Well, that's certainly consonant with the other things he's done.
Well, that's certainly consonant with the other things he's done.
Shareholders will be happy until there are important regional conflicts about water supplies.
Why should there be conflicts about "water supplies"? Climate change generally leads to more precipitation and a greening of deserts.
"...the same way we have a tablet that can replace your laptop"
They can both be used as trays for serving drinks?
Global CO2 Concentration Passes Threshold of 400 ppm -- and That's Bad for the Climate
There is no "threshold" at 400ppm; it's just an arbitrary number. In terms of earth's climate history, global CO2 concentrations can go above 1000ppm and we're still fine; arguably, we'd actually be better off. None of that matters, though, because...
The carbon dioxide concentration is unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark for at least several decades, even with aggressive efforts to reduce global carbon emissions, according to the WMO report
It's not "unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark", it is impossible for it to dip below the 400 ppm mark for decades even if every human on the planet killed themselves tomorrow. No amount of mitigation or climate change policy or taxes or international treaties is going to change that. And the policies that are being negotiated and proposed are utterly useless; they won't even significantly slow the increase. That's why people who advocate governmental action on climate change are liars and crooks.
Get used to it: the only option we have for dealing with climate change is that humans adapt to it. You can be an optimist about it (like myself) or a pessimist.
But you are a climate change denier if you deny that climate change is inevitable at this point.
By about 10 Yeats at least! Think about Blackberries and Palms! Then we had the iPhones and the Androids on 2008 and you were still sleeping!
WinCE came out in 1996 and Windows Mobile in 2000, about the same time as BlackBerry and PalmOS phones, and long before iPhones and Android.
Microsoft was a pioneer in the mobile space, they just pissed it all away.
Microsoft was one of the earliest smartphone manufacturers, and together with Symbian, one of the two biggest. They didn't miss it, they screwed it up, with their usual mix of greed, attempts at monopoly, and bad software. The difference is that this time, it backfired, and people never again trusted them.
We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.
It was a good idea, and it actually lasted quite a while in comparison to other nations. However, even the Founding Fathers were not optimistic that this was going to last forever. As Jefferson wrote:
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. .
.] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.
Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement" and "making handouts to corporate cronies".
Low information voters like you and the crooks you favor for office are the cause of government corruption, economic problems, lack of growth, and social problems.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state.
The distinction is pretty academic: when government becomes too powerful, media, police, politics, etc. all blur into one entity.
The massive corporations have similar interests
"The" massive corporations don't have much of a choice than to participate in this, because if they don't, their competitors will kill them via legal and legislative manipulation.
Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.
Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.
Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.
It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?
Because people are social creatures, and they trust their friends more than they trust some random journalist. And that would actually be a good thing if Facebook didn't censor and manipulate how people communicate.
Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.
Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.
They were very much territorial. In some cases, land was owned by a smaller group like a tribe or tribelet. The land was taken from them collectively, so any redress must be to them collectively.
Stolen property is only returned to someone who can actually establish legal ownership. That means demonstrating that the item was originally owned by the person and that the person now making a claim has inherited that property. Furthermore, there are statutes of limitations and issues of jurisdiction, which means that even if you owned something once, you may not be able to recover it from a new owner.
What you are saying is that because a long dead person of "race A" had stuff taken from them by a long-dead person of "race B", today, people of "race B" owe a debt to people of "race A". That's not how property rights work, sorry.
The truth is that the land you currently possess was taken from the prior owners by force.
The truth is that pre-Columbian Americans had taken that land by force as well, multiple times. The truth is that every human on this planet was, at some point, ousted from their property or homeland. My own family lost all their property multiple times over the past few centuries. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
You don't, but you sure to like to claim the moral high ground that you're not even vaguely close to approaching.
Of course, I take the moral high ground vis-a-vis your position: your position is the position of racists and Nazis. The Nazis also viewed themselves as the original tribal inhabitants of Northern Europe and their entire war was about demanding "their" land back that the Roman empire and other "invaders" had taken from them. Those kinds of theories are racist bullshit, no matter whether they are applied to pre-Roman Germanic tribes or pre-Columbian American tribes.
Dead? No excuse for laying off work.