Lacessit

2 hours ago, johng said:

 Well mine is quite identifiable too   but it isn't a "detachable penis"

 

 

You've had a tattoo?

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Given her confessed background one assumes she would know!

No doubt she has had bigger fish to fry. Apologies for the mixed metaphor.

1 minute ago, johng said:

 Yeah  another farcical prosecution  I suppose whist they are doing the rectal search they will take photos of "lunch box"  so that it can appear in a line up for "Stormy" to identify the offending sausage  in court ?

According to Stormy, it's one of the most weirdly shaped todgers on the planet. IIRC the words tiny and mushroom keep cropping up.

You could help him out big time by loaning him yours for the duration of the trial.

2 minutes ago, johng said:

I doubt very much that Trump needs them either.

He's had the nickname Diaper Don for years, Michael Cohen added Don von Schitzendrawers recently.

With his age and diet, I could almost guarantee he has man boobs. Perhaps Stormy will be able to enlighten us further, when she testifies.

Just now, johng said:

Did he ?    and anyway  wherever he goes they must go too

...don't they ?

It would not surprise me if a compromise was reached. For example, the judge could order Trump to be confined at Mar-a-Lago, with the proviso he gets to see a real cell if he sets foot outside that property.

Just now, johng said:

 

Will his secret service  protection unit also undergo this humiliation ?

No, because they won't be convicted felons. And unless recruitment standards have been drastically lowered, they won't be needing nappies and bras either.

9 hours ago, Yagoda said:

38 cm? Hell that beats Melania. Corset much? Your liver says its crowded

Melania must have really stacked on the weight. or you need your spectacles prescription updated. Corset? I don't even have man boobs.

Now there's a mental image for everyone. Trump having to submit to a body cavity search at his prison induction, then getting fitted with a nappy and bra.

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't think I was ever part of a survey, at least I don't remember it.

But sometimes I hear about results of some surveys, and I think: They should have asked me. 😉 

I have been occasionally tempted to take one, then be a complete outlier with BS answers.

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And is that a problem?

If a survey requires answers from i.e. 1000 people, hire some people who call 1000 people or let the AI do the job.

Possibly AI can do that by now. Faster, more efficient and probably more accurate than humans. 

My attitude to surveys is my time is worth something, and I have never had anyone offer me money for my time in answering a survey. So I don't do them, and I don't care if it is a human or AI doing the interrogation.

I don't know about more accurate, a survey is only as good as the information people give it.

It does not scare me at all. I keep asking questions either AI can't answer, or the answer is totally wrong.

I got a call from an AI survey centre recently. I don't do surveys anyway, but it only took me two questions to work out I was talking to a robot.

I am polite and respectful to most people, irrespective of nationality. I tend to avoid association with rough-looking people.

Many years ago, a martial arts instructor taught me the best thing to do in a confrontation is to walk away. Because there is always someone out there who will be faster, stronger, or more skilled.

IME people who go looking for trouble usually find it. I don't.

5 minutes ago, wavodavo said:

 

They do that in most stores here too. IIRC they test before you pay.

3 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Where there are no panels the heat gets absorbed into the ground unlike a solar farm area where the heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, its not rocket science but logical! I believe the current temperatures are just a natural cycle and global warming due to carbon emissions is just another world scam! 

Exactly. You "believe". Billions of people "believe" there is a God, despite having no physical evidence for such a being.

Global warming due to carbon emissions is replete with physical evidence. Scientists can easily demonstrate the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs radiation in the infra-red spectrum. There are food ovens and paint curing systems which rely on infra-red designs. They also have data which shows CO2 levels have gone from 280 ppm to 420 ppm in 200 years of industrialization.

Average ocean temperatures are rising. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and the Himalayas are disappearing. Polar bears are losing habitat in the Arctic. In the last decade, Australia has set new records for inland heat cells.

This is all undeniable physical evidence. What astonishes me is so many people with no scientific training seem to think they know better. Natural cycle my aching @!se.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Not talking about my ego. Nor your waistline.

38 cm, which IMO would beat most Americans easily. Including Trump.

7 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

Rich people can afford renewable power sources and battery storage. The average person can't.

Fossil-fueled power generators have a shrinking market. If they leave their prices as is, their profitability decreases. 65% of electricity worldwide is still generated from fossil fuel.

Your grasp of business economics is no better than your grasp of science.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. Well since you are the xpert on everything, solve the USA border problem for us. And how will you takle inflation?

I'd start with your opinion of yourself.

2 hours ago, sidneybear said:

I understand thermodynamics, and that energy can't be created or destroyed, but you're making the assumption that the earth is a closed system and that the sun progressively warms the oceans. What actually happens is that heat is radiated back into space. It's true that CO2 reduces that radiation, but CO2 is produced by more than just the burning of fossil fuels. Limestone rocks emit it, oceans emit it, decomposition emits it, volcanoes emit it, animals fart it, loss of forests doesn't absorb it, etcetera. If you look back through the  ages, there are times when CO2 was much higher than it is now - times when neither humans nor use if fossil fuels existed. The earth does its thing in very long  and shorter cycles. Blaming it all on humans and asking people to live in poverty to control the weather is, well, antihuman.

You are wrong in several aspects. We were not around during the Ordovician period, 485 million years ago. We only came into being about 700,000 years ago. We did not start influencing climate until the Industrial Revolution, which is only 200 years ago.

You think natural gas is clean fossil fuel? It comes out of the ground with up to 35% CO2 in it.

Limestone is calcium carbonate. It doesn't emit CO2 until humans heat it at 900 C to make lime, the heating achieved using fossil fuels.

While it is true animals fart CO2, they also fart methane, which is 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Intensive animal husbandry started about the same time as the Industrial revolution

Pretending CO2 and climate change are cyclical is the classic argument used by denialists to divert away from the evidence that overwhelmingly indicates humans are responsible for current and coming climate changes.

Poverty is unavoidable. Conservative models indicate by 2050 water flows to the Mekong, Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers from the Himalayan plateau will be halved. About 2 billion people depend on that water supply.

You say you understand thermodynamics, your response says you don't. I won't waste my time any further.

3 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Please explain 

The First Law of Thermodynamics states all forms of energy are interchangeable. When you drive your car, you are converting the chemical energy of gasoline to kinetic energy, and heat energy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states heat energy will always flow from a hotter entity to a colder entity, unless work is done to reverse said flow. That's what an air-conditioner does.

We get about 97% of the Earth's heat from the Sun. That heat has to go somewhere. It goes into the oceans. The oceans get warmer.

For 10,000 years, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. Since the Industrial Revolution, that level has risen to 425 ppm, the result of humans burning fossil fuels.

Increased carbon dioxide increases the amount of heat the Earth absorbs from the Sun. That is global warming.

Storms like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are heat engines, the First Law of Thermodynamics in operation. The heat energy in the ocean is converted to kinetic energy.

The warmer our oceans become, the more intense those storms will be. Ask any meteorologist. That is climate change.

I am a retired scientist. I have never got any funding from anyone for climate research, so I can't be accused of having a vested interest. I also will be dead before the worst effects arrive, so I am objective.

Scientists work from measurement and observation. All the data is saying we are warming up, as a result of human activity.

Here's another data set which indicates what is happening.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Just a few conclusions so far, first of all Trump's original argument that he never had sex with that woman is about as credible as Clinton's argument in regard to Lewinsky.

 

The second aspect of this is that when Stormy takes the stand all she has to do is provide a very graphic description of his unit and then have a member of the court examine it, as it appears by her description, to be one of the most peculiar organs ever seen by modern man. It would immediately disprove his defense that he never got with her. 

I'm just wondering how Trump's defense attorneys could possibly skate around that one. The prosecution would no doubt want to open up that line of questioning.

Can Trump take the Fifth on dropping his pants?

40 minutes ago, Jackbenimble said:

Legalising it would be a good thing IMO

I don't disagree. However, that would probably reduce the profits of the status quo.

For example, the biggest karaoke/brothel in Chiang Mai is owned by a high police official.

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Who is that?

A former poster on TV/ASEAN who got himself banned.

The coincidence of his and your writing style on a couple of occasions jogged my memory. As does the fact N Yezhov succeeded Yagoda as head of Stalin's NKVD in the 1930's.