my understanding is that most of the "scientists" that they claim support them were not relevant to the field or are not working scientists and also included things like science teachers. once you reduce it down to researchers in the field you get a number closer to 0.002% (this is just off the top of my head).

Ahh right, I keep forgetting that basic numeracy (like basic literacy, logic or human decency) is not your strong point.

700000 out of 320 million is 0.2% not 0.002% as you claimed and then upped to 0.02%.

Hey, you were only TWO FUCKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WRONG! That's actually better than you usually do.

And if it was 700 people, they would still matter. If it was 7 people, they would still fucking matter.

Besides, that 700k figure is a pretty conservative estimate. The reality could be much higher than that, as people are reluctant to self-identify as trans thanks to assholes like you.

I'm tired of explaining this to morons on the internet, but once again, the existence of a larger problem (e.g. climate change) does not negate the existence of a smaller problem, especially when the smaller problem is one that's easily dealt with.

Did they miss the sign?

http://www.fishmonger.ru/apps/fishmonger/add_files/doc_125_06-09-10-002.jpg

Look no further.

>> ^Enzoblue:

A lot of fuss about multiple monitors. Seriously how many ppl have more than one monitor? Like .002 percent?


A significant amount of people and probably growing given that screens just get cheaper. I certainly welcome any analysis of how the new OS deals with that. I don't see why they should NOT mention it.

A lot of fuss about multiple monitors. Seriously how many ppl have more than one monitor? Like .002 percent?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html

Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.
First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) makes fapping motion
Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-own
ers-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-i
i.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html

fap fap fap
Shall I go on???
So much for "It just doesn't happen."
At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:



You do realize that car companies can create fake identities and post them. Hell the oil companies probably pay for a service that does this. I'm sorry but a bunch of links to ONE SITE isn't going to prove a fucking thing. You should be smarter than that.

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html


Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.

First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) *makes fapping motion*

Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-owners-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-ii.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html
*fap fap fap*
Shall I go on???

So much for "It just doesn't happen."

At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:

>> ^JiggaJonson:

My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!


As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.

The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.

It just doesn't happen.

Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.

Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-numbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004723

USTR FOR SUSAN SCHWAB
DEPARTMENT FOR E - REUBEN JEFFERY AND EB - DAN SULLIVAN
FROM AMBASSADOR STAPLETON

SUBJECT: FRANCE AND THE WTO AG BIOTECH CASE

¶1. (C) Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce
our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by
publishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time
Period" expires. In our view, Europe is moving backwards not
forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with
Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France, the "Grenelle"
environment process is being implemented to circumvent science-based
decisions in favor of an assessment of the "common interest."
Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with
implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation. Moving to
retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to
EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.
In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm
union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin
to turn this issue in France. End Summary.

¶2. (C) This is not just a bilateral concern. France will play a
leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of
agricultural biotechnology and its approach toward environmental
regulation more generally. France expects to lead EU member states
on this issue during the Slovene presidency beginning in January and
through its own Presidency in the second half of the year. Our
contacts have made clear that they will seek to expand French
national policy to a EU-wide level and they believe that they are in
the vanguard of European public opinion in turning back GMO's. They
have noted that the member states have been unwilling to support the
Commission on sanctioning Austria's illegal national ban. The GOF
sees the ten year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810
as a key opportunity and a review of the EFSA process to take into
account societal preferences as another (reftels).

¶3. (C) One of the key outcomes of the "Grenelle" was the decision to
suspend MON 810 cultivation in France. Just as damaging is the GOF's
apparent recommitment to the "precautionary principle." Sarkozy
publicly rejected a recommendation of the Attali Commission (to
review France's competitiveness) to move away from this principle,
which was added to the French constitution under Chirac.

¶4. (C) France's new "High Authority" on agricultural biotech is
designed to roll back established science-based decision making. The
recently formed authority is divided into two colleges, a scientific
college and a second group including civil society and social
scientists to assess the "common interest" of France. The
authority's first task is to review MON 810. In the meantime,
however, the draft biotech law submitted to the National Assembly and
the Senate for urgent consideration, could make any biotech planting
impossible in practical terms. The law would make farmers and seed
companies legally liable for pollen drift and sets the stage for
inordinately large cropping distances. The publication of a registry
identifying cultivation of GMOs at the parcel level may be the most
significant measure given the propensity for activists to destroy GMO
crops in the field.

¶5. (C) Both the GOF and the Commission have suggested that their
respective actions should not alarm us since they are only
cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a
first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban
or further restrict imports. (The environment minister's top aide
told us that people have a right not to buy meat raised on biotech
feed, even though she acknowledged there was no possible scientific
basis for a feed based distinction.) Further, we should not be
prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting
seed business in Europe and because farmers, once they have had
experience with biotech, become its staunchest supporters.

¶6. Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target
retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a
collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the
worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and
must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an
early victory.

¶7. (C) President Sarkozy noted in his address in Washington to the
Joint Session of Congress that France and the United States are
"allies but not aligned." Our cooperation with France on a range of
issues should continue alongside our engagement with France and the
EU on ag biotech (and the next generation of environmental related
trade concerns.) We can manage both at the same time and should not
let one set of priorities detract from the other.

PARIS 00004723 002 OF 002



Stapleton

Anyone else think of this?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'QI, Alan Davies, Phil Jupitus, Andy Hamilton, Hugh Dennis' to 'QI, Alan Davies, Phil Jupitus, Andy Hamilton, Hugh Dennis, 001, 002' - edited by ponceleon

I didn't know 150,000 people died today, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind if it was 150,002 tomorrow.