Got a call from "Microsoft" a little while back. The original caller informed me my PC was in trouble and then transferred me to my Scandinavian representative, Mr Gundersen (I kid you not). Mr Gunderson spoke English with a heavy Indian accent (why he didn't speak any of the Scandinavian languages was never explained). Anyway, me, being a really dumb user, took a long time to accomplish what Mr. Gundersen wanted me to do: download and install TeamViewer.
After a good hour I finally "managed to install TV" so Mr. Gundersen asked me for the ID and password. I gave him a random number and the password was f-u-c-k-y-o-u. He tried it several times, but our connection was going bad, so I kept saying "hello", "hello", "hello" and hung up. After a few minutes a rather angry Mr Gundersen called me back and explained in some detail how I could have a sexual encounter with my mother. I didn't really take him up on that. It was a fun hour or so, and I needed an hours break at the time
As a way to make ethanol it sounds very interesting. Lot's of places with too much CO2/power and not enough Rum (nuclear submarines, power plants, Mars). As a way to increase "efficiency" in the power grid not so much.
Come on, only the left tries to claim Hitler was far right, as they do with many things from their collective past that make them look bad. If you look at their policies, outside the race superiority non-sense, they look just like a liberal/socialist policy check list: Heavy government regulation of all things, strict economic controls, cradle to grave social programs, public schools, etc.
From a hard liberal view I can see how a Neo-Nazi looks "far right". This a relative thing only because they are so far left. From where I am sitting a Neo-Nazi is just an aggressive bigoted liberal, vs the modern more tolerant passive-aggressive PC (polite society bigotry) progressive liberal. If political position were houses on a street, they would be just a few houses over from one another, while classical liberals (libertarians), aka "the far right", would be 5 miles down the road out in the country.
"Only the strong survive" comes from social Darwinism." Bernard was a eugenicist not a Darwinist. He wanted to actively deal with thing he saw as problematic not just let nature take it's course. That meant getting rid of the trash taking up valuable space and breeding programs to improve the future. He would be more like a gardener or a rancher.
Designer babies may use some of the same tools as eugenics, but the philosophy is worlds apart. I have no problem with them as long as it is completely voluntary. What people do to themselves is up to them, just don't force me to participate or pay for it. Comparing people wanting to have healthy children or specific traits is vastly different than marching people off to gas chambers because they have a big nose, a low IQ, or lazy.
Bernard as with nearly all socialists believe they (ruling elite/government) should have the power to force their views and policies on public. In that case Hitler was very much the socialist.
Ever wonder why Liberals the party of "science" and especially evolution are the ones who object the loudest of it being applied to people?
1. The mineral structure, the big rocky stuff that sinks pirate ships that run afoul the reef, IS...NOT...ALIVE... Never has been, never will be. It is merely the mineral deposits that corals deposit on things to use as a base on which to grow. So when they go on an on about it being thousands of years old and being the largest organism on the planet, they are either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying. It's like saying the human race is the biggest organism on the planet because we build cities and have people everywhere. Scratch off the top inch of a reef and you have hit the dead stuff.
2. Corals do not take thousands of years to grow. They take days, weeks, and sometimes months to grow. Many spawn free swimming and drifting larva every lunar cycle or so (full moon).
3. That's right boys and like the 2 girls here, corals are not plants, they are animals that cultivate algae inside themselves to use as a food source. That is the dreaded "bleaching" they are always worried about. Bleaching does not always equal death to a coral, nor is it always cause by a change in temperature. Disease, stress, salinity, water chemistry, water clarity, sand settling, and people (touching, nets, poisons, boats etc.) all cause that. Sometimes the corals dump the algae in order to get a more productive local algae to grow. Corals also catch and eat various things, hence why the bleaching is not a death sentence.
4. Coral reefs are not static. They move over time. When they spawn they dump millions of larvae into the currents which spread everywhere. If they find a spot that is favorable they will start a new reef. Storms break up the reefs and the chunks can go on to form new reefs or end up in dead spots on the old reef and patch the holes. So when they go on about parts of a reef dying, yep it probably is. Is that normal? Depends on why. A reef being smothered by runoff silt, probably not. Water temps changing, yep happens all the time. Currents and regional temps have never been static, they move and change with time. The reef will die off during the change. Temperature tolerant organism will take over, and when the temperature shifts back they too will move on or die and the corals will take over again....growing right back on top of the "dead" reef" like nothing ever happened..
5. Coral reefs can be replaced at an time in locations they find favorable by the average person. They'd like you to think that only dedicated government certified highly trained scientists are the ones capable of dealing with the problem. Not even remotely true. There is an entire cottage industry in the aquarium trade of people who grow corals in their homes. Those same techniques are used often to repopulate areas that have been damaged much in the same way you would replant trees after a hurricane. I personally have been kicking the idea around for years of building my own patch reef offshore for fun and profit down here in Florida away from the well known dive spots loved to death by tourists.
I love the ocean and spend is much time in it as I can, but I grow weary of the shrill land lubbers claiming to know what is best, if only we would just put them in charge. Fuck that. If the government was in charge of the ocean there would be a shortage of sand within 10 years.
In other words you are not worth wasting any more time on.
Let me fix it. The demography that is responsible for 55% of the homicides and 75% of the violent crime is the black male population between the ages of 14 to 30 years old. That group make up approximately 3-4% of the US population.
That is a fancy way of saying "Not all black males commit crime" of course when you put it that way that makes the problem even more concentrated (worse). So what percentage of that 3-4% are the ones committing the crime? 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/10?
It's not racist to point out the hard numbers of what is going on. (Don't like it then go bitch to the FBI. They are the ones keeping track.)
You can't start coming up with a solution until you know what the problems are and who is involved.
None of the cool kids are using ISO or ANSI-standardized languages against IEEE-defined standardized interfaces like POSIX anymore. That level of stability and portability doesn't allow twenty-somethings to feel like they are revolutionizing the industry and making the world a better place through beautiful design patterns or whatever.
The Federal government's military powers comes from else where in the Constitution.
The plate scanners are hunting for the strawman purchasers, free types and as a general list of who is armed. A gun owner in 2016 is most likely a gun owner up until they die. A few years of scanning plates will give them a pretty detailed gun registry they've been drooling over for decades.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]