Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#33|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
When it's because you ate beans, I'll allow it.
If not, go plant a tree now.
I believe in my cock!
The on air tv channels in the UK are weak centrist capitalism supporters and their papers are right-wing propaganda. Most people are waking up from right-wing lies, PURELY FROM EXPERIENCE.
And now the Green Party is surging, because they are telling the TRUTH:
your fascist views other than
just repeat what I'm telling you
about yourself. The reason that you
can do nothing is because (a) you're ignorant about the world,
(b) your mind is poisoned with
anti-democratic ideas, (c) you hate
your country, (d) you support
violation of laws and stability,
(e) you're illiberal and reactionary,
(f) you're unable to distinguish
reality from fiction and lies.
Moreover, I've apply demonstrated
all of the above and you've only
resorted in ad hominem inconsequential attacks.
I want secure borders and legal immigration, not folks swimming a river and taking what doesn't belong to them.
I live in reality, not a dream world where cops give out candy to the kids riding bicycles.
Reactionary? PREVENTION of problems begins by having a secure border. that is Proactive.
So many wrongs you spew, but continue to to be you. it helps the world see who's the idiot. and who not to rely on when the shit hits the fan.
However, our cops ride bike a lot, especially in Amsterdam center.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Dutch police primarily use bicycles in busy city centers and in locations where quick contact with citizens is desired. Bicycles are maneuverable in areas where car traffic is restricted or prohibited, such as shopping streets, squares, or during events. This makes bicycle patrols effective for visible presence and prevention in urban areas.
No candy, but this is comparable:
only registered users can see external links
Keep in mind that trump is also college educated and yet he's an idiot.
Back to my original post.
Nothing will change your beliefs in this dick.
You're glued to fascism.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 hours
Right
I guess if a fascist said don't drink the koolaid you would run to walmart and grab some??
This is a prime example of how people like YOU think,
only registered users can see external links
All trumpets are fascist.
You're in the company
of unwanted trash.
Worldwide despised.
"Keep in mind that trump is also college educated and yet he's an idiot."
Show me that Trump is NOT an idiot, by linking to a video of Trump describing
BY HEAD; some policy that his administration is implementing, clearly, accurately and with enough detail to make people understand the purpose
or cause and the expected result.
Someone with an IQ of around 100, should be expected to be able to have something explained to them, so they understand it enough to explain it to others, especially if it's THEIR JOB to oversee people who are executing
THEIR PLANS.
If Obama were to explain Trumps ideas as his own, granted it would be much clearer as he is a great orator and communicator.
Cognitive decline, if Trump were to suffer it as some may theorize, doesn't mean he is dumb, it just means he has difficulty's getting his point across. Would you laugh at a kid trying to talk that has a disorder? If not,stop laughing at Trump. This is a free country with opportunity's for all. Including the ageing..
Elon Musk is 1 of the richest men around, but he has a disorder, his communications skills are not the best. So I give Trump plenty of room in that department as well,
Even though he is even worse now, he was not able to do this in his first term.
Biden in his last few days as president could do that job better.
Even if Obama explained it, Trump's plans still don't make sense.
Blanket tariffs, with percentage calculations that fit on a stamp,
do not make sense.
I don't laugh at mentally disabled kids (Trump does), but I don't pick them for president. Elon Musk's disorder is being exaggerated, he's mostly just not as smart as you think, and has a bad case of not giving a fuck about other people. He's probably on the spectrum somewhere, but the spectrum is incredibly broad. Our best friend (who I talk about a lot) is on the spectrum too, but he is fully capable of caring about other people. The fact that Elon Musk was able to become the wealthiest person in the world, is NO qualification for being president. A president NEEDS to be highly intelligent, a great communicator, have lots of general and specific knowledge, a quick learner, and very much needs to care about people.
That's not discrimination, because that's not associated with being in a specific group. People CAN be old and (still) have all of that. They can be young and have none of that.
I don't give my representatives ANY room. Live up to my expectations or I will vote for someone who does. Everyone I have ever voted for lived up to those expectations, and then some.
We expect our operators in production to do what I described, even now we have lowered our standards, because of tightness in the labor market.
They are still required to understand complicated processes and instructions, and to be able to train them to others later. That's a qualification on intelligence and communication, for production personnel. Can I NOT expect that, from the man who controls the most powerful military in the world? DAMN!!!
You are literally advocating for 'DEI' for stupid, demented, racist, perverted,
white ass-holes, as long as they are on your side.
DEI means ignoring people's race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities, as long as they are NOT disqualifying for the job. Someone who is on the spectrum, in a way that makes them lack an important social skill, that is required for the job, would not be hired anyway because of DEI. That's you misunderstanding or intentionally straw-manning DEI.
I would not have voted for Biden in the primaries, and I would have supported
the 25th Amendment. He was STILL 100x better than Trump.
I would also not have voted for Kamala in the 2020 primaries, because there were better candidates. Because of Biden, there were no better candidates in 2025. Kamala was STILL 100x better than Trump. That's not saying much, because a potted plant is 20x better than Trump.
7.7 billion MWh/year in electricity. That is much more than the complete US energy grid produced in 2023 (4.18 billion MWh). If used to charge up electric cars, that would be much more than required by all cars on the road in the US, today.
The only problem is that electric cars are not affordable enough yet. But, it won't take long.
Here is a video that discusses ALL the other 'problems' you might think are applicable.
only registered users can see external links
Tesla is mostly failing to sell their cybertruck and many people 'still' don't like buying
their car from a horrible ped0phile fascist.
People are working harder than ever. They just want their jobs to pay the bills.
Worldwide, EV sales still grew in 2025, with over 20 million units sold and share ~20-25 % of new car sales in many estimates. Growth overall was still strong year-over-year.
Major industry forecasts still expect millions more EVs on the road in 2026, and long-run growth remains positive.
At the moment, electric cars are still an expensive purchase. The infrastructure is also still lacking a lot. Those 2 factors will change, making electric cars as the standard inevitable.
that are used to convict people of crimes every single day.
It's good strategy to support releasing the Epstein files publicly.
If you know that Trump is in there 100X more, you know to be protected.
And there are still many whole pages redacted, which they would definitely not do
if the names of Democrats are on there.
There looks to be not enough evidence to indict him on, but there is certainly enough
to start digging for more. Piles of testimony is considered evidence too.
There is such a difference between your opinions for people you consider on your side and on the other side. Grasping at straws leading to Clinton. Obama is in those files ZERO times.
How can we be sure clinton was in epstein's pool?
As for testimony, if you hated Trump, but You saw something was wrong with what was being said about him,as in you read some papers or you saw something or heard something that would vindicate the man, would your hatred for him not stand in the way of you telling the truth?
Well, if you hated him,and wanted to see him go down, would you not be more than happy to spew whatever the courts wanted to hear to put him under a jail?
Testimony is word of mouth. And the oath means little anymore. People lie about everything everyday and enjoy it, I trust little about the papers, took WAY to long to get them out in the public.
It also took the "survivors" way to long to talk for firm convictions as there is little to NO physical evidence , unless they are like Monica and kept the dress. Still trying to figure out what kind of pervert would keep a dress with a cum stain on it from the President unless she PLANNED to use it later on to HER advantage.Not unless she was going to sell it like a Autograph! "Here is Bill clintons sperm on a blue dress, let the bidding begin"
Don't you think it would be all over your 'news', if they found even a hint to Obama?
They were outraged for days once, for wearing a tan suit!!!
He couldn't lift a finger without Fox 'News' crying about it.
You can be sure they would 'talk' about it, if he used that finger on a girl.
Hell, because he was so incredibly boring, they mostly made up shit.
Those were even the first political bowel moves of Trump; the birther shit.
Bill Clinton had the gravitas to get a grown women to suck him off out of free will.
He didn't need to pay models or porn-stars, or peep on teenage models, or grab unwilling women by the pussy, or use the services of a ped0phile sex-slave provider, like a small, insecure man, who needs to dominate young girls to feel better about himself. None of the release photo's or texts in the Epstein files is a claim of Bill Clinton doing something illegal, while there are many claims in the Epstein files of Trump doing something illegal. None of it is proven, but Trump's name is in ~5,300 files with references and ~38,000 total mentions. How the fuck did that happen?
only registered users can see external links
It is a known fact flashing lights at a certain frequency can cause seizures. Most of the flashing is due to lousy solder joints on the circuit board inside the bulb.
We had regulations for the arch of a banana and the sharpness of corkscrews.
I think it's more a lack of regulation, allowing manufacturers to sell you crap.
Good, modern LED lamps have a constant-current driver and sometimes a buffer capacitor. These exhibit little to no 50/100 Hz (60/120 Hz in the US) flicker.
I asked ChatGPT. Here's the answer:
1. Cheap drivers behave worse at 120 V than at 230 V.
120 V systems give LED drivers:
- Less voltage headroom
- Higher current for the same power
This makes it:
- Harder and more expensive to smooth the output
- Easier for cost-cutting designs to flicker
At 230 V, it’s easier to design a stable, low-flicker power supply.
2. Regulations and labeling
The EU:
- Has stricter flicker and power-quality standards for consumer lighting
- Requires better disclosure
The US:
- Standards exist, but enforcement and labeling are looser
- Many ultra-cheap bulbs reach the market
This affects average quality, not technical capability.
In my kitchen, I need a light of about 2000 lumen. The brightest E27 LEDs are about 1500 lumen. So, I removed the E27 fitting and put in an aluminium cooling block for commercial LED grow cob chips, that greenhouses use. They are between $1.00 and $1.50, and I buy them at least 4 at the time, all different brands. I had one blow up immoderately, 1 burn out within 6 months, but I have had several now work great for 1 to 4 years. It just requires a little bit more work, because you have to weld on wires. I do that for all 4 of them, when they are delivered. It takes me about 10 minuten to exchange them, because they are screwed onto the cooling block, and sometimes the screw holes don't line up perfectly, and then I have to file out the holes a bit. In any case, that gives us about 2000 lumen for 20 Watt of power. That's about a $65 savings in electricity per year, on an average of 5 hr/day of use.
LED lights are now just as good, but a bit more expensive to purchase. They compensate their higher purchase price with a lower electricity bill. If they are lasting shorting than incandescent light-bulbs, your buying crap products.
They used to be too expensive, but competition forced their prices down.
I also really like the WiZ RGB Smart-bulbs in the bedroom.
Filtering out the blue light at night helps me read without disturbing my sleep, or to have minimal light when I wake up, or to have romantic colored light for "sexy time".
I think I found the product that you are describing. Something like that is using hundreds of LEDs, which increases the risk of failure. I see one for $14 online. That can only be cheaply made in China. You cannot expect it to last. I have a LED construction lamp, with 144 LEDs on it. It gets damn hot very quickly. It's still working, but I don't expect it to last long.
However, all LED-filament bulbs that I have ever bought, at least work for several years. The one in the ceiling light on the landing of the first floor must be about 10 years old.
It's true that you cannot expect to buy the same product again, if you have a set of several and want to exchange one broken one, with the exact same color and intensity.
I always buy them in bulk for that application, so I have spares.
only registered users can see external links
Could we maybe think of a system that reduces the waste and suffering?
I just hate to see the tech and research wasted.
only registered users can see external links
It is refreshing to read more sensible statements about the environmental subject.
"“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
The conclusion of the past five decades of failed apocalyptic predictions was that the false prophets shrieking about climate change were doing so to push partisan political agendas.
Just as they have with the overused “Race Card,” Democrats have weaponized “climate change” to stoke public panic in order to push leftist policies that have little to do with the environment and more to do with raising taxes and taking money from one group to give to another.
Brainwashed puppets such as Greta Thunberg should realize they are merely props being used to push destructive, left-wing agendas.""
Grand Canal green. But calling that “polluting historic waterways” is a loaded portrayal;
the demonstrators say they used non-toxic dye, and there is no proof of long-term pollution or damage. In other words: the “ban” and “dyeing” are real, but the “pollution of historic treasures” claim is more rhetorical spin than verified fact.
You are pushing a destructive right-wing agenda; Climate Change is real and destructive
and it's NOT left-wing to want to protect nature, and humanity that is dependent on it.
“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
That's an absolute lie, climate change is progressing as scientists predicted.
Many past “predictions” have already come true.
Climate scientists’ projections from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s included:
✔ Continued global warming
Predicted since the 1970s.
Outcome: Correct. The planet has warmed about 1.2°C relative to pre-industrial levels — almost exactly what early models projected.
✔ More frequent and intense heatwaves
Predicted in the 1980s–1990s.
Outcome: Correct. Heatwaves are now more frequent, longer, and more intense on every continent except Antarctica.
✔ Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline
Predicted in the 1980s.
Outcome: Correct — the summer sea-ice minimum has declined by ~40% since satellite records began in 1979.
✔ Sea-level rise accelerating
Predicted since the First IPCC Report (1990).
Outcome: Correct — global sea level is rising faster today than in the late 20th century.
✔ Heavier rainfall & flooding
Predicted in the 1990s under a warming atmosphere with more water vapor.
Outcome: Correct — extreme rainfall events have increased globally.
✔ Increased wildfire risk
Predicted since the 1990s due to higher temperatures and drier vegetation.
Outcome: Correct, especially in western North America, Australia, Mediterranean, Siberia.
So the claim that “none of the predictions came true” is simply misinformation.
A 2019 study (Hausfather et al., Geophysical Research Letters) evaluated 17 climate models from 1970–2007.
Results:
Most models predicted today’s warming almost exactly once you account for real-world CO₂ emissions.
Their average accuracy was remarkably high.
Classic examples:
James Hansen’s 1988 model: Today’s temperatures fall between his middle (“Scenario B”) and high (“Scenario C”) projections — because emissions grew faster than expected in the 1990s–2000s.
IPCC 1990–2001 models predicted ~0.15°C warming per decade.
Actual warming since the 1990s is about 0.18–0.20°C per decade.
In short:
👉 The warming has tracked very closely to mainstream predictions.
✅ 3. Which scenario are we currently on (best case, worst case, or middle)?
Climate models use different emissions pathways (formerly “SRES,” now “RCPs” or “SSPs”). Here’s where humanity actually is:
🌍 We are not on the best-case trajectory
SSP1-1.9 (≈1.5°C world) → Humanity is not reducing emissions fast enough.
🌍 We are also not on the worst-case trajectory
The old “business-as-usual” high-end scenario
RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5
is now considered unlikely because energy systems have shifted somewhat away from coal.
👉 We are currently closest to a middle-to-high emissions scenario
Most analyses put us near:
SSP2-4.5 (medium emissions)
or
SSP3-6.0 (high but not catastrophic emissions)
This corresponds to:
~2.4–3.0°C warming by 2100 if current policies continue.
If countries meet their long-term pledges, possibly ~2°C — but pledges are not policy.
So climate change today is playing out extremely close to what mid-range models from decades ago predicted.
'YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos)' topic.
There are three main cycles:
1) ~100,000 years for changes in orbital eccentricity (shape of Earth's orbit)
2) ~41,000 years for changes in axial tilt (obliquity)
3) ~23,000 to 26,000 years for the wobble of the Earth's axis (precession)
They are completely irrelevant for human made climate change, that has the potential
to decimate humanity in a few HUNDRED years, from increasing the temperature,
many thousands of years before the next ice age is due, if humanity DOESN'T ACT.
The reassuring article from Bill Gates, that you posted a while back, takes into account
that humanity DOES ACT, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WE ARE ACTING NOW.
What Happened 10 Years Later Is Shocking
only registered users can see external links
There are several regreening organizations at work.
They make their money from donations and views on YouTube.
Here are some that I know and watch:
Planet Wild: only registered users can see external links
Mossy Earth: only registered users can see external links
Leaf of Life: only registered users can see external links
Justdiggit: only registered users can see external links
Their videos are great. They give me some hope, with every video.
I'm thinking about donating to one of them, I just haven't decided which one,
how much, and if I want to get a paid subscription.
So why all the hate for cows in the green movement ,but bison are ok? Buffalo's and cows are very similar, similar enough that they are bred to each other.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
methane from buffalo
only registered users can see external links
Yes, buffalo belch (or burp—the terms are often used interchangeably for the same action of expelling gas from the stomach).
Buffalo are ruminants, a group of herbivores that includes cattle, sheep, goats, bison (often called American buffalo), and water buffalo. Ruminants have a specialized four-chambered stomach where microbes ferment plant material, producing large amounts of gas (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) as a byproduct. To release this gas and prevent dangerous bloating (a condition called bloat that can be fatal if belching stops), ruminants continually eructate—belching silently about once per minute, unlike the louder human version.
This applies to both major types of buffalo:
American bison (commonly called buffalo in North America): They eructate during specific rumen contractions, similar to cattle. Their belches contribute methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Water buffalo (Asian buffalo): As ruminants, they follow the same digestive process and belch regularly.
In short, belching is a normal, essential part of how buffalo (and all ruminants) digest food—without it, they'd swell up like a balloon and potentially die.
Yes, buffalo do fart. This includes both American bison (often called buffalo in North America) and other species like water buffalo. They are ruminants, meaning they have multi-chambered stomachs where microbes ferment plant material, producing gases like methane as a byproduct. While most of this gas is released through belching (eructation), some does exit as flatulence from the rear.
Scientific studies on bison herds have measured significant enteric methane emissions (from digestion), with per-animal outputs comparable to or sometimes higher than cattle, and flatulence is explicitly part of how this gas is released. Historic estimates suggest pre-colonial bison populations (tens of millions) produced methane equivalent to modern livestock, including through farts.
The "green movement" hates the BIO-INDUSTRY, not the cows.
It's not the differences between the animals that matters, it's the differences
between how they are living.
Bisons are a wild animal, that lives in harmony with nature. Did you even watch the video? They explained about what Bisons do, to improve nature, all over the video.
The modern cow is an over-engineered animal that ruins nature. It produces 10 times
the amount of milk, and therefore also emits much more waste.
Those Bisons are a few hundred individuals, in an incredibly large area, that has very few nutrients in the soil. Everything they drop and let fly gets absorbed by that area of nature, because it needs it. Cows live at best on a pasture that is saturated by nutrients, and they are living there in populations that are thousands of times denser.
The Netherlands has a problem with cows, because we have way too many of them for such a small country. That creates a massive pollution problem. Austria, for example,
a country famous for their Alp-milk, doesn't have the same problem with pollution from cows, because they have 1/8th the number of cows, in a country twice the size.
At that scale, nature is still able to process it.
Besides, if I was going to raise something for milk I would raise goats. Much better for you
Humanity should just learn to live within the means nature sets for us.
Most cows are not 'gene modified' directly, but are just the result of hundreds of years of selective breeding. It made them great milk and meat factories, but they would die off very quickly back in nature. If humans all disappeared one day, all the cows would die off very quickly. For some races, in 90% of the cases, if there is no vet to winch out the calf at birth, both the mother and the calf will die. They are bred that way.
Most people don't like goat milk and goat meat is even less popular, so I don't think society is going to shift away from cows, any day soon.
I'm not agreeing with many people on the left, that we should go back to a pasture with 1 cow per acre, because there are 8 billion people on Earth. What we need to do is find a balance between poisoning nature to death and starving ourselves, which prioritizes animal friendliness. We shouldn't be cruel to animals, but we should accept that it is impossible to live from nature, like we did 10,000 years ago, with 8 billion people.
I want progression and innovation to make society sustainable for the world. I don't want to go back to pre-historic times and I also fight against the denialism against the reality that we are destroying ourselves, by destroying the nature that supports us.
but a domesticated pig can?"
Cows are bred to give huge amounts of milk. No calf can ever drink that much.
A high-producing dairy cow would die within a few days to a week, if not milked.
Pigs are bred for meat, not milk. We only bred them to have large litters and grow fast. They can eat almost anything, so they are pretty successful in nature. Feral populations will actually establish fast, and can develop into an invasive species.
It's actually nature/evolution that is limiting the reproduction rate of e.g. wild boars, because an invasive species would kill nature, which would then kill itself.
You could say that we created cows to be losers and pigs to be winners.
However, too many winners will collapse the ecosystem.
(which is very much what humanity is doing too)
New Comment Go to top