I am very much in support of Britain leaving the EU. Later, if and when Scotland gains independence, I would be happy to see them join. But britain, with their retrograde social policies like expensive higher education, weakening unions etc. should stay the fuck away from the Western world.
Let's say you, Sam, own a large farm. And somewhere on that farm, coincidentally, is a large deposit of naturally-occurring "Roundup". As long as it stays where it is, everything is fine. But if it got into your fields, your crops would mostly die.
You have several neighbors, many of whom are basically friendly to you. You also have one neighbor who also has fields, who directly competes with you. His name is Russel.
You and Russel both know that using Roundup on each other could kill each other's crops. So you have a mutual agreement to never use Roundup... but just in case the other guy does, you build up a pretty big reserve to use in retaliation. Just in case.
That pretty much describes the "cold war". And it wasn't irrational. It was stressful but it did work.
Now along comes some insane manager of your farm, who decides Russel isn't so bad after all. You, the owner (The People) know better, but that's the line your "manager" (President) is selling you.
Question: even though you are not actively in conflict, do you sell shares in your Roundup mine to Russel? Especially when you know he will in turn sell it to other neighbors who are even less friendly?
It would be IRRATIONAL to do so. It would be BETRAYING your farm and your family.
But that's just exactly what the Clinton Foundation helped do.
It's not fucking rocket science. Nor is it paranoia.
they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world
But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? (I did read the paper, by the way.)
The models havenâ(TM)t predicted one thing, in 30+ years.
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850?
No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that.
In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture.
Yes, indeed. If you should ever start actually using "all the available data", and were honest with yourself, I think you might start softening your tone.
Java anon classes aren't quite the same because of the lack of "var" or similar - so you can implement interface members or override base class members, but you cannot introduce new members that can then be referenced outside of that object.
OTOH, C# anon classes don't support base types...
Now OS/2 I'll grant you, IBM fumbled hard on that one...
People wanted backwards compatibility.
So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why? Of course, there is a clue: PNAC, or the Project for the New American Century [wikipedia.org]. PNAC released a Statement of Principles [wikipedia.org] in 1997 calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein [wikipedia.org]. It was signed by Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all ended up working for the Bush administration. One would almost think that they used 9/11 as an excuse and made up a bunch of crap to make it happen.
Sounds like you have the answer to your question.
I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient.
It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not.
I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view.
I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect?
You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850?
Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that society can and should take care of everyone. The libertarian philosophy is that everyone should only be required to take care of themselves. From an antagonist perspective, liberals have their heads in the clouds, and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.
No, like so many others you mischaracterize what Libertarians are all about.
Regardless, the Tragedy of the Commons stemmed from a socialist "commons" policy... nothing even remotely Libertarian. In a Libertarian society such commons would scarcely if ever exist, and if any did, no party would be allowed to exploit them at the expense of others.
I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.
The first thing to note is that you are confirming my own comment, to a rather laughable degree.
The second thing is: you prove your ignorance by speaking of "conservative libertarians". There is no such animal. There are libertarian-leaning conservatives, but it does not work the other way around.
As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.
And maybe you should learn something about people you are speaking to before assuming they are just repeating media talking points. In fact I was speaking strictly from personal experience, much of it gleaned from right here on Slashdot. From comments like yours.
The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states:
Yep. Because people are sick and tired of "Progressive" liberals and their provably failed policies. I mean not just failing now, but that have historically failed, for many decades.
But on the other hand, the largest single voting bloc (>40%) are people who identify themselves as "independent" or "libertarian". In other words, not members or followers of either of the "Big 2" parties.
Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK,
How do you know? Again you confirm my original comment by conflating libertarians with conservatives (a false notion), and then go further to suggest that YOU HAVE EVER SEEN A LIBERTARIAN POLICY. That's a hoot.
Is there actually a way for US businesses to prevent themselves from hostile takeover?
Yes, the only reason hostile takeovers work is when the management doesn't own the company because they've sold the company through public stock. Then someone can buy all the stock (or, a controlling share) and they own the company.
In the case of Paradox Entertainment, the stock is not publicly traded, and the CEO owns a controlling share (of the private stock).
In fact 'EA' is the only thing that really needs to be said here, that's why Sim City failed.