I could find one for you, were I to feel like it. There's a local goatherd who's currently working the the city park, but who also does backyards, or other places that need a short trim.

Sorry, but Amazon took over the market by operating at a deficit for decades. I've heard that they are still operating at a deficit, which, if true, is frankly amazing. How *do* they stay in business.

When most companies use this policy (pricing below the cost of service) the governments put them out of business. Somehow Amazon is allowed to "prosper". (I'm not sure that proper is the right term if they're actually still operating at a deficit. I know they did for over a decade, as there used to be many financial people commenting about it.)

While that's reasonable circumstantial evidence, I don't know that it couldn't have been done by someone else, and the balance of the opinion seems to be that it, indeed, could be done by someone else.

OTOH, it's not clear who else would have a motive. And, governments not being any more monolithic that corporations, it could quite well have been some department (or actor within a department) acting without any knowledge by the official spokesman, and either with, or without, approval by higher organizational figures. And you can't tell. And that's *assuming* (without proof) that China, in some meaning of the term, was behind the attack.

So were I to guess, I'd guess that it was probably China behind the attack, and the spokesman for China didn't know. But please note that this is a guess with a lot of unverifiable assumptions, and I wouldn't even want to guess how much probability to assign it.

Well, it's actually quite plausible. That doesn't mean you should believe it. Lots of things are believable that aren't true.

The interesting thing is, I can't think of how they could either make it believable that they did it or that they didn't do it. In some things there are no good grounds for having a belief in either (any) direction.

The thing is, all the governments I've paid any attention to lie so often that you would do well to use a roulette wheel to decide HOW they are lying in any particular statement. And "They're telling the truth" would be the 00 slot of the wheel. But belief should occur only when there is reasonably grounded evidence...and then it shouldn't be committed belief, because governments are quite able to fabricate evidence when they find it worth the effort.

...that the slaughter of Sepphoris would have no impact whatsoever on the childhood of Yeshua? That the wounded refugees sheltering in Nazereth would have no impact on him? That childhood memories of a Roman atrocity would have no lasting effect? That the PTSD his family likely suffered made no difference whatsoever?

You also mistake guile in talk of the occupation for peaceful intent - direct threats against the Romans was suicide. Did not Jesus say to sell your cloak and buy a sword? That he came to set 3 against 2, and 2 of 3, father against son, and mother daughter?

I'm not buying it. Reread all you like.

The only thing more annoying than a computer is a computer that tries to be helpful.

It is supposedly written in crude Greek by a student of Paul.

Mark 11:27 clearly has Jesus in the temple with a crowd of his followers, delivering this statement in 12:13, in full view of the centurions of the Antonia fortress which the Romans had physically attached to the temple walls. In order to gain access to the Court of the Gentiles, Jesus would have walked beneath the Roman eagles that had been affixed to the entrances of the temple by Herod (crowned king of Judea by Rome).

The priestly vestments and tools were kept in the Antonia fortress, and given to the high priest only when required.

Rome owned Jerusalem and greater Judea, and expressed no hesitation in demonstrating this fact.

Also, bear in mind that Nazereth was a small town near the larger city of Sepphoris, where Jesus likely worked as a carpenter. Sepphoris was burned to the ground by the Romans in an earlier revolt.

It is highly unlikely that Jesus was ambivalent to the Roman occupation of Judea.

Couple of things: First, I believe you're getting the wrong idea on what I'm doing. I glance at my watch to see the sender, customer down emergencies will be coming from a specific sender. If it's important, I excuse myself from the conversation. I'm not reading emails on my watch, just seeing who the sender is.

Second, the customers are human and understand if there is an emergency that pulls me away from them that it's expected behavior. They know that if it were them with the server down emergency and I were at another customer that I would respond for them in the same way. This behavior is actually in our contracts.

Third: Our customers are businesses that are too small for dedicated IT but too large to have someone's nephew do it. We provide a service where they can have Professional IT services at a price that makes sense. All of our customers know we will respond to their emergencies which may pull us away from another customer the same way we'll respond to another customer's emergency and be pulled away from them. If that means I need to glance at my wrist to filter what is important vs what is not and that is an issue for you as a customer, we're actually okay letting you go as a client. By believing we're being rude by being available for our other customers you don't fit into our business model. We would have to raise our prices for you and lower our quality of service to our other customers.

That's the cold side of your thermodynamic process!

It has certainly been reported as happening multiple times, and, given the known corruption of the police, is quite believable.

OTOH, these weren't police. This was a military base. I've never heard it claimed in that situation (though I'm rather sure it has happened). In most circumstances the guards are quite civil, even when you don't know the procedures. But they are armed and under orders to use such force as is necessary...including lethal force.

It's my expectation that, if the full story ever becomes known, it will turn out to be some sort of drug deal, and that the people leaving were high. It may well turn out that they had the right to be leaving, but that wouldn't give them the right to pass the guard without following procedures.

Two distinct things here:
1) It was a violent assault on a military gatepost, and deserved an armed response. (I question the desireability of lethal, as it's much better if they can answer questions afterwards.)
2) It was not a shootout. Only one side gave evidence of having guns, and I have heard no claim by anyone knowledgeable that the assaulter had guns.

They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo progress toward greater equality

If Tim Cook is so bloody interested in equality, he can give to the poor everything he is paid.

The US was founded on justice, equality before the law . All other forms of equality forced by law are a swindle; they are injustice.

If you're going to do it on a large scale, why use solar cells rather than mirrors and steam engines. You do loose some power in transmission, agreed, but I think steam engines are probably a better approach than solar cells when you start talking about a large system. The problem is reradiation, because space is an excellent insulator, so you're going to need either a huge radiator or a working fluid with a low temperature difference. (You clearly can't void the fluid the way terrestial steam engines do.) Some people talk about a Stirling engine, but because of the heat loss problem I don't think that would work. Water is good in many ways, but heavy. Perhaps ammonia would be better.

And there's also the question of who benefits? If the main goal is to be able to transmit power to other sattelites in orbit this can be a reasonable thing, and might even be reasonable with solar cells. If you're doing it for customers on earth, you need a geostationary orbit, which means huge transmission problems, or a fairly low orbit which means huge alignment problems, and the need for several power sattelites. (The transmission problems, though lower, are still large.)

10% is a HUGE number in this kind of situation. It would probably be safer to do it over a decade at 1%/year decrease, but that would probably get cancelled (if it ever happened in the first place) before it ever went to completion. Huge changes like that are economically dangerous, and should ideally be done slowly. The problem is if you try to do them slowly, those who don't like them have time to get them cancelled before they happen (which is easier than either reinsating them or maintaining control over the entire decade).

The whole system is designed for the benefit of those currently powerful. (Well, actually those who were powerful during the last several decades, but that changes slowly enough that mostly they are the same people.)

Sorry, my "his" referred to the "GGP", but your "his" referred to the "GGGP". The guy talking about sewers blackflowing was, as you read, talking about sea level rise. An answering post explained that it was due to land subsidence due to draining the aquifers. (And I may have the number of intervening posts incorrect in my GG..P nomenclature, but I *do* have the order correct.)

And so far the sea level rise is measured in inches, which is only significant in unusual events...such as when a hurricane passes by. Or a Tsunami. Or... well, other really unusual things, not things like tides.