I don't think your read the same article, read the same document or watched the same video...
The video and the released document does not show that NSA stole his credentials. It shows that NSA cracked password to a 3rd party company that resells their service.

Furthermore, "network map" they showed on pages 3, 4 and 5 are simply AS interconnection maps. You can easily see it here https://www.robtex.com/as/as35207.html#graph or here https://stat.ripe.net/widget/bgplay#w.resource=35207

THEY CAN NOT INTERCEPT COMMUNICATIONS from "any and all of his company's customers". The only thing they can do that password is see physical location of satellite service users and turn on or turn off their service. HE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THIS SPECIFIC LOGIN IS LIMITED IN WHAT IT CAN DO!!!!!!!

If it obvious that you have no technical understanding of the issue at hand and this is a perfect example of how this article is scaremongering hype!

Bleh. This is hype and scaremongering by Germany.
It is nowhere even near to the crap that NSA was/is trying to pull with their efforts.
Other than the password for that one router/system, everything else is a publicly available information.
Here's interactive map of every single IP on the internet http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/hilbert/index.html
Here's the same scary looking "Top Secret" Robtex graph for videosift.com https://www.robtex.com/en/advisory/dns/66/228/54/105/#graph

If Germany is trying to stir public outrage, they should do better than this.

Yeah, that's true, I'm sure the burden of glutenophobics on our medical system and taxpayer dollars is right up there with hangnails and "it hurts when I do this". Tempest in a teacup. If I'm going to get pissed about something chewing up taxpayer dollars that's related to healthcare for stupid people doing stupid things, it sure isn't going to be gluten. How about, oh, I don't know, smoking. For the years 2009–2012, economic cost due to smoking is estimated to be more than $289 billion a year. This cost includes at least $133 billion in direct medical care for adults and more than $156 billion for lost productivity from premature death estimated from 2005 through 2009**.

Any stats out on the gluten hysteria and burden on health care? I think that cumulative is going to take a long time to show up on the graph, and the fad will likely have died before the next leap year.

(**US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014)

Try that with Blue Man Group. None of them spoke to me back in January 2001 in Sin City's Luxor. Although they did give me hand prints on my sweater. Did you get photo(graph)s with Penn and Teller?

Oh Bob. It's better to remain silent and let people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
97% is not the same thing as 97. Also, the correct number is really closer to 99.9% of all published climatologists, if not higher. Those who know, know. Those who believe don't know jack.
There are many ways to differentiate human produced CO2 from naturally occurring CO2, and therefore prove the rise is due to man. This has been done repeatedly and conclusively. The simplest way is to simply look at the graph of the rise and compare it to our use of fossil fuels, they are exactly the same curve at exactly the same time, with exactly the same dips and bumps. It's certainly not the only method, but is a simple to understand one.
It's ridiculous to state that to live 'green' you must live as if in a 3rd world country. That is simply BS stated by unreasonable men without any knowledge (and usually with a financial incentive to be anti-green/pro-fossil fuel).
It's also ridiculously ignorant to state that being 'green' is not cost effective. As someone who has had a solar system for 7+ years, I can tell you it's paid for itself already (with an estimated 13 more years before needing serious upkeep), has kept me away from the 40-50% rate raises that have happened to others in that time, it heats my house, my shower, and my hot tub and keeps the lights, TV, washer/drier, dishwasher, and fridge on when the grid goes down. It's not at all the expensive, powerless, sacrifice forcing technology you seem to think it is. It saves money even in the short term, and significant amounts in the long term AND has many other benefits. You've been listening to the wrong people about this issue, people who either totally don't know what they're talking about or are bold faced liars. I speak from actual experience.
Cost effective 'green' technologies have existed for well over a decade. You are simply wrong about your estimations.

The scientific community *knows* that climate change is real. The scientific community is made up of individual researchers at universities all over the world, anyone who practices good science and adheres to the scientific method is in no doubt about what the research points to. You can't buy the global scientific community, there are too many of "us" (i guess) that are all absolutely anal about good scientific practice. You could buy one or two, you could buy a small group, but the only thing that changes the opinion of the global scientific community is hard scientific reasoning.

I can't speak for where you live, but if you were to walk into my university's physics department tomorrow and ask any lecturer or professor about climate change, they'd tell you that, and the same goes for just about any university in the UK, holland and france i imagine, if not more like germany and so on. Anyone who has spent any amount of time comparing graphs and looking for statistical anomalies will tell you that there is a god damn big and unwieldy peak sticking up on the temperature/time graph right about where we started mass producing greenhouse gases, and the only new influence into the equation was us, because the old peaks are flat compared to this one. This is happening on a HUMAN timescale, not on a geological one.

We're seeing ocean floor methane bubbling up to the surface that we haven't seen before due to the heating of the ocean, and only this week the scientist who studied it tweeted flat out that if even a fraction of that methane is released into the atmosphere... "we're fucked."

It's pretty damn serious, but i'm not telling you that you need to pay huge taxes or fees to green companies or anything, and no scientist ever will. The agendas that politicians take up in the name of science should not stop you from accepting the science, and there are simple, good common sense things you can do to make a small difference that would cumulate to something big if we all did them. The only reason governments haven't been investing more into green energy is because they are relentlessly lobbied by the hugely wealthy and powerful and corrupt energy firms.

What is more likely?

So lets consider...
Any person (Male or Female) goes through a careful mental checklist (in their mind) on what they consider to be a good mate.

1). It would seem natural that a typical person would rule out crazy.
Crazy, as defined as someone who is in direct contrast to another's beliefs, views actions and reactions.

2). It would seem natural that a typical person would pick a mate that would be attractive to them. Attractive defined as healthy, a great attitude on life, dedication to the other member, and a decent outlook on raising children mentally and physically. I'll also add that "certain something" or "spark" that appeals and catches one's eye. (Attractiveness is NOT defined by the media's representation of men or women, it's a personal choice based on any persons likes and dislikes)

3). It would also seem natural that we all have a certain amount of self doubt. So we don't tend to choose too high above our station in life. We choose a mate based on being equals. We plan to grow with them at a certain calculated rate as we make our way though this life.

4). There are potential mate choices that we, at first, choose but realize quickly that the other person isn't quite what they seemed or we garner little respect for them due to getting to know them a little better.

5). The unicorn factor - no one is perfect. NO ONE.

So what's left? we want a mate that isn't crazy, somewhat attractive, someone not out of our reach, and someone who has a proven track record and that person may have flaws but noting we can't over look - because everything else outweighs those small flaws.

So basically his observations are fairly close to how we choose our mates.
BUT - as Lann says, him making this graph and presenting it the way he does is generally offensive. Offensive to either male or female outlooks because he misses something - something very crucial: People are unpredictable and independent thinkers. We make decisions that don't make sense to any one but ourselves. We are chaotic, we have emotion, love and passion. We see things that are below the surface and we all judge people differently.

Personally I found his observations crass and ill-informed but I don't think he even realizes it. It's a thought in his head that's gone unchallenged and seems like it's a huge joke for him.

Should add the previous presidents' audio with photo(graph)s.

Obama messed up a lot.

I grew up drawing shapes like Parallelograms, and Trapezoids.

A piece of graph paper made me draw squares then, cubes and I've use graph paper to doodle other shapes including this S shape.

I really think he's over thinking it. It's just a random shape with absolutely no meaning.

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

Actually, now I'm curious.

2 perpendicular lines.. easy

3? why not, just extend the third line along the z axis (of course any 2 representation of this wouldn't be perpendicular, but still)

Could you have 7? In some crazy n-dimensional space graph (ala a hypercube)?

Any maths geniuses want to weigh in on this?

They tested with multiple birds and multiple trials per bird. Overall they put about the same number of stones into the connected tube as the unconnected tube, actually getting worse over repeated attempts.

This graph shows their performance for each experiment.

Sorry, you are wrong.

x/0 absolutely *tends* towards positive and negative infinity. Even the most cursory glance at this graph will tell you that. The value itself is undefined.

After everything is said and done, it boils down to the level of organisation on the left, doesn't it? No organisation means no power, no power means no representation, no representation means fucking corporatocracy.

And since Nader's talking about the economic situation, let me link the EPI's list of this year's 13 most important charts: EPI. I'd add a graph of SNAP participation, but still, those charts should be enough to realize just how fucked up everything is.

Edit: by the way, the link to the other parts was lost somewhere along the road: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=832&Itemid=74&jumival=1114