I think I love you.
I think I love you.
You keep posting these anecdotes as if they have any bearing on the subject what-so-ever, which they clearly don't. In Germany if your dentist screws you over for whatever reason, you can talk to your insurance company or talk to the state. The dentist will get shafted, and you'll get your treatment for free. Now my anecdote has cancelled yours out, you don't have to keep trying to ram it in to the discussion whenever you feel your argument is losing its teeth, and instead you can focus on constructing a real argument based on demonstrable fact.
Yet when we compare outcomes, the US doesn't do that well. Clearly something is up. If you just want to focus on some unsubstantiated claims on Slashdot and ignore the actual statistics, I can understand why you'd be so confused.
So the cause of these issues is poor local governance using the EU as a tool to subvert their electorate's wishes?
Solar panels do work on cloudy days, just not as well. Also you can say CO2 is good for plants, as that is correct, but to use that fact to try to show how global warming is not bad just shows you don't understand this at all. The amount of CO2 which benefits plants depends on the species. The most important plant species for humans are our crops. These have been engineered over the course of human existence to yield the optimum nutritional value for our current CO2 levels - adding more CO2 will increase crop yield by weight, but decrease the crop's nutritional value. The extra CO2 also brings with it increased temperatures, bringing different pests to the crops, and slowly moving arable farmland towards the poles (and it crosses borders like they weren't there), where infrastructure, experience, and communities might not exist to make use of it. This is just scratching the surface of the complicated relationship between plants and CO2, something you are either entirely unaware of or dishonest enough to ignore.
The investigation into those showed nothing incorrect or dishonest happened. You might want to actually offer evidence of your position rather than blurting out something you think has something to do with it.
No. That gained traction in the public press, but the papers published at the time shows it was not the common understanding. Hint: don't let other people put words in your mouth when they are stupid.
It is more about spotting people of interest acting in very interesting ways. Yes, they know who the terror suspects are (hence them being terror suspects), but they need to be able to build up cases to charge these people. Collection of evidence is a large step in this direction. Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence and substitute your own explanation - it only serves to show us how little you value truth in your arguments.
And people who have lived in Europe for centuries. Terrorism happens where people are. There is no singular cause or common trait.
Because they frequently tell us. That's the entire point of terrorism - to have goals, and to use force or the threat of force to politically coerce people into achieving those goals. You being ignorant of this doesn't change anything.
As that is not a political party, I'd say you need to revisit your argument.
Uber is simply not engaged in "ride sharing". Ride sharing is when a driver is going to make a journey, and takes one or more people with them, in return for covering their costs on the way. No money is made, and the journey happens regardless of the extra people along for the ride.
All of these technologies are pretty exciting, but there are a lot of disruptive things in there, particularly as it relates to displacing workers' jobs. The first item on the list is going to cause a huge shift as truck, taxis and bus drivers all start losing jobs en masse. None of them are likely to be happy about having to retrain for new, more difficult work (any more than buggy whip manufacturers were) and most will likely just be added to the millions of people disenfranchised with the new economy. This is a dangerous situation. What good is a grand new economy if there's nothing in it that I can see myself getting paid to do?
For a while I was wondering if we'd see a resurgence of co-operatives, where a community gets together and builds their own little economy, with a small farm and some skilled trades people. You'd at least be able to live a reasonably happy life. Unfortunately I can't see that happening. How would that community pay the ever-increasing land use fees such as tax, etc.? That land becomes more and more valuable to the people who have money, and they can just force the have-nots off the land.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.