Jang Song Thaek, the uncle of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un who was executed last month for "hideous" crimes, reportedly died a hideous death, thrown into a cage with as many as 120 hungry dogs that ate him alive. According to a new report from Wen Wei Po, a pro-Beijing newspaper "with close ties to China's ruling Communist Party," Jang and his five closest aides were stripped naked and put into a cage with hunting dogs that had been deprived of food for five days. Kim Jong Un, his brother Kim Jong Chol and 300 other officials reportedly watched the one-hour ordeal where Jang and his aides were "completely eaten up." The report from Wen Wei Po was republished by NBC News but not confirmed, NBC noted. Jang Song Thaek was executed by the orders of Kim Jong Un last month after being physically removed from his government post, charged with corruption. According to the official Korean Central News Agency, Jang, who was part of the leader’s inner circle and served as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, was a "traitor." http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/03/22156917-kim-jong-uns-executed-uncle-was-eaten-alive-by-120-hungry-dogs-reportthat's all? six for 120? I imagine they were still pretty hungry... |
|
|
|
Yea, that video is total bullshit. From my travels in Africa, most areas sub Sahara need regular industrial infrastructure - including real power plants, coal, natural gas, oil style.
How exactly is solar not "real power plants"? They're in some of the most solar-dense areas of the planet. well.... that's actually a really good question. Solar requires a backbone power system, for night and cloudy days. The best power system will always be somewhat site dependent. One place has closeby coal, another has natural gas right there. For example. To bring an area into the 20th century you need real power, such as what drives our cities and their infrastructure - their refineries, their water system, their hospitals, their concrete plants, etc. Then with that developed infrastructure and the wealth from it, if they want, they get some of the niceties - after the essentials. Solar is in that 'nicety' category. There are exceptions. A remote located gate opener, some street lights, many applications it works fantastic in. |
|
|
|
This is specific to the West Peninsula, has nothing to do with the entirety of Antartica. |
|
|
|
Re the Antarctic phenomenon, the counterintuitive phenomenon of expanding ice with rising temperatures in fact makes sense in light of the following:
1) The sea contains salt water, which melts/freezes at -10C (more or less.)
2) Onshore glaciers contain fresh water, which melts/freezes at 0C.
3) Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and will overrun it in a sheet when discharged into the sea (such as near rivers or glaciers.)
4) Increasing temperatures cause increasing discharge of fresh water into Antarctic waters.
5) Because this causes a drop in offshore salinity, the surface melting point rises significantly--more than the temperature itself rises in the short term.
6) Rising melting point results in more ice, even though the temperature is actually higher.
It is significant that some in near-Antarctic waters this year have described the sea water as "almost fresh enough to drink;" this has not historically been the case.
No, this isn't the way it works. Antarctica always operates sort of in reverse: N Pole loses ice, S pole gains ice. Yes sea ice has it's own characteristics, but...we're talking ice here thick enough to stop these ships. That's not the 'large coverage of thin ice' issue that's seen at the N Pole, which is short lived and which does not compensate for multi year ice. This is the real thing. Oh, one more thing. The proof or disproof of your suggested method 1..6 is whether your theory explains events AT BOTH POLES, and I have to say it this way. Because otherwise, warmers would propose some other chain of events to explain whatever is convenient where ever they want. |
|
|
|
Now just watch someone who's drank the cool aid come in with the line that 'yeah, the bear population is increasing, but it's going to decrease...' side note: as an amateur photographer, I've always thought that bear picture was a really great shot. |
|
|
|
Why the need to travel all over the world to conferences with 1000 of printed materials, big limos, private jets, buffet with out of season fruits... to show slides about people using charcoal or wood in African tribes to feed themselves instead of using solar panels? Skype? Google hangout? I. Don't. Get it. Sunglasses and light brown mandela T Shirt are not included. http://youtu.be/IqGA31J-LRQi could make another joke here. But aren't these guys and this mentality, basically somewhat retro? like 1980s ish, sort of? i mean, this is straight out, unabashed, 'big government socialism/communism is what we need to save the planet' stuff. Hopefuly those solar panels are going to be built in Africa, creating jobs etc, not imported from China in containers, on massive dirty ships using oil. Yea, that video is total bullshit. From my travels in Africa, most areas sub Sahara need regular industrial infrastructure - including real power plants, coal, natural gas, oil style. What they don't need is smart ass know it alls coming in and telling them how to continue being dirt poor and being sustainable. They need a lot more than power infrastructure, but it all starts there. |
|
|
|
i'm definitely not conservative.. i like some liberal things as well as libertarian, but i can't really say that i would identify with one group over the other. both have drawbacks to me..
I have puzzled about this for a long time, being very, very fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But like it or not, the poll is accurate as it stands. The reason is that every couple of years, it gets around time to vote. And people do it, putting aside their 'differences and uniqueness' and they place a vote in what is best described as a binary decision process. |
|
|
|
Why the need to travel all over the world to conferences with 1000 of printed materials, big limos, private jets, buffet with out of season fruits... to show slides about people using charcoal or wood in African tribes to feed themselves instead of using solar panels? Skype? Google hangout? I. Don't. Get it. Sunglasses and light brown mandela T Shirt are not included. http://youtu.be/IqGA31J-LRQi could make another joke here. But aren't these guys and this mentality, basically somewhat retro? like 1980s ish, sort of? i mean, this is straight out, unabashed, 'big government socialism/communism is what we need to save the planet' stuff. |
|
|
|
I dont like Romney due to his faggot looks, he looks like a guy who would fuck up the U.S. aswell, All candidates that year didn't look trustworthy to me.
I didn't like his looks either. A lot of people are attracted to the bad boy look. I'm glad we are voting based on haircuts. Makes everything really simple, doesn't it? So does Obama, He looks like my evil grandpa. But I do hope in 2016, There will be more trustworthy candidates, But the todays libertarians look wack and mentally ill, but I do believe in less government but just don't over do it. I'm afraid it doesn't quite work that way. You can make some inroads locally and at the state level. But the national circus is way different. The nice thing would be for the liberatarians and the Tea Party to keep working at transforming the Republican party into something with some principles and goals. Libertarian-ish. Not sure that's doable, but it certainly would be nice. Right now there are some real serious problems that are not getting spelled out well in the political arena as issues. Jus one - Survelliance - what party will come out against it? both are divided on this issue. If the repubs come out against the illegal, unconstitutional NSA spying, they would make a giant step forward in voter popularity. I doubt that will happen, but it's what I'd like to see happen... |
|
|
|
I dont like Romney due to his faggot looks, he looks like a guy who would fuck up the U.S. aswell, All candidates that year didn't look trustworthy to me.
I didn't like his looks either. A lot of people are attracted to the bad boy look. I'm glad we are voting based on haircuts. Makes everything really simple, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
You can't disprove a good conspiracy theory. That's impossible.
As soon as you show them some facts the climate change deniers adjust the theory and make it even more ridiculous.
I think that's what is ridiculous is using a term like 'denier', which means you've bought into the Big Lie and are doing nothing but repeating the propaganda. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have been labeled a denier by zealots for arguing that 'climate sensitivity' was lower than they would have liked. Today, the new IPCC report agrees with me. Now who is a denier? Those zealots or me? If you can't answer that, the term is just the handy slander of the moment on those who argue with your prejudices. .....
“This degree of warming would make large swaths of the tropics uninhabitable by humans and cause most forests at low and middle latitudes to change to something else,” says Steven Sherwood of Australia’s University of New South Wales, who led the study.
The changes, Sherwood says, would take Earth “back to the climate of the dinosaurs or worse, and in a geologically minuscule period of time—less than the lifetime of a single tree.”
Atmospheric scientists have long asked how high atmospheric temperatures will rise if greenhouse gases double. This “climate sensitivity” estimate has emerged as a key climate question, with estimates ranging from a low of about 2.7°F (1.5°C) to highs of more than 8°F (4.5°C) of warming in this century...... So this guy, claiming high sensitivity, must be a Denier. He's denying the reality of the consensus of scientists - the vast majority - as defined by the IPCC report #5. Can't have it both ways. Either claim science, or stand on belief. |
|
|
|
....Of course they can buy carbon credits to balance their evil deeds for the good cause or something.
You know, the really smart way to do that is to buy the carbon credits from yourself. Wait... Maybe there is a way to link bitcoin miners and carbon credits but I am not smart enough to see how. Okay. I will help you out with that. Start with facts, then proceed to develop a logical, testable method. We know ethanol is a carbon neutral fuel, that can be used to power vehicles and humans. Ethanol, when drank by humans, causes a statistically significant decrease in travel as people say home in a state of total stupor. Therefore, not only is purchasing alcohol encouraging the carbon neutral fuels industry, but it causes decreased use of fossil fuels. Now, having established the facts, we need only develop the method. And that would be to have bitcoin accepted for Jack Daniels by a bitcoin merchant, then to buy stock in that company. Then you would be buying whiskey with your carbon credits from yourself, using bitcoin. This would mean that the embarrassingly high electric bills for bitcoin miners would be okay, because you first of all wouldn't care after drinking half a bottle, therefore you would have the "high" ground, and you would have a moral issue to stand on, so you'd have the moral high ground. I suggest this matter be further explored with bitcoin for weed, recognizing that was previously done by those courageous pioneers of RoadySilky, but darn.... They didn't have the carbon credits angle. I can even see trading values for altcoins with all the empty JD bottles. Cool....I'd still like to have a true-warmer, over the top donation of 10% of profits toward the welfare of the courageous stranded on the South Pole ice wannabees. Shoeshoes? made only of carbon neutral process, of course |
|
|
|
.....if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?
It's a textbook example of the strange higher standard that Republicans are held to compared to Democrats. Which is increasing, not decreasing. Democratic politicians can be crackheads. But Republican politicians can't be crackheads. A democrat can write in his autobiography how he was loving his cocaine while he was studying in the 80s at Columbia U. Cocaine was very expensive in the 80s. How could he afford it being a poor student and all?. We shall never know.  Probably a government loan. Not ours, of course... |
|
|
|
....Of course they can buy carbon credits to balance their evil deeds for the good cause or something.
You know, the really smart way to do that is to buy the carbon credits from yourself. Wait... Maybe there is a way to link bitcoin miners and carbon credits but I am not smart enough to see how. Okay. I will help you out with that. Start with facts, then proceed to develop a logical, testable method. We know ethanol is a carbon neutral fuel, that can be used to power vehicles and humans. Ethanol, when drank by humans, causes a statistically significant decrease in travel as people say home in a state of total stupor. Therefore, not only is purchasing alcohol encouraging the carbon neutral fuels industry, but it causes decreased use of fossil fuels. Now, having established the facts, we need only develop the method. And that would be to have bitcoin accepted for Jack Daniels by a bitcoin merchant, then to buy stock in that company. Then you would be buying whiskey with your carbon credits from yourself, using bitcoin. This would mean that the embarrassingly high electric bills for bitcoin miners would be okay, because you first of all wouldn't care after drinking half a bottle, therefore you would have the "high" ground, and you would have a moral issue to stand on, so you'd have the moral high ground. I suggest this matter be further explored with bitcoin for weed, recognizing that was previously done by those courageous pioneers of RoadySilky, but darn.... They didn't have the carbon credits angle. |
|
|
|
....Of course they can buy carbon credits to balance their evil deeds for the good cause or something.
You know, the really smart way to do that is to buy the carbon credits from yourself. Wait... |
|
|
|
...on sense. Humans put so much crap into the environment it MUST be affecting it.
Well. But look at your own words. What kind of argument have you made? Not one that anyone would disagree with. But not one that is precise enough to have any scientific meaning, either. Here's some bullshit for you. "The four dead, drowned polar bears recently found is consistent with the theory that shrinking sea ice caused by global warming is endangering the polar bear environment." See if you can pick out in this sentence the bullshit. Where you've been conned and made a dunce. |
|
|
|
.....if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?
It's a textbook example of the strange higher standard that Republicans are held to compared to Democrats. Which is increasing, not decreasing. Democratic politicians can be crackheads. But Republican politicians can't be crackheads. |
|
|
|
This man is literally exploding with shit, he's so full of it.
Im not against him because hes black, but what hes doing wrong with our country, hes like bush! we need better than this, I didnt vote because none of the candidates looked promising. Just wait until the 2014 elections, you'll see the machines crank up again. Anyone that does not see that the best thing is a republican senate needs their head examined. At the same time, I don't expect them - the repugs - to seriously get their act and platform together. |
|
|
|
I can't say either of the poll options adequately describes my feelings about him. .....
At the very least, Snowden should have free Internet for life. |
|
|
|
Sayyad Qutb was is outcast even from Wahhabi (salafism) right?
So if I understand you right, we would disagree.
Right up to his execution for ordering the assassination of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Muslim brotherhood stood behind Sayyid Qutb. So you can't say that he was an outcast. I have read that mainstream Wahhibi does hold that he was not one of them, and of course his series of 30 some pamplets 'extending the koran' could not be considered proper. There is no two ways here, either Sayyid was mainstream ( and yes that means the M Brotherhood also is and was), and Sayyid's main disciple, Bin Laden, also represents mainstream Muslim or they do not. But yeah, I don't need to be lectured to by the resident Muslims / or those in such cultures about proper interpretation of what is screwed up. We all know they got a bunch of screwed up nonsense. I don't agree or care about using the phrase "salafism" instead of Wahhabi either. What nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
