Comment Re:Global framework of laws (Score -1, Offtopic) 258
BUT BUT BUT Second Amendment! Abortion! Immigration! Black President! Freedom to not bake cakes for gays!
BUT BUT BUT Second Amendment! Abortion! Immigration! Black President! Freedom to not bake cakes for gays!
The populace is hardly indifferent. Look at the mass amount of letters and phone calls and emails sent in during the SOPA and PIPA hearings, or during the FCC "Fast Lane" proposal. I'm sure you've heard the term "bread and circuses" - screwing with the Internet is the modern equivalent of taking away the circuses.
The "mass amount of letters and phone calls" mean absolutely nothing and will in no way stop the lockdown of the Internet. And as long as there are cat pictures on YouTube and Reddit forums for people to vent their 2 minutes hate, and plenty of stuff to buy from Amazon, that's all the "circuses" that most people care about. As long as there's online porn, most people don't care who's listening in, because they think their browser's "incognito" setting is protecting them.
The goose that lays the golden egg that is the internet one day.
That already happened some years ago. The goose was force-fed to make capitalist foie gras and has been turned into a shopping mall. A party-line system of communication where the powerful get to listen in.
At this point, the Internet is nothing but part of the mechanism of control.
If black people really wanted to gain political power through sheer weight of population, increasing their birth rate is really the long way around the problem. (Not to mention that having more children per family would decrease, not increase, their economic power as individuals.)
The effective way to get political power would be for them to collectively pick a state and move to it.
You should not assume that black people believe the only way to gain political power is through the sheer force of population numbers. There's only two Koch brothers, but they gained political power through the sheer force of numbers of dollars in their bank account.
There's more than one way to gain political power, especially in a nation where elections are won by such a small percentage of the population.
These "autonomous car" flacks are really relentless. These stories always show up from an "anonymous reader" always in US prime time, always during the week (never on weekends) and always telling us how "autonomous cars" are going herald in the New Utopia.
There's not even an attempt to include any news in the story, just pure PR.
Even half-drunk and not paying attention I can see the pattern. Look for yourselves.
Uh, no. Here's an actual study: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou.... Note that absent larger than usual rainfall or soil nutrients, nothing happens.
So your turn, Mr Smarty-pants. Where are your citations? Note that you make an incredibly strong claim: that increasing ONLY CO2 increases biomass. And no - hearsay from someone else doesn't count.
Right now, you're just digging that smartest-motherfucker-in-the-room hole deeper and deeper.
That's misleading. The number of abortions compared to pregnancies have been increasing yearly.
Please provide a citation that isn't from one of the anti-abortion websites (who for some reason, never seem to include any citations for the numbers they give, you will notice).
It just isn't so.
This has resulted in the black population growing at a very slow rate, costing blacks political power, influence, and economic success.
Um, you know black birth rates are still higher than white birth rates, right?
You are implying that getting an abortion isn't life changing
... and also that it isn't a bad decision.
The total number of abortions (including in the black community) has been dropping every year since 1980. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.
We now have more black babies being aborted than being born.
That's dopey. You've got to get information from places other than pro-life websites.
But even if you use the numbers cited by the pro-life websites (and cited NO WHERE ELSE), you'll see that live births outnumber abortions by at least 6-1. If you use census data for births, you'll see that it's more like 10-1. And that's if you accept the total number of black abortions the pro-life websites have pulled right outta their ass.
If it were, the tally would have to begin with the massive amount of greenhouse research on the positive effects of CO_2 on plant growth,
Plant growth is almost never CO2 limited outside of the lab.
Anything that raises the cost of electricity and imposes barriers to its cost-effective implementation in the world's poorest countries has the direct and immediate effect of hurting the poorest people of the world far more than all of the "climate change" that has thus far been attributed to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
Even the Chinese are figuring out that the cheapest possible energy production results in living conditions that are worse than no energy production at all.
Smartest motherfucker in the room syndrome, eh?
Do only(1) you only(2) think only(3) it only(4) happens only(5) in tech only(6)?
A professional editor at the New Yorker with decades of editing experience would struggle to formally delineate the differences in those six cases. And just this sentence is just thirteen words, just padded out with just words.
(1) As opposed to other people.
(2) As opposed to thinking other things.
(3) As opposed to vaguely posed alternate anaphors.
(4) As opposed to other places, with a potentially abstract notion of "place".
(5) as opposed to non-tech, broadly posed.
(6) as opposed to non-tech, narrowly posed.
This sentence could have been written more formally (in its narrow, intended meaning) as:
Do you think it happens in tech only(6)?
What happens, though, is that idiomatic elision interferes.
If you just blurt out: "Only in tech!" and roll your eyes, people will get your drift. Moving "only" into the dominant initial position buttresses the fragment as standing for a complete thought.
But if you blurt out: "In tech only!" people will probably go "what about tech only?" or "did you just read that off the back of the Cheetos bag?". It comes across more like a slogan than a complete thought.
But then these habits involving sentence fragments bias word order in longer constructs, and the more idiomatic and less precise word order takes habituated precedence over a word order which poses fewer cognitive burdens.
Linguists don't point this effect out nearly enough. Many weird things about short sentences are rooted in how we handle even shorter sentence fragments. For example, to write convincing dialogue, it helps if every third utterance is five words or less (efficiently laced with derision), because that's how people really talk.
Novice writers often fall into the trap of writing dialogue in a semi-formal dialect of essay-lite, in which everyone involved patiently exchanges full sentences, with never a word skipped/stomped, as if all six participants woke up that morning and inserted large, niobium-plated elocution orbs up their pompous backsides, so as to convene later on best syntactic behaviour.
In real speech in real situations (such as where there's a land grab in flight concerning the social agenda) I figure we're on BSB about 20% of the time, and those fragmentary speech patterns heavily influence how we form larger speech units that are idiomatic to even(1) the least degree.
(1) so little as the least possible; stupid, but remains customary as it pre-announces the tone of the concluding drum beat, as any good musician should.
"It's good to be the president!"
the shoulder of giants
IMHO everything that is being made now has benefitted from so much shoulders(inventors,libraries,schools,...) that no patents are justified anymore
Temperatures have plummeted
SOURCE ?
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
