And how do you know that many of the toxins in the vaccines don't actually work to weaken and suppress the immune system so that disease can more easily attack the body.
Precisely which toxins are you talking about?
It's not valid to refer to toxins in general and assume that everyone knows what you mean; or what mechanism of harm you are proposing. It's not even clear what you mean by "disease". Are you suggesting that vaccines make it easier for the disease being vaccinated against to attack the body? Or just diseases in general?
What you're saying sounds irrational; that doesn't place you in a good position to reject the science that has been applied to vaccination over the past century or so, and it is that science which answers your question "how are you so sure". When billions of people have been vaccinated, and diseases have been removed from populations or even eradicated completely, there isn't room left for debate on whether vaccination works or not - that's settled science, and the people who refuse to accept it are simply flat-earthers.
Second, you don't know that not vaccinating children endangers them any more than if they were vaccinated.
Actually we do know that. It does.
We also know that one of the key figures in measles resurgence is Andrew Wakefield, who started out (relatively) modestly by feigning concern about the safety of the MMR vaccine, and evolved into a full-on antivaccine wackjob. On the way, he was unmasked for bad science (actually, scientific fraud), breach of ethics, undeclared conflict of interest, and medical malpractice. As such, a fitting figurehead for the antivaccine movement, which will never accept the science that has been done, but instead of offering better science - or any science at all - seeks to replace it with the blatherings of Age of Autism, Natural News, some bloggers, and a smattering of rogue physicians.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Do you know about them? Are they deluded and ignorant too? At least one or two of these scientists are Nobel Laureates if that means anything?
It means "appeal to authority", and in the list you link to, it's not at least two, but exactly two.
Before I continue, it's worth mentioning that Nobel Prize winning scientists have frequently achieved notoriety for talking drivel outside their area of expertise, often drifting into pseudoscience. Two names that spring to mind are Linus Pauling, for his baffling devotion to the concept that regular and excessive doses of vitamin C are beneficial to health; and James Watson, for his "trust me, I'm a geneticist" views on race and other topics that amount to borderline eugenics. There was also William Shockley (inventor of the transistor), an actual eugenics supporter; Philipp Lenard, a devout Nazi and proponent of the concept of "Jewish science"; Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV) for recent research that is considered utterly bizarre, and associated opinions that border on promotion of homeopathy - he has also jumped on the autism bandwagon; and Brian Josephson (physics), an adherent of pseudoscience with a paranormal flavour - telekinesis, telepathy and the like - and an intellectual overlay. Along with other cobblers like water memory.
The Nobel Prize in sciences is hugely (and justifiably) prestigious, and there's no suggestion that these people didn't fully deserve Nobel recognition for their achievements in their particular area of expertise. But it's also clear that a Nobel Prize is no guarantee whatsoever of credibility once they move outside that area. You advance two Nobel laureates as particular standouts in a field of scientists who don't go along with anthropogenic climate change; the obvious implication is that as Nobelists, they are worthy of special attention as they must know what they're talking about. So let's look at them.
One is Ivar Giaever, a physicist who labelled climate change science a religion, and signed on as an adviser to the Heartland Institute. This is the political/ideological/libertarian route. There are multitudes of these (see also geologist/lunar astronaut Harrison Schmitt). He hasn't done anything in the way of providing better science. They never do.
The other is Kary Mullow, a biochemist who in addition to his climate change views, has sullied his scientific reputation with AIDS denialism, astrology, and general weirdness.
If we were to take a closer look at your list of scientists, it would throw up a lot of this kind of thing. I won't though. There are limits to how much trouble I will take.
As to the Natural News link, oh christ. Have you any concept of how crappy and discredited Natural News is, or who Mike Adams is?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So the British decided in their referendum that it wasn't in their best interests to be a part of the EU project any more and want a clean cut, not some dodgy deal which would keep the them bound by legislation and small print.
More correctly, not "the British decided", but "a slim majority of the British electorate decided". The actual result was 51.89% for leave, 48.11% for remain. So Brexit voters certainly do not speak for all British, or even all of the British electorate. The turnout was high (unlike many general elections), which increases legitimacy; other factors are far from satisfactory, such as the role of Cambridge Analytica
and Arron Banks/Leave.eu/Russia, and the almost certain breach of electoral laws by Banks and CA. These things are of increased importance in a vote that was so close, with the final figure at 17,410,742 versus 16,141,241.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Ever met actual scientists in person to discuss it (I dont mean celebrity CNN types)? I have.
You'd need to be more specific for that anecdotal information to have any value at all, though like as not, it still wouldn't. What sciences did they specialize in, what were the circumstances of your meeting them?
Manmade climate change is not a minority opinion among scientists - not even close - particularly those sciences most directly related to the issue. So it's an achievement to meet scientists who say the opposite, especially if you've met only scientists who say the opposite. That tends to happen under carefully controlled conditions, or as a result of cherry picking.
What it comes down to - that bit about "un-PC" is a dead giveaway - is that you're seeking to throw most of the current science on the subject down the crapper. Really, the only way to do that is by offering better science, and considering the amount of accumulated data pointing to manmade climate change, you'll need very large quantities of it to make the case. That's a gargantuan task, and one you'll want to step away from.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
You're assuming I'm British but I'm not, I've got no dog in this race.
I half-assumed, but I didn't actually spend any thought on who you might be, and was addressing pro-Brexit views in general. Plenty of non-UK people have weighed in on that.
I more fully assumed that your sympathies lie with Brexit, and a no-deal Brexit at that, because that's the way it sounded. If you were just being flippant about Blair, it doesn't require several paragraphs of your followup comment defending the original comment with pro-Brexit sentiment; and at this stage in British history, Blair is completely unimportant while Brexit is a current crisis and an impending disaster. What Blair thinks is not a sound basis for simply doing the opposite, but you do underline the lack of thought that went into many people's Leave vote.
Maybe the short term but you don't know about the long term. No one does. Same for your claim that "the alternative is insane." Really?
Something like 17.4 million Brits voted to leave so maybe they know something you don't?
One of the problems for the PTB is that if Britain manages to leave successfully without a deal then other member countries might follow suit and that's something the EU bureaucrats and other power brokers do not want.
What they don't want, really don't want, is a no-deal. It damages them too. But they're certainly not going to be concerned that it might be too successful for Britain, because it won't be.
Why they don't want it is that they're far more capable at the moment of thinking sensibly than that minority of the British population, the British media, and the British parliament who have been fantasizing about a no-deal for the last few months, having watched all their earlier boasting about an easy Brexit and cutting trade deals turn to dust.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Things will work out , foreign workers can assimilate with society as long as they respect japan and japanese will respect them too !
There's no particular reason why they have to assimilate, all that's required of them is that they do a job they were brought in for, and for the most part, will be paid the bare minimum for.
I don't consider myself assimilated, and nor do I particularly want to assimilate. It's always going to involve a definition that is adjusted to suit someone else's convenience.
If you're looking for "foreigners" to assimilate, you wait for the 2nd generation - the children of immigrants. Of course that's not on the cards if Japan operates a guest-worker system, and a non-family oriented one at that, with the intention of sending people "back where they belong" when their time's up.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Do the opposite of what Tony Blair supports and you can't go too far wrong. In this case he's campaigning for a deal.
A lot of people are campaigning for a deal, because the alternative is insane. Even by Brexit standards.
The chances are that some form of deal will be hammered out at the last moment, which will give you some handy ammo to claim that you didn't get the true Brexit you wanted, and that the EU and the Westminster elite sabotaged it.
Brexit in any form is going to be damaging to Britain in the short and the long term; at this late stage any deal that does get worked out is going to be extremely inferior; and no matter what the result, including no deal, Brexit supporters will continue to carp about how it turned out for them and to look for others to blame. Yet when it comes to actual constructive ideas, who is there to turn to, and what are they proposing?
Farage? Johnson? Rees-Mogg? Yeah, they've got your back. Watch and learn.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
What is the alternative when people do not agree to reopen nuclear power plants in Japan?
All the sources of power that aren't coal or nuclear. There's a whole world out there for you to discover if you're not aware of them.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
Stone is going to turn Mueller’s show trial into a circus and make the whole investigation look like a farce.
He can try, but it would be suicidally stupid.
Stone is in so much trouble. Witness tampering isn't taken lightly, and nor is chucking death threats around. Another person might just be in a position to deny it happened. But Stone is completely screwed, because his emails prove that he said it. This is not going to be an opportunity for him to put on a show, let alone do to do so and come out shining.
The judge will not appreciate having to spend time with a defendant who doesn't take court proceedings seriously, or who is unaware (genuine or feigned) of the gravity of the charges. They're serious crimes, of which he is almost certain to be found guilty, due to the overwhelming evidence, and they carry serious prison time.
This should be the point at which the realization dawns on you that his best chance is not to put up a front, which never looks good on someone who threatens witnesses, but to cut any kind of a deal he can with the investigators - if they're even offering one - and sell out whoever he has to in order to reduce his sentence.
He's welcome not to of course.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
While 10 days in a row sounds long, 4 of those days are Saturday/Sunday, which means the stock exchange is closed anyway. The same thing in any 10 day period starting on a Saturday.
And in any other year during Golden Week, there are the two weekends when the stock exchange is inevitably closed and some additional holidays during the week when it also closes. Last year, that was Monday April 30, Thursday May 3, and Friday May 4. The exchange was open only on the Tuesday and Wednesday of that 10 day period. Same story in 2017, except Monday and Tuesday were business days, and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday were holidays.
In the end, we're talking about 2 extra days here. Japan can tough that out, easy.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
My point is, there is a double standard in this country when it comes to the law. One standard for Comey, Clinton, etc. and one for the rest of us.
There's a law against threatening witnesses, and according to the indictment, Stone not only broke it, and would undoubtedly have been aware that he was breaking it, but did so in a way that left clear evidence. He's going to struggle to dig his way out of that.
Your complaints should be directed not at society for having such a law and enforcing it, but at Stone for being so hubristic and stupid that he didn't bother to cover his tracks adequately.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Apparently laws only apply to those who are Trump associates, and or his supporters.
Not really, but they do apply. When will you people ever understand.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
Hey, if he was arrested for lying under oath, why hasn’t James Comey also been arrested?
Look over here! Look over here!
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
This is what I'm curious about. If I recall correctly the Japanese passport application asks if you have any other citizenship. If you tick yes and are 22 or older, will they deny the passport?
And even if they did, the person is still a Japanese national, except that now when that person enters and leaves Japan, they do it as a Japanese national with no Japan passport to display, and only a foreign passport. This is extra (and unnecessary) trouble for immigration officials, as the person has one status and set of handling procedures according to their passport, and another according to their actual nationality. If you don't get my drift, put it this way: what visa or permission to stay do you give to a Japanese national entering Japan from overseas after a holiday or after residing abroad? If you've dealt with Japanese officialdom much, you'll know they're not very keen on situations like that.
So the Japanese passport is issued to the Japanese national. Because they're a Japanese national. And they enter and leave using quicker, simpler procedures than foreign nationals.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What will be interesting is if Osaka retains her dual citizenship beyond the stipulated date for making a choice and the Japanese government does not do anything, it will set a very public precedent that then can be used by all of us with dual nationality children
It would be purely symbolic, helping throw some light on an issue that positively breeds ignorance. But in itself it doesn't strengthen your case in any way. The precedent you look for has already been set by the thousands of people who have kept their dual nationality simply by making the declaration that they choose Japanese nationality and then taking no steps to relinquish their other nationality.
It's not even necessary to conceal the fact, despite many people continuing in the belief that they are somehow getting away with something they're not allowed to do. As a matter of privacy, that's fine - it's not at all my colleague's or my neighbour's business if I have more than one nationality - but it does have the effect of perpetuating the general belief that all those dual nationals are in some way breaking the law. They're not.
Osaka (and her parents), may know her situation fully, or they may, like so many people, be entirely ignorant of her right to simply hold on to her Japanese nationality, and of the importance of filing the declaration on time (although, by some accounts, leeway is often given). It's Osaka's decision how she handles her nationality and which country she hopes to represent; and no one's business to denounce that based on how culturally Japanese or American they imagine she is. Japanese nationality was her birthright, and if she decides she wants to keep it, then good for her.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Bigger question, why did Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadapolous, Don Jr, Jared, Cohen, and now Stone all lie when asked about their contacts with Russians?
Ha! Aha ha!
Um. Witch hunt.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
But if all Mueller finds is people lied to HIM, jokes on all of you.
It's on the people who angrily denied allegations made about their Russian connections and other activities, and then steadily, methodically had their stories and their excuses absolutely destroyed, both by the media and by the investigation.
And it's on the rube supporters. The saps who one day found they had to do a 180 on Michael Cohen and the other rats.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Mueller knows this is his final curtain closing. He is wasting tax payers money on going after Trump's friends.
If those friends didn't break the law, they won't have to worry about prosecution.
On the other hand, "friend of Trump" is not legally recognized as grounds for immunity. Here are some others that aren't: "son of Trump", "son-in-law of Trump", and "daughter of Trump". If Mueller can show that they've broken the law, and thinks he can make the case stick, then down they go.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
There were three women lying to Congress at the Brett Kavangh hearings and yet not one has been arrested by the FBI.
That's slightly outside the range of Mueller's investigation.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
And that’s ok, it’s also a brilliant a strategic move to put the Democrats on notice.
Yeah, hold the line hold the line hold the line oh what a brilliant strategic move I sure wasn't expecting that.
4D chess lol kudos.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Seems no one is interested that all of these “crimes” are a direct result of the Mueller investigation itself. process crimes.
Also known as crimes.
And they're more a direct result of attempting to obstruct an investigation. What an idiot, but maybe he feels it was worth it. You know, lying on principle or something.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Probably explains why the Old Continent has come to terms with its past & 'forgiven' Germany; they themselves weren't beyond reproach, far from it.
Putting "forgiven" in quotes is certainly a good idea, because the question comes down to "forgiven who, and forgiven what"? There is too much in Germany's past that is simply unforgivable, and it always will be. Even if some European countries do "forgive"Probably explains why the Old Continent has come to terms with its past & 'forgiven' Germany; they themselves weren't beyond reproach, far from it.
Putting "forgiven" in quotes is certainly a good idea, because the question comes down to "forgiven who, and forgiven what"? There is too much in Germany's past that is simply unforgivable and always will be. And even if some countries do "forgive" (officially) , others may not: suffering wasn't equal across all the occupied nations, or among all the countries that went to war with Germany.
I think all Euros -not only Germans- have asked themselves (or should have) the same question. There were plenty of nazi collaborators and sympathisers ('enablers', to some extent) all across europe in the 30s and 40s.
It's an easy judgement to make for a non-European. You say "all Euros". How does that work for the countries that were neutral in the conflict. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, the Baltic states? If you consider them morally culpable for keeping out of the fight, and even profiting from it, consider the position of the United States, which also stayed neutral as one European country after another fell to Germany. Through this period, Americans and American companies continued to do business with Nazi Germany, some in ways that considerably assisted its war efforts and its crimes against humanity. US neutrality in the European conflict ended not through an American decision that it was morally unsustainable, but because Germany and Italy both declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
In response to your point about Nazi collaborators, I would say that many Europeans certainly do ask themselves these questions. Considering how recent and raw that history is, that should not be surprising.
The impression I have is that the people who are most prim and virtuous about the Nazis are those from countries whose citizens never really had to make the choice between collaboration and resistance. Britain and America stand out in this regard. British civilians, being closer to the war, did suffer more, mainly as a result of German air raids, but they were never faced with the stark choice of whether to attempt to coexist with German occupiers or try to kill them.
It's too easy to say what you would do in such circumstances, especially with hindsight and the 70 years' worth of sanctimonious near-propaganda we've been fed. It would have been a lot harder for people who were contending with food shortages, actual starvation, and the threat to their families rather than just to themselves. It's not everyone, for example, who would sacrifice the life of their children for a principle, or ten civilian lives for one German soldier; and the occupying Germans were adept at forcing those kinds of choices on civilian populations.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
So he’s not dealing with reality but managed to make hundreds of millions of dollars, Get commissioned by NASA to build things, and meet world leaders?
None of that makes the impossible or impractical a physical reality.
Saying he'd put a man on Mars in 10 years was always crazy (unsurprisingly, and in the real world, that claim was made 8 years ago, so the clock's ticking), as is suggesting that 80,000 people could be living there by 2040. He did the same with Hyperloop, and if he had delivered what he said he would do, there would be an actual prototype of a passenger vehicle and he'd have carried his first passengers. As expected, there is neither a test vehicle nor a test tunnel suitable for such purposes, and what little has been done so far is much further back in the chain than that. He hasn't come even close to delivering Hyperloop, unless you count the airbrushed pictures, which are very nice.
No one forces him to come out with this stupid babble, and it's not inspiring for anyone who accepts the realities. In the real world there are transport engineers with a lifetime of knowledge and experience who fully understand the difficulties they are dealing with, and who know that technology alone, even if they can provide it, cannot just sweep away political, financial, and social considerations.
Musk invites scepticism because he frequently claims the unlikely, when he isn't claiming the outright impossible. People should be looking closely at what he's doing with the Boring Company, and also asking why he can (supposedly) build tunnels better than people who build tunnels. What's the breakthrough?
Is he doing better, is he doing the same, or is he doing worse? If he's not actually doing better, then he deserves no more attention or credit than all the tunnel companies you can't put a name or face to. Which is all of them. Because they're doing real work, not establishing a cult.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The other point you seem to be missing is this: when I quoted Elon musk, I was quoting the fact that he said Australia had the potential to provide energy to all of Asia. Neither he nor I said that Australia will or should, nor that China is incapable nor isn’t doing it itself. The original statement Was lamenting the lack of incentive to harness Australia’s potential. Musk was only saying....
That's the problem with Musk and his uncritical worshippers though, isn't it? They just retreat into the hypothetical whenever reality threatens.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Like I said before all day needed a little bit of research and development and there you have it
Yes, well back in reality, there is no "little bit of research and development", just research and development.
The term covers crucial details, like "Is the technology possible at all?", "How long is it going to take to develop?", "How much is this technology likely to cost?", and "How efficient can we make it?".
People who don't have the understanding or the patience to acknowledge these barriers are irresistibly drawn to Musk.
In R&D, at least one of the questions above, and generally a combination of them, are the difference between red LED, available in the 60s, and blue LED, not available until the 90s (by which time most companies involved had abandoned their efforts as both futile and too costly); the difference between subsonic and supersonic airliners, even though supersonic airliners are clearly technically possible; between conventional high-speed rail and maglev; and between an HPV vaccine and a malaria or an HIV vaccine. If just one of those questions becomes effectively insurmountable, it can mean that a technology never reaches production in the first place, or (like Concorde) languishes for years, becomes obsolete, and disappears.
The problem of transmitting electrical power over long distances is one of the greatest and oldest challenges of the industrial era. Recent advances have made HVDC viable, but it doesn't mean we can just take the longest route currently in operation and assume it can be tripled; and in particular, we can't assume that even if we did so, it wouldn't be the difference between affordable and unaffordable, or between useful and pointless. Sending power from Australia to mainland Asia is a strong contender for pointless, as well as pointlessly complex.
But yet it’s still not enough [land] for them to supply over 1,000,000,000 1/2 people with energy.
You'd have to explain why China doesn't actually have far more than it needs. It's a hell of a lot of land. As I already said, just four provinces combined are well over half the size of Australia, and there are many other lightly and barely populated areas that are suitable for solar and wind generation. There isn't some miraculous coincidence by which Australia has just the right amount of land to supply power to China, while China's has just not quite enough.
They have land they can use, but face the same technological barrier that everyone else does, which is how to bring power over very long distances. When (if) that gets solved, they can generate more renewable power in western China, and bring it over to the east. It would be quicker, cheaper, easier, and more sensible than relying on Australia.
What you're consistently ignoring is that China has the sun, wind, land, technological ability, and low labour costs to generate its own renewable electricity, which gives it extremely low incentive to buy it from Australia instead. Especially as it would be coming over much longer distances, which is going to add cost.
No because there are also other countries in Asia besides China in case you didn’t know
Yes, I knew. But China and the Indian subcontinent combined easily account for the bulk of the population, and China is the largest industrial power in Asia. And when it comes to credulously reported Musk overstatements, it's always worth kicking them a bit to watch them crumble. Australia can provide "most of Asia's energy" does not stand up at all well to scrutiny. Before long, it's going to be ratcheted back to "well I mainly meant Indonesia because it's next door" and "I didn't literally mean most" and eventually you end up with something much less impressive, like the current state of Hyperloop, the very modest and hardly numerous achievements of the Boring Company, the untried and now abandoned rescue "sub". It's all a bit Trump wall, really.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Back to the point. Even if Cohen rigged online polls in 2014 and 2015, and even if Trump asked him to do so, what does it matter?
Compared to the more interesting news that Mueller now has evidence that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime, not a lot. So have it your way.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The issue is not processing the power. Its getting it to and from A and B. But that is easily solved with a little bit of R&D.
Probably more than a little bit, if you permitted yourself to flirt with reality for a moment or so.
You sound as if you believe that China lacks adequate land for power generation. Four regions (Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia) make up more than half of China's total land area. The combined population is low, 55 million people, in an area of 4,796,000 square kilometres, which is well over half the size of Australia. (Don't take heart in the fact that it's less - there isn't a plan to fill every inch of Australian land. The point is, China has vast amounts of barely or non-arable land that can be used for renewable power generation)
Additionally, other more populous provinces have large areas of arid or semidesert land that is sparsely inhabited. When it comes to the kind of land that can be used for large PV arrays, concentated solar, and wind power, China is absolutely not suffering from a shortage.
There is a massive windpower installation in Gansu province, which is planned to reach 20GW in a few more years. However, it's seriously underutilized at the moment because coal power is cheaper. Even so, it is priced at only 0.54 yuan per kWh, equivalent to A$0.11. Does Australia's dirtiest, cheapest source of power come anywhere near as cheap as that?
China has the technological capability, the money to invest, the land, lower labour and production costs, and a strategic incentive; these are all reasons why it needn't bother with Australia-sourced power. In addition, Australia isn't even able to provide that power at the moment, while China is adding capacity year after year at an unprecedented rate.
In effect, you are talking about Australia possibly doing for China what China is already doing for itself.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Only if you put the camera between her legs to take your picture of the famous monument.
You're referring to the specific circumstances of a single case, not to how the law is written or is going to apply. Upskirt shots can be taken far less intrusively than by the method you mentioned; a properly written law would be unlikely to confine the definition to that alone.
And the text of the bill in the following link does confirm that.
If you care to read what's in the link, you'll see that the short answer to your question is no, for several reasons, all of which can be readily divined from the wording of the bill.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Had the Democrats Not withheld money for his wall we wouldn’t be in this position.
Considering there was a Republican majority Congress for two years, that's nonsense, but either way, there's still a shutdown, and it affects goverment agencies.
And as the President has been making a show of cancelling this and that because of the shutdown, the unpalatable truth he's now being schooled in is that a shutdown affects more than just the things he chooses to exploit for stunt value.
He engineered the shutdown, but he doesn't control it or get to pick and choose the consequences.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
If the roles were reversed and a Republican would saying something outrageously dumb as she did, there would be calls for them to be stripped of their duties.
If Trump hadn't engineered a shutdown, he wouldn't be in the position of Pelosi placing unpalatable facts in front of him.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Posted in: The eagles have landed