Reminds me of an old post of mine...
Reminds me of an old post of mine...
A search engine could provide links to a news item without showing any of the content. Of course, that will heavily devalue the news item in question, but if the EU insists on trying to destroy any notion of fair use, there will be inevitable casualties.
Maybe Google could just pay for the rights to access AP, Reuters and the other news wires, and then just say "Fuck it" to the news publishers, much of their content coming from exactly the same sources.
Clearly his claims are rubbish. WTF does "direct detection" even fucking mean? One does hope the defense pops that balloon well and good, because this is hardly the first time we've heard some snake oil dealer proclaim he can identify the identity of P2P nodes with absolute fidelity.
That's largely because being a conservative these days largely seems to involve being mad about something.
No no, he ideolizes the future where Bezos doesn't have to work, and where he's the rule of a Metropolis like dystopia.
Why is pricing carbon anti-conservative? It's eminently conservative, putting the job of reducing emissions in the hands of the market.
I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.
When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.
Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?
It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.
What were you smoking? Win2K Pro was a fucking GREAT OS, rock solid, no eye candy bullshit, it just did what a great OS should do which is STFU and get out of the way so you can run your programs. XP was Fisher Price trash for kiddies, XP X64 (which was really Win 2K3 Workstation, MSFT got wind of so many of us turning 2K3 into desktops they just decided to sell it) was a damn fine OS, 7 is still a kick ass OS, and 8/8.1 is a good OS IF and ONLY IF you strip out the crapstore and spyware garbage and slap on Classic Shell, otherwise its UI will irritate the hell out of you.
But one thing we can all agree on is this...Windows 10 is trash. That is all it is, its trash. It gives you NOTHING better than the previous OSes, even its touted "features" are nothing but datamining trojan horse shit, takes away your ability to keep busted updates (which appears to be damned near a weekly thing with that POS) from being installed, has fucking ADWARE baked into the damned thing, has made BSOD a common condition again which I thought had died with XP, there is honestly not a single positive I can say about that piece of garbage.
Further, climatologists have analyzed Pielke's methodology, and found it wanting:
As appealing as a Senate hearing is, I'd prefer an actual citation from literature, and not a well known skeptic. In other words, let's see the actual data your claim is based off of. Do you possess this data, or did you just rush out and find the only link you could that you thought could justify your initial claim?
Recording of weather events in places like the US and Britain has been going on for well over a century, and certainly there are ways to determine extreme events further back than that in some cases, so it's not like we just started recording weather and climate data yesterday.
No, it would be impossible, as I say above, to link specific weather events to climate change. But you can analyze all weather systems and see if intensity and frequency trend up along with increasing temperature increases.
You have a citation for these figures? I'd wager Katrina's costs alone, once they're fully factored, probably significantly outweigh similar events, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim.
The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income and add ten percent.