Comment Because of the source (Score 0) 171
Maybe, just maybe, because James O'Keefe has a near decade long history (eg, the ACORN smear in 2009) of distorting at his best and being a deceitful liar at his worst?
Obviously Fukushima wasn't fully man-made like Chernobyl, but resulted from natural disaster + security neglect (eg, backup power design).
Besides, the Japanese said the same before 2011.
The figure of "just a few thousand" as given by the WHO for Chernobyl ignores the huge uncertainties given by the nature of radiation exposure, and is not least thanks to an 56 year old agreement with the IAEA that provides the latter with "an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power".
(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/com... )
Any chance we get to find out when Intel considers an increase in cores for these product segments?
Because rather than a rather minuscule performance increase (compared to the hardware from 1-2 gens prior), that could actually make for a worthwhile reason to buy.
Which then poses the question... just how is this any different, let alone superior to Linux's PaX patchset - which offers ASLR since 2000 - or even grsecurity?
Areva also measured the carbon content of a central core sample taken from this vessel head, which revealed a higher than expected carbon content (0.30% as opposed to a target value of 0.22%)."
From the report on the French regulator's own website: http://www.french-nuclear-safe...
An Asus Strix GTX 970
Only buy that if your mATX / mITX case takes cards with that extra height. Quite a few don't and the Asus (Asus.com: "14 cm", the MSI GTX 970 GAMING is at 141 mm) will collide with the PSU.
In that situation, go eg. for a Palit GTX 970 JetStream. It trades the height for width, meaning you'll lose a PCIe slot, but at least it'll fit.
Side note: A 1050w PSU is entirely overpowered, you won't need more than 600w or even 500w for such a setup. I'd suggest the Enermax Platimax 600w as an alternative.
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
And you omitted that little fact that this claim came in the Security Council meeting on June 5, the day the war actually started, or about three weeks after the 15th.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
A total movement of 100,000 troops and hundreds of tanks outside of war, together with a multitude of other belligerent actions (again, eg. expelling the UN, closing the Straits) — no, it had not done that. Moreover, prior to the later 70s, Israel by no means was "the most powerful" military force — sure, it always had the superior and more competent personnel, but material-wise it was absolutely outgunned, which without decisive maneuvers (heavily relying on surprise, like to destroy the entire Egyptian air force on the ground) could have readily resulted in its defeat — as Egypt and Syria would show in 1973: That war could have easily resulted in their (partial) military victory had Egypt not made the idiotic decision to step outside of its SAM umbrella and Syria similarly not run out of such missiles.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
One notices how you shifted the topic from Israel's rationale to who started the war, and how you quietly dropped that "assembling for some time" claim — "whoopsie doopsie" indeed. Moreover, fog of war almost always leads to misreadings of the situation, particularly in a country that remembers how all of its neighbors invaded the day after its declaration of independence.
Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.
Yeah, like when it returned the Sinai in exchange for a proper peace deal with Egypt years later, or how it emphatically urged Jordan to stay out of the 1967 war — which joined the fray after falling for Egypt's lies about fantastic military victories.
Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.
Hear, hear!
That spark — the claim that Israel had been massing troops near the Syrian border — was a Soviet lie, and everybody knew it. The Egyptian chief of staff personally inspected that border, the Syrians themselves sent reconnaissance planes. They found nothing and discarded the claim. Eshkol even suggested to the Soviet ambassador to jointly inspect the Israeli side of the border — he declined.
Neither in Israel nor Syria did foreign press report any mobilization, which on any larger scale would have been absolutely unconcealable.
Yet on the 15th May — Israel's Day of Independence — Nasser announced a military emergency and started to sent the first two armored divisions into Sinai.
Nasser expelled the UN troops on the 16th May. Israel started partial mobilization only on that same day, full on the 19th.
By the 17th, Egypt ordered its armed forces to take up battle positions in Sinai.
By then three Egyptian divisions with more than 600 tanks had began fanning out through it. Damascus was simultaneously mobilizing 50 cadet battalions, Iraqi brigades were moving towards their Jordanian border. Kuwait, Yemen and Algeria announced readiness to dispatch troops and planes.
(Ultimately it would be 1,300 Israeli tanks vs 2,500 Arab ones, 746 artillery vs 2,780, 247 fighter jets vs 557, etc.)
As late as on the 20th, Israelis tried to get De Gaulle mediate with the Soviets, and requested Washington to make good on Eisenhower's 1957 declaration to demonstratively send a warship through Tiran — no response was forthcoming.
His successor Sadat would later recall Nasser's own words: "Now, with the concentration of our force in Sinai the chances of war are fifty-fifty but if we close the Straits, war will be a 100 per cent certain."
Nasser would close said straits, recognized in 1957 by the maritime nations as international waterway, to Israeli shipping on the 22th.
In a speech before unionists on the 26th, Nasser would boast: "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
No Israeli PM would ever say anything like this.
Nor would Israeli troops ever publicly march through Tel Aviv chanting "We are off to Cairo."
It will encourage people to have more sex without effective protection (ie. condoms) if they falsely believe that circumcision already covers them — particularly women seem to believe in circumcision as some sort of wonder weapon against esp. HPV. Add a bit of alcohol and the bareback with the handsome circumcised stranger recently met doesn't appear just that dangerous anymore.
Same thing (risk compensation) happens in Africa with circumcision against HIV: Whatever little benefit there may be for men is eaten up by enough mislead behavior of those falsely convinced to now somehow wear an "invisible condom".
Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?
