I think I detect a strong whiff of hypocrisy.
I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.
Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.
Yes, the trend was down. That's what I said. The explanation for "the Pause" was that Solar output fell, and that matched the amount the CO2-based warming rose. That's my point above: that Solar changes can be bigger than CO2-driven changes, to judge by the historical data of the past 800,000 years.
Now we have roundabouts. They work even better than traffic lights for most intersections. Far less accidents and a smoother overall traffic flow.
At the cost of massively more real estate. No wonder houses cost so goddamn much in Europe. You're wasting too much space on roundabouts.
That scenario is a figurative asylum to you, why not just put them in actual asylums after a certain period? If it's a sickness, education and work/responsibility conditioning could be a cure. Maybe model them after Job Corps and ROTC, but for adults of all ages with a special sub-program for ex-cons.
I originally was going to make this a snarky comment, but as I continued writing, I realized it wasn't a bad idea. Sure we wouldn't call them "asylums", but people who can't find jobs ever and/or don't want any? That's a sickness. We can and should try to fix that.
I value my privacy. Always have. Seemed like an obvious way to go. But even my professional name only appears on the internet in my linkedin, and in the minutes of a standards committee I worked with. I can't imagine using my name for any forum, or my hobby github work, or whatever.
Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?
The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.
Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.
So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?
If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?
I take your point for the few people working professionally with GitHub instead of the normal case for software devs.
In my case, my professional name isn't my legal name - the latter isn't anywhere on the internet. But to your point, my professional name does indicate my sex, and if I were trying to make a living with open source it would show up in GitHub.
Tax laws are in favor of those that can pay off the politicians the most. All taxes are regressive.
Corporations are doing a fine in paying less in regressive taxes. Why not join them?
Owe a fucking corrupt corporation!?! Are you fucking shitting me?
Private citizens pay the government first before spending their money. Corporate citizens pay the government last after spending their money. The tax laws are in favor of the corporations and not individuals.
So if you used a tethered control cable its not a drone by definition, its not unmanned. Loophole!
First impression: somebody needs to learn about statistics that have more than one predictor variable.
Second impression: despite the lack of appropriate analysis, the differences in figure 5 are big enough to be reasonably clear. It looks like there is discrimination against anybody who has a gendered profile (maybe maintainers don't like pictures?). This discrimination might be slightly greater against outside women, and is fairly likely greater against inside men.
Third impression: the paper and the Slashdot summary have a strong gender bias; they mention only the small and borderline significant anti-female bias while ignoring the more significant anti-male bias and also the much larger anti-(either) gender identifiable bias.
I certainly discriminate, not altogether unconsciously, against people who consistently bring up their favourite sports team in non-sports related situations.
Earth is a beta site.