Slashdot Mirror

Now that lasers are being touted as an awesome weapon, are they going to go nuts and ban laser devices like CD players on planes as well? I mean we are all SO impressed with aviation security in the US these days...

"I'm sorry ma'am, your laser pointer will have to be confiscated. Security reasons".

"But why are you picking on me? I'm an eighty year old grandmother! I'm harmless"

"Sorry ma'am, it's completely random"

Oh... That explains why you aren't searching those 17-40 year old Muslim males then".

It was an overly veiled reference to a flap from a couple years ago. Bad example, I guess, since military uniforms are one of the seemingly few remaining goods manufactured here in the US.

I emailed this link to the host of my favorite morning radio show last night before I went to bed, and when my alarm clock radio went off at 5:50 this morning, I heard him reading it on the air. Jim Quinn (host) had talked about Senator Hatch's plans before, and (like many of us) had found it very ironic that this man enploys pirates to do his web site.

"just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states."

Ah... where did you get that idea??? Liberals wrote the law not the power companies. The supposed deregulation set up a fix rate for the consumer but the distributers still had to pay the whatever the wholesaler wanted. Which is to say that it wasn't deregulated it was infact regulated. As demand rose the wholesalers started to charge more so that they could afford to build new cabling to supple the demand. Only problem was that the distributer was not allowed to raise the rates to cover his increased cost because his fess where, say it with me, REGULATED!

"so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want."

If it was truely private the government wouldn't be making all these laws to, say it with me again, REGULATE the market.

What this is, is an example of QUINN'S FIRST LAW - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."

check this out for TONS of info on gun control, facts about what's happened in other countries tat banned guns, and general good stuff.

-Jon

I agree completely. Should pampers pay for recycling my baby's used diapers? No, that cost should be placed on the comsumer.

If the government spent their money on this instead of funding false "environmental research", we'd all be better off.

In his book Slaughter of the Innocent, antivivisectionist Hans Ruesch provides an account of some of the experiments paid for by the U.S. government. Among them: $500,000 to see why monkeys clench their jaws when angry, $102,000 to compare the effects of gin and tequila on fish, and $525,000 to see if dogs vomit differently from cats.

I found this qoute from the results of a quick google search, on this page. I haven't read the whole page, I was just looking for some specific numbers I heard about on Quin and Rose in the Morning today, but I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for.

Note that the report doesn't say "human impact is bad".

Really? Let me quote the report for you:

"The human footprint is a global driver of conservation crises on the planet."

"Crises" related to crisis meaning: "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty". Sounds damn negative to me.

"...we need to find ways to moderate the negative impacts of human influence...

Can't even say they are implying that we have a negative impact. They flat out say it.

"Part of the solution is becoming better stewards of Nature across the gradient of human influence..."

Implies we are not good stewards!

"But the most important part of the solution is for human beings, as individuals, institutions and governments, to choose to moderate their influence..."

Implying once again that we do not moderate ourselves.

And that's just one section of the study and doesn't even mention the "sky is falling" spin CNN applied.

In fact I have no reason to suspect they're being dishonest.

I've seen at least twenty other posts pointing out flaws in their methodology. If the average slashdotter can find that many, that quick, I'd say there are issues with the report.

This is typical of how conservation organizations work, whether or not you want to believe it. Conservation organizations tend to be heavy in biologists.

Ah that's how you want them to work and if it was I'd be all for it. I have no evil goal of destroying the world here. But the fact remains that "greenies" are mostly undereducated knee-jerk reactionaries. i.e. First Earth day: "Global Cooling!!! Another ice age is only years away!". Todays: "Global Warming, We are all going to bake!". Or this report. Or my personal favorite the dam beavers.

So you see I have no problem with the goal of conserving nature, but I am skeptical of most groups that promote it because most feel that the majority of humans are a waste of space and would love to see them "just go away".

As it is now, I only listen to Quinn when I'm driving to work. Other than that, my car came with a six disk changer in the dash.