It's a particular genre of BS though, isn't it? One that appears incongruent with your blog history, or have you not noticed the patently bleedin' obvious?
Yes, I'd appreciate an explanation for Donald Trump, Joey Chestnut, excessive hotdog gluttony and the accompanying nonsensical rhetoric about god and the nation.
Do you put your hand on your heart, sing your national anthem, salute your flag and shout, "Ma freedoms!" every time you pass wind, or is that just the image you try to promote to the rest of the world?
The introduction to gorging on sixty-two meals in ten minutes whilst so many have less in weeks, or months:
"...for he does not do it for money; he does not do it for glory. He does it for his people; he does it for his country; he does it for freedom; and the gods shine down on us now and the gods shine down on us still because of him alone, because of him alone...."
Is it supposed to be funny? Ironic? What am I missing?
Surely you have people who are more worthy to represent your nation in the eyes of the world? Over 300M people and the best you can do is Donald Trump, Joey Chestnut and the same vacuous rhetoric...?
We don't get such extreme weather here, but since I've been living on a mountain (it's a molehill by US standards) I've been mindful that a heavy snowfall could be troublesome.
I like your tip about freezing bottles of water and I'll add it to my winter contingency plan.
I hope everyone stays safe on your side of the pond.
So now we've caused an increase in temperature over the ast 200 years driving cars, etc., can we overcome how we operate before it's too late?
Given what we do in this decade is key to our children's and grandchildren's survival and three and a half years have already passed, how many years are you prepared to spend on denial and irrelevant supposition?
We all need to take action to halve our personal carbon footprint from 2020-2030.
That was the prep for claiming he was wrongfully silenced.
Many of his historical lies have followed this tried and tested pattern.
Why are you surprised now?
It was obvious that he was going to complain he didn't get a chance to speak. That's why the judge offered an extension and a deadline before allowing closing arguments.
Next it will be the ineffective counsel claim and that Tacopina wrongfully advised him not to attend, or accept the offer to take the stand.
The kind of judge who understands the impact of DNA evidence extracted, or not, from an item of clothing that hasn't been stored as evidence for three decades.
I'd say that was a variation of a usual Donald Trump tactic to distract from his own failings, or wrong-doings.
It usually takes the form of accusing his 'enemies' (for that's how he views others who challenge him) of things he, or his allies have done. It reduces any counter-challenge to a playground 'no, you did it' argument. It's been quite effective for him, especially as many of his supporters' reasoning ability appears to be stuck in that era.
Here, Trump's is attempting to mitigate his non-attendance by turning 'I didn't show my face' to 'They can't face me'. It'll be interesting to see how that is embellished over time who assimilates it, particularly now that Tucker Carlson has been fired.
AI doesn't meet all the requirements for biological life. It has a need for energy, but can't seek it. It doesn't possess membrane bound cells, nor is there metabolism and homeostasis within those cells.
When we talk about the existence of life with respect to AI, we are talking about sentience, the ability to perceive, or feel things: are we destroying sentience if we cut off the energy supply, or dismantle the structure?
The trouble is, from our very first teddy bear, we do have a propensity for projecting life and sentience onto even the most obviously inanimate objects. How can we ensure objectivity?
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,982)
... 
... 
...
RE: Joey does it again...
I'm fully aware that it's BS.It's a particular genre of BS though, isn't it? One that appears incongruent with your blog history, or have you not noticed the patently bleedin' obvious?