Here, I'll start you off with some premium grade-A smokey music. Nope, that's not marijuana (though if that's your thing, it should still work out for you). Inhale again and you'll realize it's mesquite. I suppose the two are similar, because smelling this music gives me the munchies, except I don't wanna settle for anything less than slow-fuckin'-cooked brisket.
What does that actually mean? Is it "improved" as in "reducing the amount of crap advertising that is pushed to the user", or is it "improved" as in "New, Improved Recipe", which basically means they have found a new way of adulterating a product, so it is cheaper to produce?
In other news, space is the the final frontier. And tab is eight spaces.
The "average" user has no idea and that's why they put IOT shit on their unsecured network in the first place, duh.
The average user has no idea that there is something like "IoT" and that it is in any way different from the rest of "the internet". All they know is that it is "smart" to have an app on your phone that can turn on the heating and tell you the fridge is empty, and a TV that seems to understand what you want to watch, or a smart meter that tells you (and the utility company) how much gas and electricity you use up to the last minute. They won't know or care about the security implications until it goes badly wrong.
Although one Democrat criticized the extension by arguing that nuclear power "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."
I remember in the beginning how refreshing it was to find Slashdot, where you could quite often find intelligent discourse about technical subjects and where Linux was often portrayed in a positive light at a time when the consensus in the IT industry produced such catchy phrases as "You get what you pay for" and other goodies. It feels quite disappointing to see that we are now becoming little more than a sort tabloid outlet, whose main editorial line is to post anything that stirs up controversy, because that attracts more commentators, who we can sell as potetial eyes that look at our adverts.
I've picked out this particular sentence, not because I feel that socialism needs defending, but because it once again portrays Americans as being stereotypically crude, uninformed and astoundingly stupid. So, is there actually 'one Democrat' that spews out this sort of tripe about socialism? Probably - just as there are Republicans and Americans of any denomination, who tend to hold a similarly uninformed view of the world. And for that matter, people from any nation. I happen to know quite a few Americans - and I have only ever come across 1 in the flesh, who matched the sterotype; to compare, I know loads of Britons that appear to be functionally braindead.
As for the comment on itself: the behaviour desribed matches very closely what we have grown up to expect from businesses, especially big businesses, under glorous Capitalism: acid rain, dead rivers, corrupt companies paying corrupt researchers (they don't really deserve being called scientists) to tweak their results, pollutants poured out in the environment with the excuse that "it hasn't been proven that these chemicals, which cause deformities in frogs are harmful to humans" - and so on. Plus, of course, they do all they can to avoid paying taxes, so who gets to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess for their reckless profiteering? Societies all over the world are still paying the bill for the tobacco industry's profitmaking - they make money from selling a drug that is proven to cause cancer, but they don't pay the expenses for cancer treatments, nor do they compensate for the loss of production or any of the other significant costs associated with their business. All in all, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism when the public has to foot the bill for the mindless greed of Big Capitalism.
The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult.
No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
1. To show that CO2 has an effect on heat, get two glass jars. One filled with CO2, and one filled with air. Shine an infared lamp (or even just sunlight) on both jars. You can measure that the CO2 jar absorbs more heat, because it's hotter than the air jar. This principle has been known and well-understood for over 100 years, and you can demonstrate this in an elementary-school classroom.
2. To show that human industrial activity releases a shitton (ie. enough to affect the whole world's climate) is also relatively simple. Get in a plane, and fly over the Los Angeles basin. Just look at the carpet of constantly running automobiles, as far as the eye can see across many hundreds and hundreds of square miles. Wrap your brain around this happening 24x7, week after week, month after month
These two simple observations are obvious and plain enough that it affected me on a gut-level. No math required. It's plain and obvious. Not at all subtle.
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy. One way is to look at photos, over decades, of glaciers that have receded. If you've been alive for 30+ years (or longer), you know damn well that even though we've had a couple of harsh winters, it's certainly not like it was when we were kids. If you ask older people, they can tell you that things have definitely changed. But this effect is subtle enough that even the very old people who remember Minnesota winters 70 years ago, don't seem to be able to grasp how very different the climate there is now.
They have very convoluted and complicated arguments against Climate Change.
On the Economic side, you hear that the Carbon Tax, and funding for research into renewables (and smart grids, and mass energy storage, and electric cars, and etc); will have a net positive effect on the economy. Yet when you're talking with a denier - they're arguing that any tax is going to cause economic devastation and abridge everybody's quality of life and standard of living, and that shutting down all the fossil fuel jobs will leave millions unemployed. Nobody questions this claim (in the newsmedia), and rarely are the economic arguments compared or scrutinized. This is also an important point that needs to be made to climate change deniers. Where renewable investment has been made, where carbon taxes were enacted, positive, measurable benefits have been observed. Most mainstream economists actually agree with this, but those arguments are silenced in the mainstream newsmedia.
I am actually somewhat surprised that these people have the necessary equipment and skill to drill a hole in such rounded surfaces
It's not that hard to drill the hole, because the third speaker hole from the right serves as a guide that prevents the drill bit from slipping,
Name one country that doesn't mind its military bases being photographed every couple of months and being published for anyone to look at.
If Google is photographing your bases and publishing it, the problem isn't that they published it. The problem is that Google was able to successfully photograph it.
If Google can photograph your base, then your adversary can too. And Google is almost certainly doing things in the nicest way possible, obeying laws, not generally willing to put up with planes being shot down as merely an inevitable cost of business, etc. A real adversary doesn't have those constraints.
Attempting to censor Google is symptom-treating, and really, it's to a comical degree. It's way out there; this isn't merely "slightly stupid." This totally reeks of closing barns doors after horses have gotten out... except that there will be an update in a few months and of course they'll want that blurred too,because they still haven't closed the barn door. It's more like they just don't want people talking about the barn door, that they have already decided they're never going to close.
YOUR HORSES ARE OUT, NUMBNUTS!!! WE ARE LOOKING AT YOUR BARN DOOR BECAUSE IT'S HYSTERICALLY FUNNY THAT YOU KEEP LEAVING IT OPEN, not because we want to steal your horses, which aren't in the barn anyway. If the horses were really still in the barn, then you would have shot down the photographer.
Hitler is already a proven election-winner. That's not a fair alternative to Trump. Put up a more hypothetical name, please.
And maybe what both parties need to get out of the trench warfare that they currently have as well.
Maybe, but maybe not.
The parties only hear two language: votes and money. Whatever they're doing, appears to be working for them (contrary to what you suggest, that they change). You write that it's bad, but on election day I think they are going to hear that what they did was good.
You're giving a treat to the dog (and saying "bad dog") every time he barks, and kicking him (and saying "good dog") whenever he sits and cutely wags his tail. Guess what kind of dog you're going to have.
The only good news I'm seeing in this election, is that somewhere around 10-15% of voters have finally decided to stop actively supporting and approving them, compared to single digits in previous years. But a strong majority still approves, applauds, and rewards.
I think the election night numbers are going to show: Clinton and Trump were excellent choices, America's top two favorites. Prove me wrong, America. I don't care what you say to me; I'm watching to see what you say to them and everyone else.
They might discover lost Greek texts or other works of antiquity
Or much more interesting: Etruscan texts, of which there woefully few. The Estruscan language appears to be unrelated to any other known language, from the very few inscriptions we do have.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!