Comment Cadbury makes chocolate? (Score 1) 161
Who knew! I thought Cadbury just made disgusting sugar laden junk food.
Who knew! I thought Cadbury just made disgusting sugar laden junk food.
So let me say this first: If you've met an Aspie and dismissed the condition because that person "seemed fine", then please consider that what you didn't see was the countless hours of practice and stress and anxiety of being able to pretend to be that way; the habitual exhaustion from the effort of doing so; the depression and abysmal self-esteem from never, never understanding the people around you or being able to tell whether people actually like you or not.
That's not a psychological condition, it's the human condition. And if, as an "Aspie", you deal with it by trying to figure it out intellectually instead of succumbing to alcohol, drugs, obesity, wild sex, or other self-destructive behavior, you're ahead of most other humans on this planet.
Unfortunately, decreasing the number of people said to have a condition is a good way to decrease its funding chances in the government subsidies to researchers.
When it comes to "curing" harmless behavioral differences, I consider that a good thing.
You still have provided no scientific support or argument for your two main claims: the possibility of a +10C temperature rise, and the possibility of an "extinction level event".
Neither the pamphlet nor the book you point to are credible scientific sources. The pamphlet bases many of its conclusions on the opinions of a few people and press articles, and the book is not a "meta study", it's a popular science book by an environmental activist with an agenda.
The government can do applied research without becoming a totalitarian state.
Yes, it can. I think it's a good thing when government pays for research.
What I object to is your repeated statements that that is the only way we could have gotten those technologies. That's not only unreasonable, it's historically wrong.
The problem isn't government, it's you and people like you.
True, demanding something doesn't guarantee you get it. On the other hand, *not* demanding something *does* guarantee you won't get it.
That's true in planned economies like the Soviet Union. In market economies, you don't have to demand things to have your needs met.
If nobody in the government demanded a satellite based navigation system, there wouldn't be GPS. If nobody in the government demanded a robust, survivable way of transporting data packets between heterogeneous networks, there wouldn't be the Internet. If nobody in the government demanded a way of automating a wide variety of computations, the computer as we know it wouldn't exist.
You're thinking like a good little totalitarian and fascist.
You don't understand. Chu is part of the government elite now. He used to have to obey the laws of physics, but these days, he just needs to snap his fingers and the universe bends to his will.
The maximum theoretical potential of advanced lithium-ion batteries that haven't yet been demonstrated to work is still only about 6 percent of crude oil."
I won't lie: any day one of these child porn scumbags is caught is a good day.
Production of child pornography should obviously be illegal because it clearly harms the children involved. And distribution of illegally produced material should also be illegal.
But it is not reasonable to throw people in jail merely for web searches. Some people who search for child pornography do so because they watch it, and some people who watch child pornography go on to harm children. But making such reasoning the basis of law is a bad legal principle.
There's no sudden change anywhere in my arguments.
... +10C in a bit over 80 years would be an extinction level event. We *might* survive it, but it's very far from certain.
That's the problem: you are not making an argument at all, you're simply repeating your claims ad nauseam.
Please note that the +10C in ~88 years is not my prediction, it's set forth as a new possible worst case scenario after several indicators points to reaching the +2C goal
My guess is that you misinterpreted a recently published MIT climate model study, but since you are just picking numbers out of thin air, it's impossible to tell.
Given the timescales involved in the Eocene optimum, I have no doubt we would find a technological solution to the problem
There is no technological solution needed. Compared to 20000 years ago, we have had a +10C temperature increase and a 120m rise in sea levels. Are we reduced to cowering under plastic domes eating hydroponic food? Entire civilizations were wiped off the face of the earth and most people don't even remember. So why should another +10C and another 70m, even if they could occur, be any different?
however it might put a strain on our society past it's capacity to withstand, causing widespread hunger, wars and significant reduction of the population
It may, or it may not, but those are normal human conditions, not "extinction level events". My parents lived through the destruction of their country and massive refugee crises. People pick up the pieces, rebuild, adapt, and get on with their lives.
There are many waterproof Android phones on the market worldwide. The problem is that US carriers are so restrictive and have such a small selection.
Why would Apple be in trouble? They'll copy Samsung and Sony's phones, they'll patent the rectangular version of it, market the hell out of it, and finally sue everybody for stealing Apple's innovation. Apple has been getting away with that for thirty years.
Is it really so hard to look this up on Wikipedia yourself?
The study excludes suggestions of rapid melting: "Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies. What’s more, snowfall in east Antarctica still seems to be compensating for some — but not all — of the melting elsewhere in Antarctica." It generally just seems to confirm what people had been assuming was happening anyway: a modest amount of melting in response to increasing temperatures. Note that melting from ice sheets only accounts for 20% of total sea level rise.
The search engine "obviously" tries to use its own users for lobbying interests "under the pretext of a so-called project for the freedom of the Internet", wrote Günter Krings and Ansgar Heveling, politicians of the CDU and CSU conservative parties, who together form the biggest block in the German parliament."
As opposed to... the German press and publishers, who have been abusing their position to misinform and manipulate public opinion for their own financial gain for decades.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
