http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance- computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance- computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance- computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
On 2016-06-20, burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:[ ... ]
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
The Chinese have been building everything else for us. The idea that they
can build their own supercomputer or supercomputing cluster is not that far off.
There are a couple of non-proprietary designs or they could clone the x64 or >PPC.
In article <slrnnmgmut.rk9.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
On 2016-06-20, burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:[ ... ]
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
The Chinese have been building everything else for us. The idea
that they
can build their own supercomputer or supercomputing cluster is not
that far off. There are a couple of non-proprietary designs or they
could clone the x64 or PPC.
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a
multi-billion dollar exercise.
Gary
In article <20160620163022.00007089@buf.uk>,
burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
Nah. It'll be running Linux, probably CentOS
as opposed to the
spyware-infested consumer distro they're building for the Chinese
people.
China already has a couple of supercomputers, but I don't recall their ranking offhand.
Gary
On 21/06/16 01:56, Gary Heston wrote:
In article <20160620163022.00007089@buf.uk>,
burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
Nah. It'll be running Linux, probably CentOS
f*** systemd :-)
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a multi-billion >dollar exercise.
Gary Heston wrote:
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a multi-billion
dollar exercise.
I'm thinking that they most have made chips that are software
compatible with an existing ISO? Dong all-new hardware and all-new
compilers at the same time would be a lot to bite-off at once.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance- computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article 3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp" <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:14:42 -0500
gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
In article <slrnnmgmut.rk9.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
On 2016-06-20, burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:[ ... ]
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
The Chinese have been building everything else for us. The idea
that they
can build their own supercomputer or supercomputing cluster is not
that far off. There are a couple of non-proprietary designs or they
could clone the x64 or PPC.
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a
multi-billion dollar exercise.
Gary
Well, US has banned exports to China, no wonder they have to use
own chips ;)
On 2016-06-21 08:00, chrisv wrote:
Gary Heston wrote:
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a multi-billion >>> dollar exercise.
I'm thinking that they most have made chips that are software
compatible with an existing ISO? Dong all-new hardware and all-new
compilers at the same time would be a lot to bite-off at once.
China has about as many college graduates as the population of the USA.
More than enough talent & skill pool.
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp" >> <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
fuck you, communist troll
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob" <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp" >>> <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate
change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
On 06/21/16 09:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article
i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp"
<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
only arrogant, self-important, SMUG, SOCIALIST FUCKHEADS like *YOU* call
the *REJECTION* of environmental pseudo-science "in denial".
In article <slrnnmgmut.rk9.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
On 2016-06-20, burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:[ ... ]
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp <nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
The Chinese have been building everything else for us. The idea that they >>can build their own supercomputer or supercomputing cluster is not that far off.
There are a couple of non-proprietary designs or they could clone the x64 or >>PPC.
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a multi-billion dollar exercise.
On 06/21/16 06:48, Wolf K so wittily quipped:
On 2016-06-21 08:00, chrisv wrote:
Gary Heston wrote:
It's not the supercomputer that's the accomplishment, it's the non-US
chips being used. Making CPU chips is not trivial; building a fab to
produce near the level of current Intel and AMD chips is a multi-billion >>>> dollar exercise.
I'm thinking that they most have made chips that are software
compatible with an existing ISO? Dong all-new hardware and all-new
compilers at the same time would be a lot to bite-off at once.
China has about as many college graduates as the population of the USA.
More than enough talent & skill pool.
a college degree is only "proof of potential", and a massive body count
does NOT make a successful project, like the 'mythical man month'.
if your culture CONTINUES to discourage true innovation, you can only
copy others' innovation, "stay within the lines", and not be the nail
that sticks out too much [and gets the hammer].
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
On 2016-06-21, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
The whining of Republicans and Tea Baggers in no way interferes with getting
ANY kind of business done, or academic research for that matter. Academica has
it's own politics quite distinct from the political factions in government.
Nothing is saving American academia or Silicon Valley from "saving the world".
Plus, who is doing better exactly. People love to whine about the US but then don't really point to a better alternative without engaging in massive BS.
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
On 2016-06-21 13:02, chrisv wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
Life isn't about making money.
Idiot.
On 6/21/16, 2:22 PM, in article 7eiaz.7928$_z3.2270@fx05.iad, "Wolf K" <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2016-06-21 13:02, chrisv wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
Life isn't about making money.
Idiot.
The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money
in the long run.
We are costing ourselves money by being idiots and denying science.
On 2016-06-21 17:29, Snit wrote:
On 6/21/16, 2:22 PM, in article 7eiaz.7928$_z3.2270@fx05.iad, "Wolf K"Agreed, but it's a political issue, which means that those who oppose it will call it a "subsidy". Kiss of death, even among many supporters.
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2016-06-21 13:02, chrisv wrote:The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money in
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
Life isn't about making money.
Idiot.
the long run.
We are costing ourselves money by being idiots and denying science.
Have a good day,
Yes, heavily edited.
[ ... ]
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
[ ... ]
You do realize that the earths' climate has been changing constantly
for over four BILLION years? Throughout that time, the climate has
been both significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is
now. All without intervention by that minor skin irritation called
"humanity".
Climate change is simply a fact of life to be noted; sometimes it'll
be warmer, sometimes colder, mor stormy or less. It has never been a
static system, and never will be until the sun goes nova and blasts
away the atmosphere and oceans. And at that point humanity will have
spread to other star systems, or vanished and been replaced.
The doomsday screaming is a combination of politics and fraud.
[ ... ]
[ ... ]The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money in
the long run.
Nope. Spain tried to convert to solar and wind; it's destroyed their
economy. Even Google tried to power a data center with wind/solar, and
even they couldn't make it work.
The best energy source available in terms of reliability and
cleanliness is nuclear.
Gary
(I say at least four billion years because the estimates I've seen
regarding the earths' age is 4.5 billion years, and I'm allowing
500,000,000 years for the planet formation to stablize enough for a
climate to form.)
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
[ ... ]The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money in
the long run.
On 06/21/16 18:32, Gary Heston so wittily quipped:
Yes, heavily edited.
[ ... ]
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
[ ... ]
You do realize that the earths' climate has been changing constantly
for over four BILLION years? Throughout that time, the climate has
been both significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is
now. All without intervention by that minor skin irritation called
"humanity".
Climate change is simply a fact of life to be noted; sometimes it'll
be warmer, sometimes colder, mor stormy or less. It has never been a
static system, and never will be until the sun goes nova and blasts
away the atmosphere and oceans. And at that point humanity will have
spread to other star systems, or vanished and been replaced.
The doomsday screaming is a combination of politics and fraud.
[ ... ]
[ ... ]The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money
in
the long run.
Nope. Spain tried to convert to solar and wind; it's destroyed their
economy. Even Google tried to power a data center with wind/solar, and
even they couldn't make it work.
The best energy source available in terms of reliability and
cleanliness is nuclear.
Gary
(I say at least four billion years because the estimates I've seen
regarding the earths' age is 4.5 billion years, and I'm allowing
500,000,000 years for the planet formation to stablize enough for a
climate to form.)
I pretty much agree with you. careful engaging 'Snit', though, he's one
of the worst *kinds* of trolls. you might want to feed him for a while,
but he'll just get really LOUD and obnoxious and vent all over every
forum in existence, waste time writing a thesis on you personally and
how fucked your ideas are, etc. etc. etc. - it's funny to watch, yeah,
but gets boring pretty fast. Lately I just tell him to fuck off, if
anything at all.
Yes, heavily edited.
[ ... ]
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
[ ... ]
You do realize that the earths' climate has been changing constantly
for over four BILLION years? Throughout that time, the climate has
been both significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is
now. All without intervention by that minor skin irritation called
"humanity".
Climate change is simply a fact of life to be noted; sometimes it'll
be warmer, sometimes colder, mor stormy or less. It has never been a
static system, and never will be until the sun goes nova and blasts
away the atmosphere and oceans. And at that point humanity will have
spread to other star systems, or vanished and been replaced.
The doomsday screaming is a combination of politics and fraud.
[ ... ]
[ ... ]The US could *invest* in green technologies and make money. And save money in
the long run.
Nope. Spain tried to convert to solar and wind; it's destroyed their
economy. Even Google tried to power a data center with wind/solar, and
even they couldn't make it work.
The best energy source available in terms of reliability and
cleanliness is nuclear.
chrisv wrote:
Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
Life isn't about making money.
Idiot.
You do realize that the earths' climate has been changing constantly[...]
for over four BILLION years?
Bottom line: Housekeeping will cost you. If you don't do it now, you'll
have to do it later. Then it will cost more.
Wolf K wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
That effect exists, yes, but the net effect of pollution control is
increased costs, thus increased prices on goods and services.
I'm not saying that this is a bad trade-off, but it *is* a trade-off.
If we take a shit on mother Earth, we can afford more "stuff".
Life isn't about making money.
"Making money" is a huge part of life.
Idiot.
Stating facts to debunk the "Snit" thing's "logic" hardly me an
"idiot".
On the other hand, your reading into my post something that was not
there...
Wolf K wrote:
Bottom line: Housekeeping will cost you. If you don't do it now, you'll
have to do it later. Then it will cost more.
The problem is, people are selfish, and they figure that they'll be
dead before the shit hits the fan, or that "the little people" will
take the brunt of the effects.
On 2016-06-22 09:05, chrisv wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
That effect exists, yes, but the net effect of pollution control is
increased costs, thus increased prices on goods and services.
The net effect is the monetising of the costs. The costs are what they
are, whether monetised or not. Pollution is a cost, whether you clean it
up or not. Only question: cheaper to clean it up now, or let it go?
I'm not saying that this is a bad trade-off, but it *is* a trade-off.
If we take a shit on mother Earth, we can afford more "stuff".
Necessities aren't a trade-off. You can trade-off amenities and
luxuries, but not necessities.
Life isn't about making money.
"Making money" is a huge part of life.
I'll rephrase: Thinking of making money as a purpose of the economy is
like thinking of pumping blood as the purpose of the body.
Idiot.
Stating facts to debunk the "Snit" thing's "logic" hardly me an
"idiot".
I was using your argument pattern. Shouldn't have done that. Please
forgive my discourtesy.
Facts don't prove or debunk. It's their arrangement into propositions
that prove or debunk. And the facts must be both relevant (relatively
easy) and complete (quite difficult). Incomplete facts may lull us into thinking there is no problem.
On the other hand, your reading into my post something that was not
there...
I don't think so. While your point was valid enough, it was unsound,
because it was a) incomplete; and b) confused money and cost. $1 is to
cost as 1ft is to size. That's all. The cost of pollution must still be
paid, whether it's measured in dollars or not. And it will be paid, if
not now then later.
Bottom line: Housekeeping will cost you. If you don't do it now, you'll
have to do it later. Then it will cost more.
PS: Money is a measure of cost, not cost as such. Trouble is, most
people fallen into the mistake of believing that if there's no $$$
attached, there's no cost. Surely you know better than that.
Have a good day,
On 2016-06-20, burfordTjustice<burfordTjustice@buf.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Cornelis Tromp<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
Surely winston gave them instructions?
The Chinese have been building everything else for us. The idea that they
can build their own supercomputer or supercomputing cluster is not that far off.
There are a couple of non-proprietary designs or they could clone the x64 or PPC.
On 2016-06-21 21:32, Gary Heston wrote:
[...]
You do realize that the earths' climate has been changing constantly[...]
for over four BILLION years?
Quite so.
Thus the question is, Is the climate changing faster now than than in
the past?
Wolf K wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
That effect exists, yes, but the net effect of pollution control is
increased costs, thus increased prices on goods and services.
On 2016-06-22, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Snit so wittily quipped:
The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
Climate change is ignored because dealing with it *costs* money.
In no way does that let others get ahead in areas that *make* money.
Idiot.
If it costs someone, then someone else is making money.
That effect exists, yes, but the net effect of pollution control is
increased costs, thus increased prices on goods and services.
Pollution is an externality. It's going to cost someone something. The resulting damage will potentially be even more costly.
However, this is an issue completely orthogonal to climate change.
You don't need climate change hysterics in order to contemplate policy
as it relates to pollution or impacting the environment.
On 06/21/16 09:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob" <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp"
<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
only arrogant, self-important, SMUG, SOCIALIST FUCKHEADS like *YOU* call
the *REJECTION* of environmental pseudo-science "in denial".
On 06/21/16 09:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob" <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis Tromp"
<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
only arrogant, self-important, SMUG, SOCIALIST FUCKHEADS like *YOU* call
the *REJECTION* of environmental pseudo-science "in denial".
In article <i9ydnVxLN5E-7_TKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com>
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/21/16 09:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article
i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis >>>>> Tromp"
<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
only arrogant, self-important, SMUG, SOCIALIST FUCKHEADS like *YOU* call
the *REJECTION* of environmental pseudo-science "in denial".
Lol! Talk about oxymorons, "environmental pseudo-science" is a
social and solar energy business agenda based on skewed climate
modeling to advance something that is not occurring.
You want to see another example of social agendas? Take a look
at Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago. Same enviro/pseudo/social
activist dummies driving the buses, same identical failed result
in all three cities.
You'd think somebody intelligent would figure out that social
agendas are 100% complete utter failures.
You want to see success? Look at Norway.
In article <i9ydnVxLN5E-7_TKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com>
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/21/16 09:58, Snit so wittily quipped:
On 6/21/16, 9:50 AM, in article
i9ydnSBLN5G47fTKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
On 06/20/16 13:58, Snit so wittily quipped:LOL! And that is about the level of those in denial.
On 6/20/16, 12:26 PM, in article
3f3ce61edaedd5f00d4da3fd27818f9a@anon.holland.remailer.nl, "Cornelis >>>>> Tromp"
<nobody@holland.remailer.nl> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-The US ignores science to the point that many deny the basics of climate >>>>> change. They are actively working to let others get ahead.
computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-
chips.html
fuck you, communist troll
only arrogant, self-important, SMUG, SOCIALIST FUCKHEADS like *YOU* call
the *REJECTION* of environmental pseudo-science "in denial".
Lol! Talk about oxymorons, "environmental pseudo-science" is a
social and solar energy business agenda based on skewed climate
modeling to advance something that is not occurring.
You want to see another example of social agendas? Take a look
at Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago. Same enviro/pseudo/social
activist dummies driving the buses, same identical failed result
in all three cities.
You'd think somebody intelligent would figure out that social
agendas are 100% complete utter failures.
You want to see success? Look at Norway.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:13:36 |
| Calls: | 6,646 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,327,170 |