Who the fsck is Omarosa?
The article doesn't say. It says that Trump fired her but not where from. I don't bother to remember Presidents firing people unless there is something significant about it, and there doesn't seem to be anything significant about this case.
Except, of course, she's "written" a book about it, and the left is so off its nut with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they're desperate to get him with anything they possibly can, which is probably why she got an advance of some seven figures from Simon and Schuster for whatever nonsense she and her ghost writer banged out.
Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
* * *Hate to tell you this, sugar plum, but when you are arrested it is a matter of public record.
So, yeah--if you're going to take part in a riot, when you get arrested no one is obligated to heed your requests for privacy. So people will take your picture, and the police will log the arrest record, and future employers who run a background search will be able to find out you were arrested for violent mob action. Enjoy.
* * *And then you end up triggering an ice age because Earth was already in a cooling cycle and you sped it up.
Sorry: the first step of any geoengineering plan is being absolutely 100% positive
that your intervention is necessary and beneficial.
We know the climate is changing. We do not know which way
nor do we know why
. Some subset of us believe they know what is causing it and why, but they are delusional and they have been caught deliberately faking data
so we cannot trust their assurances.If
the Earth is actually warming and if
it is due to human influence--two assertions that we cannot even demonstrate let alone prove--then an intervention of the type mentioned in the article might do some actual good, if
we are insistent on maintaning a cooler temperature than Earth has had even in historic times. But those are mighty
No one on the global warming team can tell us what the optimum temperature for Earth is. They also cannot tell us what the optimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 is. The only thing they can do is point to conditions about 300 years ago and say "that's what it should be!"--but they don't know
that because those data from 300 years ago are mere still frames from a very, very long movie. The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, and CO2 concentrations have varied wildly. And CO2 is a weak
greenhouse gas in any event.
The big fear is that Earth will become a "hothouse", but Earth has been very warm before. Earth cannot become another Venus. Solar insolation is too low and the atmosphere is too transparent. (Evidence: Earth is not Venus.) A "hothouse" Earth would look different from the current interglacial Earth, but I have not seen or heard any evidence that suggests that would be altogether bad.
It would not be "Waterworld". There is not enough water on the planet for that. But it would
be a planet with very long growing seasons and there would be less land available overall.
If anything, we are currently leaning towards "ice age" considering that Earth is basically an ice world and right now we're in an anomalously warm period. Take a look at the history of the last million years and you see that there have been ice ages separated with interglacial periods, and we're pretty close to the end of an interglacial cycle at the moment.
Given a choice between "ice age" and "hothouse", I'd definitely take the latter.
* * *
Related: New York state is run by a bunch of idiots who have bought into the global warming idiocy hook, line, and sinker.
Which is one reason a kilowatt-hour in New York costs 144% of what it costs elsewhere in the country.
* * *The Democrat machine's recipe for ensuring crime is not prosecuted.
And "supervisory authority" to initiate a "minor arrest"? Talk about activity grinding to a halt. Wait for a sergeant to respond to every job, duplicate officer's previous efforts on scene, making a few calls and then telling you, "Sure, you ought to arrest this person." Do these idiots have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Because, of course, there are just millions of police sergeants sitting around doing nothing in Chicago, and this will give them all something to do?
The idiocy on display here is breathtaking.
* * *Because by and large people don't register and especially don't subscribe to on-line news services.
That's pretty much what it comes down to. I've noticed, over the past couple of months, that some sites are now popping up a beg when I look at them: "We've noticed you're using an ad blocker, please consider whitelisting...." These sites let you click through the beg without whitelisting, rather than doing what a bunch of sites did previously and simply denying access unless whitelisted. (Many times with a dose of snottiness. "We get it,..." for example.)
My rule remains unchanged. Until and unless these sites can guarantee that the ads they serve will not contain malware that will hose up my system, I am not whitelisting anybody
. I'm still irritated over the rootkit I got from Space.com that hosed my system for months
afterwards. And to this day I don't read anything on their site because of it. It's nice of you to ask--and because you're asking I'm still going to visit your site and read the article. But I will not
allow ads--because of the malware problem--and any site that requires me to allow ads to see their content simply gets closed.
Registering to see one page on your site? No thanks. Too much trouble.
Denninger's solution will work for a certain subset of users, but it won't get eyeballs from the majority of the Internet. The news services and other content providers know this. Thus they whine.
* * *
It appears that, pretty much, Reinforcing the popular perception of Catholic priests as pedophiles.
On the plus side, the Church is cooperating--eagerly--with authorities. A lot more needs doing, though.
* * *Because whatever the adjective in front of it says, it is still socialism.
And socialism has the same end point no matter who tries it; it ends in gulags and starvation and mass graves and horror. It cannot be otherwise.
* * *Why are you surprised?
Look: the subscription model is the way that the computer industry used to do things. You bought an IBM computer, and you bought a service contract, but you subscribed
to the software for it. You could not buy the software.
The subscription was part of your annual service contract. You could not just buy the hardware and lease software for it; you had
to buy a service contract, renewed annually. IBM didn't do business any other way.
Software companies have been champing at the bit to return to that model as long as personal computers were a thing. It's all well and good to have someone buy your OS, but how much better is it if they have to keep buying it
every year? Without you having to release new versions all the time?
But people wouldn't do that. In the early days you got a computer with the OS built in, and it never upgraded; you bought software to run atop that and that was it. As time went on the OS became a separate entity, one that could be upgraded simply by reloading software on the thing; but they were used to paying one time to buy the software.
The installed base for the Windows OS is huge. People aren't going switch en masse to something that doesn't require a subscription, and if the subscription is small enough they won't really notice it. But at that point, your control over your computer (and your data) comes to an end.
Every time I boot my laptop, I have to fight with it over connecting to Microsoft One Drive, something I don't want (and don't need) to use. But there's no easy way to disable it; I can't tell Win10 "hey, forget about OneDrive, I don't want it." The OS hangs there, running abysmally slow, until it pops up the error message complaining that it can't connect to One Drive because I haven't set it up yet. Periodically it will pop up another complaint that I have to close.
But I don't need
it. I don't want
it. TOO BAD YOU WILL TAKE IT AND LIKE IT BITCH
The experience I had with Win10 on my laptop convinced me not to let it install on my desktop. Still running 8.1 here, and not looking forward to the next time I need new hardware; in fact I'm thinking the next major upgrade will be to a Ryzen motherboard, without touching the OS.
Why Ryzen, you die-hard Intel fanboi? Because the 2nd generation Threadripper is insanely fast.
I will give you the short form from Pixy Misa, whence I heard of this story
PCWorld tested the Threadripper 2990WX just like everyone else (not me) and found something interesting. Though it trails behind the fastest Intel chips on some tests (because of memory latency, OS scheduling, or something else) that's when you are testing one application at a time.
They tried running Blender and Cinebench at the same time - and it ran Cinebench as fast as the 18 core Intel i9-7980X running Cinebench alone. (PCWorld)
Granted that's the top-of-the-line $1,800 processor, which I would need to win the PowerBall to justify buying, but the point
is that the architecture
is faster than Intel's Core architecture is. I expect that sort of thing to scale a bit, so that the consumer-level processors work much the same way--and so a $300 Ryzen processor would be faster than a $300 Core iX processor.
Everyone runs more than one thing at a time. When I play WoW I typically have Pale Moon playing Pandora in the background. And underneath all that the OS is running. If Ryzen can run two applications as fast as Core iX runs one, that's a significant advantage.
And generally speaking I just like the price-versus-performance for the Ryzen chips. Why pay $500 for a level of performance that can be supplied by a chip costing $300? Particularly when they will both run exactly the same software?
* * *
Anyway, today is the last day of the staycation. It's been so relaxing, doing nothing. And a long time coming, too. Four days where absolutely nothing needed to be done, no chores, no demands, no idiots, no stupidity. Staying home, relaxing.
Same time next year? *sigh*