Feminist groups at more than a dozen universities are planning to participate in another mass “edit Wikipedia day,” because the free, volunteer encyclopedia website is obviously horribly sexist.
Uh huh. A right-wing news site found some stupid undergrads willing to play up to its image of feminism and is trying to make a story out of it? Wouldn't it be more like ... "a left wing organization" found some stupid undergrads willing to play up to its image of feminism and is trying to make a story out of it? |
|
|
|
Both these movements are artificially driven by the state. Basically an excuse for socialism; increased state power.
+1 This is a strategy used many times in the past to successfully topple nations. This is not paranoia, it is a fact. What exactly is it that you are claiming is such a strategy? But way of explaining, I don't recall any nations toppled by environmentalism or feminism, truly hateable and worthy of pity though such movements may be. |
|
|
|
The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." "These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases." The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950. Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:  The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.htmlClearly you are a Denier and should be banned.  |
|
|
|
Everyone wants Bitcoin to get recognized, and that seems like it would be really simply if even just 20 fairly well off bitcoiners put some funds together... And I'm not just saying "I wish this would happen".
I get paid next month in Devcoin, so I will put some money towards Bitcoin (this project), since it was what introduced me to Devcoin in the first place.
If we have 20-100 people, that were willing to put 1 BTC (I will donate first) towards this goal. We could afford to make flyers for each of our home towns, and maybe even mailers to be sent to people's houses with a little info about bitcoin and a few websites, like this one and some shops and faucets.
Then eventually as the project gained speed, we could start getting billboards, paying people to wrap there cars and eventually afford a late night commercial ad space, like an infomercial about Bitcoin and a little info on altcoins. I think this is completely possible over the next year or two. Then we could work on making Bitcoin AVAILABLE to everyone, instead of just known about by everyone.
Who's with me?
I'm NOT WITH YOU. Here's why. Look at the bolded sections above. All yesterday stuff. Screw them if they are not internet aware. If they are, then they can learn about btc on the internet tubes.. Pretty simple, methinks. |
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here.
sub·si·dy
noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\
: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
-----------------------------
+.9% Increase in Medicare Tax Rate (plus next item…)
3.8% New Tax on unearned income for high-income taxpayers= $210.2 billion ($200,000 for individual and $250,000 for joint filers)
New Annual Fee on health insurance providers = $60 billion (For calculation - Sec 9010 (b) of the PPACA.)[1]
40% New Tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, per year = $32 billion (inland tax as opposed to an importation tax)
New Annual Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs = $27 billion (For calculation - Sec 9008 (b) of the PPACA)[2]
2.3% New Tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices = $20 billion
+2.5% Increase (7.5% to 10%) in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction = $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to $2,500 on flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans (plans that allow employees to choose between different types of benefits) = $13 billion
All other revenue sources = $14.9 billion
10% New Tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.
3.8% New Tax on investment income. Includes: gross income from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and net capital gains. Investment income does not include interest on tax-exempt bonds, veterans’ benefits, excluded gain from the sale of a principle residence, distributions from retirement plans, or amounts subject to self-employment taxes. (The lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified Adjusted Gross Income over a the dollar amount at which the highest income tax bracket, typically $250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 filing as an individual).
None of the extortion plans you have carefully enumerated obviate the obvious: Their analysis only holds true as long as the US government can keep interest rates at or near zero, allowing the printing of money for programs of this sort that benefit classes of the voting public.Once interest rates rise, systemic effects occur in all areas of spending. The fact that money is taken in does not mean that money has to go out as promised by politicians; quite the reverse is true. |
|
|
|
A group of Columbia University and Barnard College alumni filmed a feminist pornographic film in the school’s Butler Library...the girls engage in activities including kissing, rubbing eggs on their bodies and twerking around chicken carcass.....
Well, that sounds pretty hateable.... |
|
|
|
They are wrong. Their analysis only holds true as long as the US government can keep interest rates at or near zero, allowing the printing of money for programs of this sort that benefit classes of the voting public. Socialist or communist backed by tight fisted budget directors can endure for a while; neither collectivist, fascist or superficially capitalist society will endure long with magnificent cash giveaways for political purposes. This is why every single advocate of US federal health plans is wrong, and why across the board attempts at comparisons with other countries' health plans are nothing but shallow polemics. |
|
|
|
.....if you were young, healthy and officially unemployed (but had an unofficial form of income) what value would you see in paying any premium at all, if you didn't see such value before this, and the law specificly exempts you from the penalty because you don't pay taxes? You could argue that such officially unemployed young with non-taxable incomes is the minority, but the statisics on System D economies says otherwise.
Well, the large numbers of illegal Mexicans around where I live are not going to change their behavior. they are going to continue to go in for free health care. They are not converting from cash basis under the radar life to above board paychecks with FICA and income tax with held, and they are not going to sign up through a website which pulls them into "the system". The system would of course like to have more people funding it. It is a very, very hungry system. |
|
|
|
Whatever one might think of that, it isn't a common thug with a pistol. Like Che. |
|
|
|
Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>
Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..
You answered your own question right out of the gate. The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income. That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one. It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it. That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter. That's why they didn't bother before. You're just making shit up, the vast majority?? I don't have insurance and way above the FPL level.. No one was talking about the FPL level.. What you quoted was talking about the fee that comes along when you don't get insurance.. not being to poor to get it and not getting a fine. For sure, the only rational discussion would be based on the individual self-optimizing for his own economic welfare and that of his family. But my earlier comment pretty much stands: Who would buy insurance with a ridiculous deductible, when alternately they could pay the penalty (let's not call it a "fee" or a "shared responsibility fee", PLEASE no sugar coating shit here) ... and have no deductible? |
|
|
|
Che stood against the exploitative practices of imperialism and capitalism....
Bah.... He stood for taking power into his own hands, he wanted some of that good ol' exploiting.... This was no brave soldier, no brave cunning leader, no wise leader of the people. Just a common thug with a pistol. |
|
|
|
 KHN says, presumably without irony, that the reason for the sudden shift is unclear: Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds. This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.) The poll did not pinpoint clear reasons for this drop, which comes in the first month that people could start using insurance purchased through the online marketplaces that are at the heart of the law. It did point out that more than half of people without insurance said the law hasn’t made a difference to them or their families. In addition, the pollsters noted that almost half of people without coverage were unaware the law includes subsidies to offset premium costs for people of low and moderate incomes. Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed. http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsuredThis tells me 47% didn't even look it up, a household of 7 making a total of $50,000 a year will pay $900 a year total for a silver insurance plan. But if you don't insure, and just pay the penalty, there's no deductible. |
|
|
|
Forty years after his death, the militant marxist continues to divide left-wingers around the world. Here, two prominent thinkers debate El Comandante's legacy
The myth of Che Guevara is seductive and lush. ....
I think that if bleeding heart socialists and communists want a role model they could do a lot better. There are numerous Communist historical figures that in one way or another are worthy of considerable respect. I say that as a die hard Capitalist. Che does not so rank. |
|
|
|
http://kunstler.com/blog/2013/04/smack-down-time.htmlNormally, this guy is very intuitive. But apparently all of the media hype about Bitcoin came at him, and he felt the need to comment on it without his usual due diligence. I've been trying to comment about that on this blog since Monday, but I just can't manage it for whatever reason. Maybe I'm banned, but it doesn't say that. Let's see if some of you guys can manage it. Amazingly, none of the regular commentors ever came around to challenging his take on Bitcoin. Do what you will, gentleman; but remember that this guy is an another fellow traveler despite his lack of understanding. Methinks he nutcase. To understand the REALITY of economic collapse, just study history of nations that have undergone economic collapse. There are over a hundred examples in the last century. Reality is not as Kunstler theorizes, this can be said in other words "he just makes things up." |
|
|
|
....Did you know that there are apps that permit you to download the most commonly accessed Wikipedia articles in English, and save them to your phone for offline use? And the long term educational and survival value of an e-ink based e-reader cannot be overstated. Literally a one-pound library that can be maintained with a 2.5 watt solar cell, and still not take too much sun time to prevent you from charging your other devices.
I have had the full Wikipedia on my phones and gadgets since maybe 2006. My first purchase of a 1gb SD card (then prices, $180usd) was to enable putting Wikipedia on my cell phone. There are two versions I use today. Android - Wikipock. (~5gb) Plain Text. Android/Iphone/Ipad/windows/os x - Kiwix. Text with markup; correctly displays charts, some graphs and math formulas. http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_all_languagesenglish - 10gb, no pics; spanish - 15 gb, with all pics, complete |
|
|
|
I think we still do not have such technology and the level of
How could safely be sure to keep these and similar missions could become a reality in the near future, although the idea is great and deserves to be praised ....
Yeah. Well, a first step would be to attempt to grow something, somewhere on Mars. A crop. That would mean making some kind of dirt up that the crop would like, and creating a pressurized environment that could sustain it. Temperatures inside that dome would have to be within the range that could sustain life, say 50-100F. A. Envision a dome surrounded by solar reflectors that concentrated the sun at the center. B. Use a highly engineered crop. C. Fix the issues of temperature, pressure, partial pressure of needed gases, and need for nitrogen, carbon, and trace elements from raw Mars, brought in to support the life system. D. Figure out how to make (A) from native materials by robots and you are on your way to solving this riddle. E. Replicate and prove the process with 100 different crops. F. Grow some meat. Same basic issues, does not matter if it is in test tubes or live animals. In other words, think in terms of robot farmers and ranchers, somehow. Then consider that when and if that existed, man could EASILY go to Mars. But until it did exist, he gonna die there. Oh and while we are on the subject, Mars is not capable of being "terraformed", because of the lack of a magnetosphere. Boatloads of bad science and mystical thinking here. |
|
|
|
For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason. “I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.” What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects. “When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.” A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope. “The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future. http://www.livescience.com/43024-mental-health-hurt-by-climate-change.html---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4oBLhzu-0You've found what may rank as the dumbest fucking AGW assertion yet. |
|
|
|
I personally would not want to go there, because I will be missing out on a lot of the amenities that I enjoy here on Earth. I mean, what are we supposed to eat on Mars? How about recreation? No tv, internet, video games, movies, or radio? That's worse than being on Survivor! I think that the 200,000 people that applied for it think that they wouldn't miss Earth anyway, so they are completely ok with being stuck in Mars forever. I find it weird, but hey, it's their life, so let them be.
The biggest (long-term) problem with modern entertainment on Mars is the travel time between Mars and Earth. However, it is only a matter of resources and energy to solve the remaining recreational issues, which should not be a problem for someone who has the money and technology to travel to Mars. Regarding food, it is already possible to print pizzas and hamburgers, so that should not be a major issue on Mars. Radiation and lack of oxygen are probably the biggest problems, but that has nothing to do with recreation, only survival. Umm, no. Food and materials is a major issue. The reason is that we need to look at Mars as having the basic elements from the periodic table that are necessary for life. Then we have to figure out how to remove them from the compounds they are in, and put them into the compounds that we need. This isn't nearly as simple as it might seem. It might take 50-100 years. But after that is accomplished, then Mars is whatever we make it to be - within limits. It will still have a crappy worthlessly thin atmosphere, and it'll still be bitterly cold, with a weak Sun. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
