve the United States. And won.
In the United States, you can't discriminate against a US person or a US company based on country of origin.
That is one of the things involved in the trade dispute; anybody in the world can open a US company, or buy one, but Americans can't open a branch in China and do business there without creating a joint partnership.
That is clearly imbalanced and unfair. Personally, I think it is silly to fight a trade war over it; it would be better for a President to fight a legislative war with Congress over the rules, and try to get them to establish parity-based rules for foreign access to our markets. But Trump wants to fight a trade war over, so that is what we're doing. But clearly, under existing law, you can't give aid to US companies with conditions attached to country of origin of the owners.
And that's actually fine for the trade war, because only a tiny number of US ag. business is Chinese owned.
Everybody wants to buy US bonds, you don't need China for that. Their desire for purchases only cause the market to be less profitable for everybody buying. It doesn't even affect the US government.
You wave your hands about a genie and a bottle, but the actual situation is merely that it would take time to ramp US production back up, and time for inventories to build to desired levels? There is no fucking genie in or out of your bottle, the situation has no genie.
Supply chains are not magic. They are not powered by genies.
Even with something like a 100-person 737, this would still work fine
Right, if you rent a plane and configure the whole thing as first class, everybody will be so happy with the legroom they won't complain much about the seating arrangement.
The funny thing is, if you're shooting with an SLR at f5 or something getting nice bokeh and you decide to take a selfie, you probably go to f22 to get the background.
There is a lot more to image quality than the aperture.
You seem to be saying that you know that you responded to specific details about technique with beginner generalizations. Is that useful?
Stop waving your hands; what are those reasons that you'd want a selfie and not care about the background? Hint: Those aren't actually selfies, those are shots of professional models taken by the model, or taken so that they appear to be taken by the model.
When you take a family snapshot, it is a family snapshot not a selfie. The background is the important part, because it records the shared activity that the photo serves as a memory aid for. Simply showing that you're together you only need to do once a year, or when people's looks change; additional shots of that don't have value. And it won't matter what perspective you use for the shot.
I also take lots of useless, excess shots. But I don't then decide that they must be important just because I took them.
In a lot of businesses, whatever VBScript they have is their most important tools. The code probably sucks, but it doesn't matter because it isn't customer-facing.
Stop demanding that fry cooks prove that they're demonstrably blah-blah and just hire a few and see who can dip the fries into the oil for the correct amount of time, and who wanders off to look at their phone.
Slashdot Mirror
What if it turns out that those hippy electrons power lights just as well as the dirty ones? What then?
No, I remember how PETA made it unpopular to wear fur among people who agree with them.
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...
This says demand and sales continue to rise.
Hating on shit isn't a plan for success. You'd need a plan to make people want to live in high-rise condos.
For example, if you give their job away to a robot, they might beg you for a cubicle in a high-rise.
But me nukular! Thur takin mu nukular! Me Precious! Me Precious!!!
FREEZE PEACH!!!
Nuclear fans say weirder shit than the Flat-Earthers. Sometimes I wonder if Nuclear Advocacy is just a performance art, or if some of you actually believe that shit.
Udder Lubrication Authority, the magazine for authoritarian dairymen.
You're one of these people who pretend both to have knowledge, and to not have any knowledge, at the same time.
Which is it? Do you know something about mergers and acquisitions, or not? Do you know if your words are exceptions that easily prove the rule, for example?
Setting up a straw man is bad enough, but do you have to be so weak and wishy-washy about it? I'd think when you're working with a pure straw man you could at least come to a powerful conclusion.
And the obvious question is, can a Chinese person create their own US company, and compete with Whirlpool here? Yes. Yes they can. Can a US person do that in China? No. No they cannot.
Or unplug their internet.
That does not square with the storms being worse, though.
If everything was the same value/cost as in the past, wouldn't stronger average hurricanes equal greater damage?
Sounds like somebody derp'd and hand-waved right past the math they were leaning on.
Your main mistake, and a common one, was that you didn't figure out what the article was about. You read the headline, and the headline was phrased in such a way that it matched your prejudices, and so you assumed that the content supported whatever claims you might make.
What that article actually says is that global GDP went up, and so (predictably) did the value of infrastructure damaged in disasters; and that if you do the chart showing cost of damage in dollars, it trends up, and if you do the same thing with the chart in percent of GDP, it trends down.
That tells you fucking nothing about how much the increased severity of storms costs. And it doesn't even try to. It merely is showing that you shouldn't rush to judgment about the causes of a trend line going up or down, or just point at charts and say "climate change." But you didn't understand that message at all, and instead, you fucking pointed at it and said, "see, not climate change." Fucking moron! If the lesson says "X is not the correct answer here," that does not imply that the answer is -X.
When they talk about "State's Rights" and confuse your poor helpless little brain with their propaganda, what they meant was that they wanted their laws from south to apply in other State's. They didn't mean they wanted the state of Georgia to choose the rules in the State of Georgia, what they meant was that when they traveled to a different State, or to a Federal Territory, they wanted Georgia laws to somehow still apply to that traveler, instead of the local laws in the place they they were visiting.
That's an obviously not-workable policy, but it is what popped up out of their politics in the actual past. The North said no, because obviously the State you're in is the State who has the right to determine the local law. And no fucking way that the North was going to let you bring slaves with you on a business trip to a non-slave State. That's just absurd. But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
The only fight to preserve a threatened culture was that hundreds of thousands of volunteers fought to preserve the United States. And won.
In the United States, you can't discriminate against a US person or a US company based on country of origin.
That is one of the things involved in the trade dispute; anybody in the world can open a US company, or buy one, but Americans can't open a branch in China and do business there without creating a joint partnership.
That is clearly imbalanced and unfair. Personally, I think it is silly to fight a trade war over it; it would be better for a President to fight a legislative war with Congress over the rules, and try to get them to establish parity-based rules for foreign access to our markets. But Trump wants to fight a trade war over, so that is what we're doing. But clearly, under existing law, you can't give aid to US companies with conditions attached to country of origin of the owners.
And that's actually fine for the trade war, because only a tiny number of US ag. business is Chinese owned.
Everybody wants to buy US bonds, you don't need China for that. Their desire for purchases only cause the market to be less profitable for everybody buying. It doesn't even affect the US government.
You wave your hands about a genie and a bottle, but the actual situation is merely that it would take time to ramp US production back up, and time for inventories to build to desired levels? There is no fucking genie in or out of your bottle, the situation has no genie.
Supply chains are not magic. They are not powered by genies.
Now there is a brilliant product idea! Giant Virus Snuff! "Are You Man Enough, Bro?"
When you pass a regulation that says so, or win a lawsuit accusing it of being so.
Never before one of those happens.
No, AI is a list of specific algorithm families.
If THAT isn't AI, I don't know what is.
Correct. That isn't AI, and that does indeed imply you don't know what it means.
The words you were looking for might have been "software algorithm."
You're sitting there surrounded by a bunch of strangers. There will be smells.
Even with something like a 100-person 737, this would still work fine
Right, if you rent a plane and configure the whole thing as first class, everybody will be so happy with the legroom they won't complain much about the seating arrangement.
The funny thing is, if you're shooting with an SLR at f5 or something getting nice bokeh and you decide to take a selfie, you probably go to f22 to get the background.
There is a lot more to image quality than the aperture.
You seem to be saying that you know that you responded to specific details about technique with beginner generalizations. Is that useful?
Stop waving your hands; what are those reasons that you'd want a selfie and not care about the background? Hint: Those aren't actually selfies, those are shots of professional models taken by the model, or taken so that they appear to be taken by the model.
When you take a family snapshot, it is a family snapshot not a selfie. The background is the important part, because it records the shared activity that the photo serves as a memory aid for. Simply showing that you're together you only need to do once a year, or when people's looks change; additional shots of that don't have value. And it won't matter what perspective you use for the shot.
I also take lots of useless, excess shots. But I don't then decide that they must be important just because I took them.
In a lot of businesses, whatever VBScript they have is their most important tools. The code probably sucks, but it doesn't matter because it isn't customer-facing.
Stop demanding that fry cooks prove that they're demonstrably blah-blah and just hire a few and see who can dip the fries into the oil for the correct amount of time, and who wanders off to look at their phone.
why on Earth would a microscopic organism ever be described as giant?
Relativity.
We already knew that, haven't you read The Green Brain by Frank Herbert?
You think this is exciting, wait for the next stage of development.
Warning: Do Not Read John Varley, your head might explode.
Always.
You should always invest in new door locks and reinforced windows.
If you don't believe me, see the youtube channel lockpickinglawyer
They find these on public telephones. You should always use hand sanitizer
Yeah, you wouldn't want any algae growths on your hand to get sick when you make a phone call.
Or worse, your hand bacteria could get a cold! Then you'd need gloves, or something.
Think of the little ones!
Oh, wait; about that hand sanitizer...