That's not what your quote says. It says 7%-17% percent overall, with up to 54% of individual watersheds. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that they were studying in an area that had any significant reduction in the watershed, and no evidence to substantiate that a reduction of that magnitude would have the effect of reducing the insect population by between 75% and 87.5%.

Also from what I read of the report you linked, the water diversion happens between the rain forest and the ocean. That's after it left the area they were studying, which leads me to wonder if it even matters at all. Really, you seem to desperately grasping at straws. Personally, I think the scientists, who had previously studied the insect population in the rain forest, would have noticed if it was now dried out to the point that the majority of insects can no longer survive.

Well, the evidence suggests that you're probably wrong about the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period being hotter and longer than the current warming.

Or, I guess you could ignore the evidence and invent your own explanations...

The last residential school closed in 1996. So yeah, since the residential schools were treating them as (or more) savagely as they would have been treated 300 years ago, it is "Whitey's fault". The rest of the world progressed a bit in those years. If you pulled your head out your ass you might have been able to notice that too.

I wonder if you are aware that the survival rate for residential school students was lower than the survival rate for World War I or World War II veterans? Those kids would have been safer being sent to fight in the world's deadliest wars, and you want to laugh it off, like it was no big deal.

And?

I don't think you grasped the point. Regardless of the jokes about Fiorina, you have claimed repeated that Fiorina is a value creator because she has money, when her track record is destroying value. The point then, is that having money has little relation to whether you create or destroy value. In fact, much of the money of the very wealthy is completely unearned by those who possess it and much of their income is derived from already having money. Economically speaking they accumulate additional wealth by extracting ownership rents from actual productive activity in which they frequently play no part what-so-ever. They get paid dividends and accumulate capital gains, and their personal financier shifts the money around from time to time to maximize the capitalist rents their boss is accumulating. They are owners and they don't actually have to do anything at all to earn additional wealth.

They're doing "nothing" that you attach a value to, which is different from nothing of value. Most likely, they attach at least the value of the wage they would have been earning as a maid or gardener to the whatever they would be doing instead of working. Maybe they're raising their kids, instead of being absentee parents? Maybe they're studying to get their certifications so they can go back to being an engineer or nurse? Maybe they're learning a trade or skills to get a better job where they don't have to waste their lives in a menial job. Just because you can't assign a dollar and cents value to what they're doing doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

About 97%, give or take 3%. I mean it's like you know nothing about the history of taxation in the United States.

Interestingly enough according to your numbers, if the average worker is paying an extra $1,200 per month in taxes, they're also receiving an additional $1,250 per month from the UBI. Anyone at the average or bellow is getting a net benefit, using your numbers.

This is actually true, only about 15-20% of CEOs are sociopaths. It's one of the highest job rates, but it's by no means a majority. I've worked for at least 2 sociopaths, though.

Nah, he doesn't even want to roll over. He just wants to claim he's the victim and it's the system is keeping him down. Just another temporarily-embarrassed millionaire with delusions of adequacy.

So? People with guns will come for you (at least in theory) if you steal anything. Hell, you're probably American, so in your country, people with guns might come for you if you just copy something without the proper permission.

Now, I don't know about your job, but I filled out a form telling my employer to send a percentage of my pay check to the government so that I wouldn't have to worry about saving enough to pay the entire bill at tax time. So if your job is anything like mine, the government's not taking it before you get it, your employer is giving a percentage of your pay to the government, based on a form that you filled out when you started your job. Your employer is doing it because it's easier for everyone if they help you pay your taxes in installments over the year instead of simply letting you trying to manage the entire bill at tax time, and they are doing so because you authorized them to do so.

I sincerely doubt that you could, you seem generally incompetent and poorly informed.

Maybe I expect to much from other people, but that was how I actually parsed the title. It's not the competitors that's the problem, it's the content access restrictions inherent in the exclusivity deal being spread across all those competitors. It would actually be nice if the majority of third-party content was available on each of the competitors and the competitors would compete on service and in-house content exclusives, instead of mostly competing on who has the right to show what 3rd party content.

Disney, for example, should stay out of the streaming business and license their content to every single one of the streaming services that are willing to pay whatever price they decide to put on their content.

But only for a limited time. If you don't act fast you'll soon need two devices for each user. After all, why should they let you watch with both eyes for one low price? You're practically robbing them.

Oh wow. I actually did not expect you to call your own response childish. It's good to know that even you think you are a joke.

It's amusing that you blame your inability to understand my response on me. It's just not that complicated. Unfortunately, your responses illustrate how limited both your understanding and sense of humor are. Here's a hint, I was poking a little fun at your ridiculous claims and your response is you claim I'm on drugs, which is actually hilarious, since my original response implied that you were either on drugs or needed to be back on them. But, I absolutely love how you discredit yourself with every response you make.

You really love moving the goalposts don't you? Why don't you tell everyone what unlimited immigration is and why you think it's a problem, since you brought it up.

That's good advice. You should consider taking it.