That seems like some sexist bullshit.
If he had slapped and shoved her during an argument, charges likely wouldn't be dropped just because she didn't want to press them. If he had defended himself from her physical attack, he would surely be arrested and likely still face charges.
If you touch someone in anger, you deserve a battery charge. Period. The law is not supposed to be different for different sexes.

Hard talk?! Lol....I get it.

.

I already know the pornography industry preys on young women with esteem and or money issues who often don't consider the life long ramifications. Khalifa, however, knew she was asking for extra trouble by wearing a hijab in a porno, and should have known religious zealots wouldn't be amused. I'm not excusing those who threatened her, just pointing out that she should have known portraying a devout Muslim woman in that way is almost as intentionally provocative as doing pornography in black face. She didn't say "no" because she didn't want to end her career, not because she was forced or coerced. She knew it wasn't smart before she did it.

I'm glad she at least says she accepts 100% of the responsibility, as she said, it was totally her choice. Sadly, the rest of what she said was assigning the responsibility to others and playing dumb. What 21 year old thinks making professional pornography is going to stay secret, especially the kind she made? She now wants to force actors (or maybe just actresses) to have any contract approved by a lawyer before signing, with a 3 day cooling off period? Good luck. If they only make $1000 per shoot, how are they supposed to pay an attorney $1000 to review their contracts?

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

I would just like to say to both sides of the "who escalated first?" argument, that I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that if police, in general, didn't have (far too many) proven and documented instances of excessive force and corrupt behaviour afterwards, the girl would have been far less likely to have acted the way she did.

It's time for "the police police the police" to mean something correct and right, and not be a derogatory catechism. The police need to uphold the law. Period. Whomever breaks it.

From what I have been told many of the smaller county's budgets are directly tied to arrest and conviction statistics.

This creates a multitude of problems.
Officers literally have to score X convictions or their buddy might "loose his job".
Similarily, the only way out of traffic duty up the career ladder might be a high conviction rate.
The sick thing is that this just the tip of the iceberg. AFAIK departments have been doctoring their statistics for so long it has widely become accepted that you literally go "fishing" once the next review period comes up (usually its more like speeding/broken tail lights, etc) and is widely viewed as common practice.
However after 9/11 a lot of departments have inflated their expenses with more equipment/personel (go look how many redneck county police deparments have their own Special Tactics Squads...) - combine that with poor budgeting and you can see where this goes...
Not all the blame can be put on the police though - a lot of it comes down to the way the review process works (i.e. convictions vs crimes prevented - go figure which is the easier statistic to use/present).
This problem really isn't new unfortunately.

@newtboy
@BSR

Think of it a bit like this (quote from Wilde)

"...surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not p. 3cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it"
--------------
And allow me to pop this out:
"the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves"
--------------


This is a stark/bleak example. I don't personally agree with it entirely. As I said, I bring cereal for my students and it's there and free and available unless I don't have time to get to the store or unless I myself am out of pocket change to buy extra food.


I don't ENTIRELY disagree though ----> Which is not to say that I agree.

I would say, YES there are structural changes that need to take place, but I also believe that assistance needs to be there to handle some kind of transition period while a problem is realized.

ALL of that being said

Here is a perfect example of a societal ill in our current system that needs to be addressed. It's a disgusting by-product of a structurally unsound student loan system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db9NaPDtAmU


Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1017/1017-h/1017-h.htm

LPT if you use the , (comma) and the . (period) keys on your keyboard, you can go frame by frame in youtube videos.

That said, sometime in the middle of the 31 second mark is where those white card things appear in front of him. Happens in less than 1 frame.

Before you cry "VOODOO!!!" though, you can slow watch his vest being sucked away into his ?pocket? his ?pants? idk, but it's being rolled away like a window shade.


All that being said. If I saw this live I would NEVER have caught any of that and this is still an amazingly skillful magician.
*quality

Interesting suggestion.

I believe that with 1/10 the population, near today's per capita resource usage would be sustainable....although there would be a necessary time period with net zero or better emissions required to return the atmosphere to "normal" before runaway greenhouse effects and feedbacks turn earth into Venus 2.0. After that, there is an amount of emission the planet can absorb, so resource usage need not be curtailed excessively, but it wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for the lottery system if everyone draws straws, no exceptions except those willing to just move to the reservation voluntarily.
Even a lottery system simply for procreation would do wonders, but remembering the outrage at China for just allowing one child per couple, I doubt that would fly either. Also, it does leave the possibility that the lucky procreators might all be imbecilic morons incapable of following/continuing the plan...we don't want to become a species that is dumber than our pets....or do we?

I think the priorities should be reversed too, what's best for life on earth first, humanity second.

Mueller didn't investigate you.
He said very clearly, both in the report, and in his press conference, that he could not recommend charges or make any decision on whether the President had committed a crime because of the protection the President has from prosecution without an impeachment.
Or in his words, “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
Period. He cannot make that decision. So when he says, “as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
He's saying, he cannot accuse the President of a crime, but he can't say the President is innocent, because it wouldn't be true.

If you bothered to actually go to the source, you'd see it's very clear what he's saying. He's just ethically and legally obliged to say it in an indirect way because he (unlike some people) actually respects the rules, laws, and constitution of the United States.

Because I know you won't read the actual law posted above, I'll summarize....

The conditions are he receives a written request from the committee chair for a closed door session review. Period.
There is no, zero, nada, none, nothing, not a single exception or condition to the law. He shall produce them.
He is in violation today and should already be removed from office awaiting trial, as the law prescribes.

"the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request"

Not
One
Condition.

The insane whining "but...it's being done politically" is just so asinine....it's political law and politics, there's no exemption because the chair person is a different political party. Imagine Obama....better yet, Clinton stopping her people from following the law because McConnell is a mean republican who doesn't like her so that invalidates anything McConnell does no matter what the law clearly says.

Jebus, the right has been completely labotomized by Trump.

6-8 weeks before the gap between the skull even starts to close, so yeah, i'd generally be staying away from applying intentional pressure to the top of the head for a good period of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_fontanelle

Are you suggesting that maybe the sand becomes finer after a period of time, perhaps becoming less effective?