Nick de Cusa

Le fil des communistes commence normal, sans un seul participe passé correct. Par contre à la 443e page, ça ne parle plus que des libertariens. J'ai sauté les 441 pages entre.

Wall E, très bien. Avec même des moments de beauté.

Frank Zander, Hier kommt Kurt.

You know what to do.

Certes, s'il a des gens de sa famille qui ont besoin de son soutien, c'est une autre affaire.

Sérieusement, si tu es ingé télécom, tu peux bosser partout au monde, par pitié, pas la France. Qu'est-ce que ça t'apporterait de venir de faire sucer le sang dans ce pays de m…?

La plus grande de toutes les stars, et pas qu'un peu ringard, Garth Brooks: Brooks has enjoyed one of the most successful careers in popular music history, with over 70 hit singles and 15 charted albums to his credit and over 130 million albums sold in the United States alone. According to the RIAA, Brooks has sold the most albums of any solo artist in recording history, and is the second-most selling performance in terms of album sales, behind only The Beatles [2] Garth Brooks has released six albums to achieve diamond status in the United States, those being; Garth Brooks - (10× platinum), No Fences - (17× platinum), Ropin' the Wind - (14× platinum), The Hits - (10× platinum), Sevens - (10× platinum) & Double Live - (21× platinum).[3] Une chanson très entrainante, Life Is A Highway, Tom Cochrane.

Choc! La vraie cause du réchauffement climatique c'est une manigance de ma meilleure moitié. Ou peut-être de RH. Avec une conséquence vraiment catastrophique. Global warming could lead to more kittens By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.23.08 “Each year it seems to get worse and worse,” said Christina Gin, an animal shelter volunteer in Hayward, Calif., to the Hayward Daily Review earlier this month. She was talking about the shelter’s surplus of kittens, a problem that animal shelters across the country face every summer. But lately, it seems that there have been more and more of the furry carnivores. Ms. Gin blames global warming for the feline glut, and she’s not alone. The Humane Society has observed that kitten season, which usually starts in March and April, has been starting earlier and lasting longer. The Kansas City infoZine quotes Nancy Peterson, manager of the Humane Society’s feral cat program, who explains how warmer weather sends female cats into heat: “The brain receives instructions to produce a hormone that basically initiates the heat cycle in a cat,” said Ms Peterson, “and those instructions are affected by the length of day and usually the rising temperatures of spring.” The story quotes some dissenting voices, however, such as a veterinary professor at Iowa State University who argues that the cat’s sexual cycle is based on the length of day, not the temperature. But the warmer weather could still lead to a population increase, by increasing kitten survival rates, hastening the onset of cat puberty, or by helping more rats and mice survive, providing a more abundant food source. Last year, Pets Across America – an umbrella organization for animal shelters – said that shelters are seeing spikes in the number of incoming cats and kittens. According to a press release from the organization, several shelters experienced an increase of more than 30 percent from 2005 to 2006. An increase is not just perceived in the United States. The BBC recently reported a dramatic increase in kittens in a shelter in Bristol, England. No definitive link has been established, but climate change has been shown to change the breeding patterns of at least some mammals. In 2003, for example, researchers at the University of Alberta discovered that Canadian red squirrels are giving birth an average of 18 days earlier than their great-grandparents, a shift that they attributed to rising temperatures. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/…o-more-kittens/

Revu The Trumann Show hier soir. C'est vraiment un bon film, ça peut même se revoir et plus. Peter Weir (Master and Commander, The Year Of Living Dangerously, Witness, mais aussi, peut-être un cran en dessous, Green Card et Dead Poets Society) est un tout bon qui fait peut parler de lui à part par ses films. Moi je suis d'un lent par contre. Trumann. True man (la seule personne authentique dans le monde où il évolue). Bon sang mais c'est bien sûr. On pourrait interpréter le film sous un angle libertarien. Je ne sais pas si ça a déjà été fait: ne quitte pas la bulle, dehors c'est très dangereux, et si dangereux que c'est trop risqué d'aller voir par soi même.

ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate No smoking hot spot By David Evans Posted Tuesday, 22 July 2008 I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. First published in The Australian on July 18, 2008. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a…7669&page=0

Euh non, l'avis de l'ASP dans l'article que j'ai posté est plus récent.

Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d'avis.

PSG : négociations avec Arsenal pour Gallas lun 21 jui, 10h18 Le PSG, qui a décidé de ne pas attendre les résultats médicaux de Lilian Thuram, négocierait actuellement avec Arsenal la venue de William Gallas (30 ans, 31 matchs en Premier League la saison passée, 4 buts). A en croire le Sunday Mirror, le club de la capitale ferait des pieds et des mains depuis plusieurs jours pour convaincre l'international tricolore de rejoindre la France. Les Gunners seraient prêts à se séparer de l'ancien Marseillais en échange d'une indemnité de transfert de 7 millions d'euros. Lié jusqu'en juin 2010 avec le club londonien, Gallas souhaiterait prolonger son contrat. Mais Arsène Wenger, qui n'a pas pour habitude de conserver ses trentenaires, n'aurait pas donné suite à la demande de son capitaine. Plus d'infos football sur Maxifoot.fr http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/21072008/35/psg…our-gallas.html

Je le laissais mariner dans l'erreur. Hors sujet donc, mais j'ajoute quand même: pour des joueurs avec une constitution et une hygiène de vie exceptionnelle, c'est possible. Roger Milla marqué son dernier but en coupe du monde à 42 ans, Matthaeus a joué aussi jusqu'à plus de 40 ans (mais un an de trop) et Maldini a encore gagné la C1 à 39 avant après 22 ans de carrière professionnelle au plus haut niveau mondial.

Tiens, la American Physics Society émet un son de cloche différent: Blog: Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: pas Opens Global Warming Debate Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM Please input the letters/numbers that appear in the image below. (not case-sensitive) The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The pas is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible." In a posting to the pas forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The pas is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate. Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the pas, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low." Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth." Updated 7/17/2008 After publication of this story, the pas responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the pas, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403

La devise des libertariens Bruxellois: Rock'n'Roll All Nite (And Party Every Day). L'anonymat des membres est respecté grâce aux maquillages.

mmmmmmmm. Actualité Sports Rédaction le 20/07/08 à 09:19 PSG : Makelele à Paris dimanche soir ? Claude Makelele devrait être à Paris dès dimanche soir pour finaliser son arrivée au PSG. Le milieu de terrain de Chelsea et de l'équipe de France devrait signer un contrat de quatre ans, incluant sa reconversion au sein du club. Son club actuel, Chelsea, ayant demandé que tout soit réglé dimanche soir au plus tard, Claude Makelele devrait être ce dimanche à Paris pour y finaliser les derniers détails de son arrivée au PSG. Un contrat de quatre ans l'attendrait dans la capitale : deux années comme joueur et deux années sous forme de reconversion au sein du club. Sur ces quatre ans, le milieu de terrain de l'équipe de France toucherait 5M€ net. A.C http://www.ouest-france.fr/actu/actu_sport…amp;indexFlux=1

Pour les amateurs de Poe, le Double Meurtre De La Rue Morgue

Ils sont vraiment dans la tranche "confirmé mais pas vieux" 25-29 ans, c'est assez frappant. Ils doivent avoir calculé un coefficient de performance idéale. Ca donne vraiment l'impression d'être géré comme un commando des forces spéciales ce machin (l'influence russe?). Monaco… Franchement. Non, je crois qu'il vient au PSG de toute façon dans un rôle d'apaisement des fachos (ça risque de bien marcher). Et j'ai vraiment lu quelque part que la Mairie de Paris était derrière sa venue (Source? Sépu!), après mon imagination lib.orgienne a fait le reste.

Il y a des trucs qui sont durs à diagnostiquer et qui en plus ressemblent fortement à des trucs anodins: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145123…_genetic_heart/ Bon, mais j'avoue que j'ai ma petite théorie du complot personnelle, mais plausible, sur la venue de Thuram: pour moi, dès qu'il arrête de jouer il va devenir candidat socialiste, et venir au PSG lui donnerait légitimité à se présenter à Paris. Si j'étais la Mairie, je ferais tout mon possible pour que ça se produise. Pour Makelele, je préfère ne pas y croire. 35 ans certes, mais c'est une force de la nature et je crois qu'il a encore deux bonnes saisons dans les jambes. S'il tient à son niveau de revenu, il trouvera bien un Fenerbace ou un Qatari pour le prendre. En plus, s'il vient, son différentiel de salaire serait très mauvais pour l'amibiance, c'est humain (cf. la saillie de Sneijder sur "on n'a pas besoin de C. Ronaldo ici"). Mais il parait que c'est sa copine qui veut revenir à Paris, et on se rappelle que la même cause avait valu à Pires d'aller se perdre à l'OM, j'en pleure encore pour lui.

Arrêtez les mecs. On ne peut pas tout résoudre par de la moquerie. Il faut considérer sérieusement chaque question. Alors, que faire si le rechauffement de l'atmosphère déclenche la combustion de l'écorce terrestre?

Bon, lui, il ne va pas devenir mauvais rien qu'en enfilant le maillot du club. Pas lui quand même? Giuly enfin au PSG Ch.B. et A.H. vendredi 18 juillet 2008, 9h47 | leparisien.fr ImprimerEnvoyer Ludovic Giuly, 32 ans, est aujourd'hui à Paris. Sa visite médicale est prévue ce matin. Une conférence de presse, à 13h30 au Parc des Princes, doit officialiser son arrivée au PSG. Le dossier du milieu de terrain s'est réglée tard jeudi soir. Dans la journée, Charles Villeneuve, le nouveau président du club, s'était déplacé à Rome pour finaliser avec ses homologues le cas de l'international français. Ce dernier devrait signer pour deux années. Après Sessegnon, il est la deuxième recrue du mercato de l'été. Il s'agit d'un renfort de poids. http://www.leparisien.fr/home/sports/actu/…U-PSG_298636087

Bon, il ne comprend vraiment pas. Pardon aux lombrics de les avoir insultés.