Comment Re:Redefine what "is" is (Score 1) 109
Now you are mixing things up, more specifically, sulfur dioxide (which is a pollutant) and rain (which is not) to get acid rain.
Now you are mixing things up, more specifically, sulfur dioxide (which is a pollutant) and rain (which is not) to get acid rain.
Indeed a very important lesson that most people don't have a clue what the debate is about.
Care to provide a reference that a majority agree on irreversible climate change? I doubt that. Please prove me wrong by providing a reference that supports this statement.
That is fantastic. Temperature variations in Antarctica span about 100 degrees, ranging from a low -90 in the winter to about +10 in the coastal areas during the summer and overcast conditions.Considering the range, it's quite extraordinary that less that one degree of change can wreak havoc in the lives of emperor penguins. One must wonder how they survive any temperature change at all if a barely measurable shift over a century in duration can have such a dramatic effect. It is even more strange that these emperor penguins have trouble with increasing temperatures as Antarctic average temperature has dropped slightly over the last half century, even setting a new record low of -93C (satellite measurements) quite recently (2010). This makes you wonder how much BS people can take before they say, ENOUGH!
For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes.
That's probably a non-starter.
I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.
Your attempt to confuse here isn't really helpful.
Google does *sell* Google Glass and Nexus phones and tablets and Chromecast and Nest and soon Dropcams and probably more. They are "Google products" branded and sold by Google as theirs.
Mozilla only has one device that it works on directly, the Firefox OS Flame reference phone. The rest of the hardware you see out there is being made and sold by someone else.
And that's not just true of the hardware. Much of the work going on to extend Firefox OS software into areas outside of phones is being done by third parties for their products.
Mozilla doesn't build hardware. We make software, including Firefox OS. Firefox OS is a completely open platform freely available for any company to build on top of without restriction. There are dozens of companies building Firefox OS-based products today and there will be more tomorrow, covering mobile phones, tablets, TVs, set top boxes, game consoles, streaming dongles, wearables, and more. Some of those companies are working directly with Mozilla and others are taking the code and running with it on their own.
Since you've already made up your mind to be 100% wrong about your analysis of global warming, its threats, and its monumental external costs, there's no point in discussing it with you.
Most of the environmental issues from Coal have effectively been eliminated, except for the perceived C02 emission standard,
So, other than spewing the single largest existing threat to the welfare of human civilization, coal is just fine.
Meanwhile, by your arguments, the problem of setting up a recycling center for solar panels appears to be an intractible dilemma.
the Dorado machines have some very unusual characteristics such as 9-bit bytes
Now I'm picturing Nigel in front of a rack of Unisys machines:
"These go to nine bits."
Do not forget that ObamaCare was rammed through without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.
It's the unfortunate case that Republicans don't generally support Democratic bills. Witness the recent student loan bill. There is not much question that a better educated populance means a better economy and a stronger nation. It's a truism that we could just pay for college education in a number of fields and reap economic benefits of many times the spending. Indeed, we used to do more of that and the country was stronger when we did.
You meant "you wouldn't approve" rather than "you wouldn't understand".
Positioned correctly, it isn't all that socially reprehensible to state the sentiment that you don't believe you should pay for people who drive their motorcycle without helmets, people who self-administer addictive and destructive drugs, people who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes or unprotected casual sex with strangers, and people who go climbing without using all of the safety equipment they could.
You don't really even need to get into whether you hold human life sacred, etc., to get that argument across. It's mostly just an economic argument, you believe yourself to be sensible and don't want to pay for people who aren't.
The ironic thing about this is that it translates to "I don't want to pay for the self-inflicted downfall of the people who exercise the libertarian rights I deeply believe they should have."
OK, not a bad position as far as it goes. Now, tell me how we should judge each case, once these people present themselves for medical care, and what we should do if they don't meet the standard.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger