"Sidney! Don't do that"
880 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
"Sidney! Don't do that"
>that premise has actually been debunked by none other than the VP of Facebook.
For which he quickly apologised.
I'm no big fan of Google or Youtube, but does seem a bit rich to blame them for a bunch of arseholes gaming their system. Can anyone imagine a system that couldn't be gamed?
And, of course, the moment the Big G managed to scrunch these arseholes, there'd be hell to pay - from fellow-travelers complaining about censorship. Can't win.
>Anyone who thinks that CO2 causes global warming
...is someone who actually knows what they're talking about - not some diogy geezer on the internet.
It's extraordinary how desperate some people are that renewables can't possibly (be allowed to) work.
>if we just had an honest monetary / banking system
You couldn't afford an honest monetary / banking system - even if you knew whaqt such a thing looked like.
There's a great deal wrong with money, as it is, but it isn't going away, and you can always choose to try and live without it.
>Given that NASA is by now famous for fiddling the raw data on global temperatures to support their favourite thesis of 'Climate Change'
That isn't fake news. It's a lie.
>Wow that was quick and easy
Yeah, it's really easy when you don't bother thinking.
>Just as we have no say on the standards on the stuff we export to the US or China or any other trading block.
Difference is, we have never had any say in those standards. We are surrendering our say in the standards of the world's biggest market.
>Businesses trading in the world must meet the requirements of the countries they trade with, EU or not
I keep seeing this garbage.
No business only does business with one other business. There are chains of commerce, sometimes involving dozens of businesses, often crossing many frontiers. None of them can drop their standards below the highest level encountered.
Brexit isn't a get-out clause for that, it's a locked-in-without-representaion clause.
>Just make no mistake that it is the EU who are doing this.
The delusion continues; the UK is leaving the EU, not the other way round. The UK has to adapt to deal with the consequences; the EU doesn't.
The Register knee-jerk is pulling its pelvis apart. "BBC" - bugger them! "IR35" - poor dear!
>Each new technology will replace some jobs, causing a moral panic, but will ultimately create more jobs than it replaces.
Hardly ever do those who lose jobs to new tech, get the new jobs.
And past performance is no guarantee of future performance. The wealth-hoarding classes have decided that people are too expensive; robots do as they're told (mostly) and don't need paying (mostly). No-one is going to create new industries that need people.
"Rapacious"? Really? It's one of the most efficient city transport systems in the world.
Assigning a ton of metal & glass - and about 6 sq m of (stationary) space and about 10 times that, moving - is a horribly inefficient use of city resources.
>LEss cars means more people on public transport.
Fewer people on public transport means fewer people in the city.
Cars - driven or driverless - can't service London's daytime population of 15M, without bulldozing the very buildings they were going to work in.
>a slice of lawyer
Bad taste. Even with ketchup.
>Not the 100bn euro demand that was laughed out of the room?
What 100Bn would that be? The one invented by the Daily Fail? Or the one invented by The SUN?
Because no such demand was ever made by any EU body.
>You mean the EU demand for a hard border isnt gonna be met?
What demand would that be? - since the EU have made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that they don't want a hard border there.
I think it's safer to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about (or are blatantly lying about it).
>Yes, they ran. They worked.
They ran - like treacle. And they worked when the wind was in the right direction - and this was when the volume of passengers/goods was a fraction of what it is now.
Not only will we have customs barriers for a car - we'll have customs barriers for the 3,000 bits it now takes to build a car - and that's before we start to account for actual tariffs.
>I don't see why we should expect Brexit to be different.
Because EU members no longer have to wake up having to be civil to the Brits, as they have always arranged before. This time, when we whine about the deal, they can tell us to fuck off.
And the first advert shown in this item was for...Grammerly.
> a spokesperson said they wouldn't be able to make our deadline
We can wait.
>The US doesn't need to provide evidence under the current extradition treaty
The US don't need to supply evidence for an extradiction - but they do have to deliver evidence for a trial, which is the next stage.
>an example of the "tragedy of the commons
You do realise that "The Tragedy of the Commons" is an ideological myth? The original essay was a piece of right-wing polemic, presented with no supporting evidence, which was then treated as fact by those so inclined.
Reagan was the Father of the Deficit. He dragged the USA into debt,even though a world-wide boom bouyed his economy.
And you aren't seeing 'proof' of anything now; you're seeing a few, well-publicised set pieces, which bear little or no relationship to average behaviour.
Lastly, freedom is not a mindset. That's utter garbage. Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do (without impinging on the freedoms of others).
Sad that so many people see other people as problems, rather than solutions.
>It's called 'climate change' now because warming has stopped and it's actually cooling and 'global warming' doesn't fit anymore: It's not global and it's not warming either, thus a political need to invent something else.
Those lies won't ever fix anything. Even the most ardent anti-Earth campaigners have stopped claiming that it's cooling, really.
Climate change is real, it is predominantly human-made and, unless swiftly reversed, will leave our descendants cursing us.
>Seems cleaner somehow.
Seems really old-fashioned.
At the heart of this, we have blokes (and it is almost entirely blokes) who just don't want the world to change. At all. Doesn't matter that the economics/technology of the 50s (on which most of our transport infrastructure is based) is a long, long time ago - we want to keep on doing the same things, over and over again, no matter how dumb they are.
Your grandchildren will laugh at you (if they aren't pissing on your graves).
>We need 100% conventional backup available
Er - no we don't. There are several, unrelated renewable sources. The chances that they all fail - 100% - is infinitesmal.
>it just requires huge investments
So does everything. All those old fossil-fuel power stations have a finite lifetime. They'll have to be replaced. The issue is - do we replace them with 20th century fuels (or, indeed, 19th century), or do we acknowledge that this is the 21st?
>Most "renewable" energy is Biomass
No it isn't.
>Don't forget the greenies who gloat about how they will drop air pollution but then get really irritated when you ask "where's the electricity coming from"?
Don't forget the Dirties, who always ignore the results of surveys that show that EVs are still cleaner - even if every watt is produced by coal (which they won't be).
>I would need to look at why they were targeted, what parameters were used to target them and then determine the algorithm used, if it was voter manipulation and if it was successful.
I don't think ICO are interested in any of those. They're interested in an individual being identified (without adequate permissions).
>the latest one is Jerry Hall for goodness sake.
Goodness had nothing to do with it.
>There was definite thinking that the world was headed into another ice-age.
Hardly any. The majority of papers published in the 60's & 70's (that made any prediction at all) predicted warming. This 'they predicted an ice age' story is a lie.
> it is thought by most earth scientists that we are exiting from an ice-age
No it isn't. In astronomical terms, we should be getting cooler. We aren't.
>And I don't believe the whole man made global warming thing;
Facts don't require your belief.
>The 'science' behind the 'dangers of CO2' was never true, and has collapsed.
False. The only people claiming this are gullible alt-righters.
>Now, with the advent of shale oil, fracking etc, we have so much oil economically recoverable that Peak Oil is now hundreds of years away if it's coming at all.
Fracking etc. are evidence that peak oil is already happening. It was always cited, going back fifty years, that peak oil would induce unorthodox extraction methods and extreme locations.
>I don't claim to be an expert in this area but I take an interest, I hear this term used "peak oil" which is to say that eventually, all the oil underground will run out, it's not a case of if but when.
That is not what 'peak oil' means.
'Peak oil' happens when we cannot produce more oil this year, than we did last year. It may plateau for several years, while demand keeps on rising. That is 'peak oil'.
>"....you couldn't make it up!" I assume that means you also couldn't actually formulate an argument?
No Jonathan. He was remarking on one bigot (you) accusing another bigot (AC "You sir are a racist") of being a leftie.
You really couldn't make it up - no-one could imagine such stupidity.
> God why would I put my family in such a worse position
In fact, more Americans emigrate to Norway, than the reverse.
>You sir are a racist, let me explain.
No, he isn't. You are an ignorant bigot. Your entire 'argument' is based on the assumption that most asylum applications are false - for which you have zero evidence. Typical of a Daily Mail reader.
> the NHS, which is what, the third largest organization on the planet
Something of a myth. The NHS is composed of hundreds of (linked) organisations - each with its own employees/budget/assets.
>Just because it isn't the right set of features and compromises for you
The thing is - Mark 12's circumstance (urban terrace/no driveway) describes a sizeable part of the leccy market. EVs make most sense with regular, short journeys. So, it would help if a method existed for people like him (and me) to recharge overnight.
>Anyone who thinks public transport is more efficient is someone who lives on a route where a single journey takes them directly between home and work and back with a frequent service.
Anyone who uses that calculation hasn't considered their location in terms of public transport.
If public transport was all you had - you wouldn't live there, would you? You lived there because you could drive.
>Your chances of surviving are much worse than being missed by someone travelling at 30mph concentrating on the road rather than on staying within a 20mph speed limit. A driver's concentration is finite; don't misuse it.
If you can't pay attention when driving at 20mph, perhaps it would be safer to take your license away.
>Why are all the big banks and investors hostile then?
I see no evidence that they are. On the contrary, I see lots of banks quite interested in blockchain (not so much in volatile "currencies"). An investors seem to be pumping and dumping BC - just like regular junk bonds.
"It can apparently release 10 million trillion trillion joules of energy in less than a millisecond during a single pulse."
It better fucking not be aliens.
>This thing will pay out on short hops from front lawn to back lawn
I don't think so (unless you have a very big lawn). It's "4.57 meters long, 5.49m wide".
>That's why they flocked to the towns
In many cases, they flocked to the towns because they were turfed off the land (turf).
The great crime of ILM was to convince the audience that Special Effects (or 'SFX') was something to pay attention to.
Before that, special effects were designed to persuade us (with our connivance) that the grey blob in the corner was a Zvarggg (because that's what the hero called it). We suspended our disbelief - because we were part of the story-telling process.
But Star Wars and others showed these flashy inventions, and demanded that we notice them and gasp at how well they were done - often losing track of whatever story was going on, while we marveled at the latex.
This self-congratulatory attitude has persisted into the CGI era, where we're supposed to go 'wow' over a ground-breaking portrayal of shaken hair-styles.
It is not an accident that this panegyric deals almost exclusively with effects - with hardly a mention of story.
An entire argument invalidated with a single word.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018