Politicians really hate being spied on or even having their publicly available stuff made public. My PM has never eaten in public as its private yet him and his crew continuously push for laws to spy on everyone and keep all the data, for the children. First it was child porn and anyone not with the government were child molesters and now it is internet bullies. The minister who was really pushing spying to stop child porn got very uptight when his publicly available divorce papers were published and everyone found out that he was screwing the babysitter for 8 years while married. This is the real problem with politicians and such, they assume everyone is crooked like them.
Given no government oversight business will have private security with the power to abuse people. History has shown rather then jailing they'll mutilate and kill as it is more cost effective. In the Americas Columbus started it by cutting off the hands of the natives who were not producing. There is the whole history of slavery which was run by private enterprise, companies such as the East India company and the Hudson Bay company both of which had powers usually reserved to government, the Pinkerton Detective Agency who were often hired to kill union people and other outstanding examples like the Congo Free State, a whole country ran by private business, once again they cut the hands of of people who weren't productive enough. Since the ultimate goal of capitalism is to acquire a monopoly and given lack of government, business willing to do anything to acquire and keep that monopoly, a world ran by pure business would not be pleasant no matter what the businesses tell you.
Perhaps San Marino? They were even free to vote i a Communist government and vote them out. Been a republic since 301 as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've signed almost a dozen countries up to buy some and spread the costs out.
You mean strong armed almost a dozen countries to buy some. The fucking thing is useless for extreme conditions as it only has one engine and experience shows that redundancy is really good to have in situations like flying in the arctic, probably the desert too. I can just imagine the statistics after 10 years of operation, 0 loses in combat (due to being scared to actually use it), 50% loses in training exercises.
The F-35 is a compromise design. Mostly it compromises its ability to loiter on the target, carry large amounts of munitions, and dogfight. So as long as you don't want to do any of those things, the F-35 is better than older weapons.
Still the same point, how much algae gets actually taken out of the eco-system? Anyways it really doesn't look like we're going to do much to stop CO2 release in the short term.
A couple of points. What was the pressure of the atmosphere at sea level during those times? We know the Sun put out less energy in the past so the Earth previously needed more greenhouse gases to be inhabitable. Eventually (perhaps a billion years) the Earth will get too hot even with zero CO2. The other point is that for 80% of the Earths history it has been in hot house conditions with tropical temps even at the poles. Ice house conditions (defined as having polar ice caps) have been rare. Thing is we and our ecosystem have evolved for ice-house conditions and the fossil record shows that when the Earth flips from ice-house to hot-house or the other way, there is usually an extinction event. While human kind may survive, civilization probably wouldn't and if it dies in war, well we have a lot of nukes which could make for a spectacular death to civilization.
The numbers I've usually heard have been about an order of magnitude higher. There's not many ways that CO2 gets sequestered. Plants, most of which rot and re-release their CO2 with some getting buried in swamps and such. We've also drained a lot of swamp land slowing down this method. And through rainfall, which increases as temps go up, causing erosion and eventually sequestering the CO2 as calcium carbonate. Also slow. Perhaps there are others I'm not aware of.
I think it's the same in N. America. My government, who is always claiming no money, spent $2 billion to install them claiming they're only so they can tell when the power goes out quicker. My meter just spent 6 months flashing error 7, they then showed up to reset it and the next week replaced it. Considering they're supposed to use the cell network and there is no cell coverage here, it seems like a big waste but as they're replacing taxes with fees and things like higher electricity prices I'm sure there is a long term plan to squeeze money out of us while bragging about some of the lowest taxes in N. America and any day now businesses will show up to take advantage of our low taxes. Whoever makes smart meters sure must have made money over the last few years and if they break as often as mine did they have an endless revenue stream.
Comparing epicycles and the denial that increasing CO2 levels can affect things do have much in common, basically wishful thinking based on preconceived ideas.
Actually the First Amendment only limited Congress, it said nothing about other levels of government. In theory the individual States were free to ban any type of speech or certain religions, courts were free to order speech limits, the President as Commander in Chief to limit speech for reasons of national security etc. This was also a time when dueling was an accepted means of resolving issues so there were natural limits on speech.
I recently read that India has amended its constitution a 100 times (98 according to wiki) though it's easier for them as most amendments only require 2/3rds of both houses to pass an amendment. Seems the American Constitution should have a comparable number of amendments as it is old and many things have changed. Yet even basic things are done via legislation rather then amendment and most Americans don't seem to have a problem with this. Even strict constitutionalists will agree with expansion of federal power as long as they think it is in the right spirit. How many Americans think that the Air Force should have been implementation via amendment? That is one example of an amendment that probably would have passed with no problems and yet we never hear anything besides how defence is a legitimate part of government.
I think the gp is thinking of large loaded trucks that have to go through a few gears just to make it through the intersection and might leave the intersection at 10-15 MPH. These trucks also usually try to avoid actually stopping when approaching the intersection, rather slowing down to a couple of MPH
I have socialized auto insurance, every year without an accident is a 5% discount (used to be 10%) to a maximum of 40%, doesn't matter what sex, age or occupation. Violations have a point system with most being 3 points, over 5 points pay a premium, lose so many points a year without infractions. Of course vehicle type, area that you do most of your driving, whether pleasure or work and actual coverage affects the rates. Medical is just a basic rate based on size of family and low income people are subsidized. Both types of insurance cut out a lot of overhead and are administered on the Provincial level with the Feds mandating minimum levels in the case of health insurance. I think that only low income people here get subsidized birth control (not counting savings from the government buying bulk) but that will vary on province.
You do know that America put nuclear armed missiles on the USSR borders first (Turkey) and then the Soviets retaliated by putting missiles in Cuba and then America had a hissy fit and threatened to start a global nuclear war over those missiles and finally agreed to secretly remove their missiles if the Soviets publicly removed theirs. No country likes nukes too close
Let existing state nuance laws handle the peeping-tom problems
which is a much different word from nuisance though sounding similar and I think if nuisance laws being for things like loud public drunkenness or even parties. Anyways I was tired and my attempt at a joke failed.
I believe it was the Stuarts that started the modern army thing with full time professional soldiers who were also used on their own subjects. Of course the Stuarts were nuts and really believed that they were appointed by God and had a natural right to be tyrants. This led to two revolutions, one with the King losing his head and the second Parliament replacing the King and becoming supreme. It was also the time when the average person came to believe in natural rights and the second revolution gave the first Bill of Rights, which included the right to bear arms (for protestants). One of the things that pissed off the American colonists was that they considered their natural rights as Englishmen was being infringed and most of the Bill of Rights of 1789 reflected this with many of the rights expanded including the right to bear arms expanded from self-defence.
Look up the long bow, a skilled user would limit himself to six shots a minute. Range was 220+ yards and they would pierce older (14th century) armour easily. Of course you had to grow up using them to be proficient especially as some estimates give a 200 lb pull though most 130+ lb pull. Smaller bows were also a formidable weapon in a skilled archers hands. The thing with firearms is that with little training and a bit of luck anyone could kill at a range further then hand to hand.
Have they really got nuance laws in the States? And how would that work? Probably better to make sure peeking tom laws have teeth and people are aware of them.
OK, another case of a good idea and bad implementation. Probably would have been better just to require commercial mail to have a clear opt out, which it seems to me most legitimate commercial email all ready has.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians really hate being spied on or even having their publicly available stuff made public. My PM has never eaten in public as its private yet him and his crew continuously push for laws to spy on everyone and keep all the data, for the children. First it was child porn and anyone not with the government were child molesters and now it is internet bullies.
The minister who was really pushing spying to stop child porn got very uptight when his publicly available divorce papers were published and everyone found out that he was screwing the babysitter for 8 years while married.
This is the real problem with politicians and such, they assume everyone is crooked like them.
Given no government oversight business will have private security with the power to abuse people. History has shown rather then jailing they'll mutilate and kill as it is more cost effective. In the Americas Columbus started it by cutting off the hands of the natives who were not producing. There is the whole history of slavery which was run by private enterprise, companies such as the East India company and the Hudson Bay company both of which had powers usually reserved to government, the Pinkerton Detective Agency who were often hired to kill union people and other outstanding examples like the Congo Free State, a whole country ran by private business, once again they cut the hands of of people who weren't productive enough.
Since the ultimate goal of capitalism is to acquire a monopoly and given lack of government, business willing to do anything to acquire and keep that monopoly, a world ran by pure business would not be pleasant no matter what the businesses tell you.
Perhaps San Marino? They were even free to vote i a Communist government and vote them out. Been a republic since 301 as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've signed almost a dozen countries up to buy some and spread the costs out.
You mean strong armed almost a dozen countries to buy some. The fucking thing is useless for extreme conditions as it only has one engine and experience shows that redundancy is really good to have in situations like flying in the arctic, probably the desert too.
I can just imagine the statistics after 10 years of operation, 0 loses in combat (due to being scared to actually use it), 50% loses in training exercises.
The F-35 is a compromise design.
Mostly it compromises its ability to loiter on the target, carry large amounts of munitions, and dogfight.
So as long as you don't want to do any of those things, the F-35 is better than older weapons.
You forgot lose an engine and keep flying.
Think of the mold and mildew
Why? Do you think it's better to be worked to death in the heat?
Still the same point, how much algae gets actually taken out of the eco-system? Anyways it really doesn't look like we're going to do much to stop CO2 release in the short term.
A couple of points. What was the pressure of the atmosphere at sea level during those times? We know the Sun put out less energy in the past so the Earth previously needed more greenhouse gases to be inhabitable. Eventually (perhaps a billion years) the Earth will get too hot even with zero CO2.
The other point is that for 80% of the Earths history it has been in hot house conditions with tropical temps even at the poles. Ice house conditions (defined as having polar ice caps) have been rare. Thing is we and our ecosystem have evolved for ice-house conditions and the fossil record shows that when the Earth flips from ice-house to hot-house or the other way, there is usually an extinction event.
While human kind may survive, civilization probably wouldn't and if it dies in war, well we have a lot of nukes which could make for a spectacular death to civilization.
The numbers I've usually heard have been about an order of magnitude higher. There's not many ways that CO2 gets sequestered. Plants, most of which rot and re-release their CO2 with some getting buried in swamps and such. We've also drained a lot of swamp land slowing down this method. And through rainfall, which increases as temps go up, causing erosion and eventually sequestering the CO2 as calcium carbonate. Also slow.
Perhaps there are others I'm not aware of.
I think it's the same in N. America. My government, who is always claiming no money, spent $2 billion to install them claiming they're only so they can tell when the power goes out quicker. My meter just spent 6 months flashing error 7, they then showed up to reset it and the next week replaced it. Considering they're supposed to use the cell network and there is no cell coverage here, it seems like a big waste but as they're replacing taxes with fees and things like higher electricity prices I'm sure there is a long term plan to squeeze money out of us while bragging about some of the lowest taxes in N. America and any day now businesses will show up to take advantage of our low taxes.
Whoever makes smart meters sure must have made money over the last few years and if they break as often as mine did they have an endless revenue stream.
Comparing epicycles and the denial that increasing CO2 levels can affect things do have much in common, basically wishful thinking based on preconceived ideas.
Actually the First Amendment only limited Congress, it said nothing about other levels of government. In theory the individual States were free to ban any type of speech or certain religions, courts were free to order speech limits, the President as Commander in Chief to limit speech for reasons of national security etc.
This was also a time when dueling was an accepted means of resolving issues so there were natural limits on speech.
I recently read that India has amended its constitution a 100 times (98 according to wiki) though it's easier for them as most amendments only require 2/3rds of both houses to pass an amendment.
Seems the American Constitution should have a comparable number of amendments as it is old and many things have changed. Yet even basic things are done via legislation rather then amendment and most Americans don't seem to have a problem with this. Even strict constitutionalists will agree with expansion of federal power as long as they think it is in the right spirit. How many Americans think that the Air Force should have been implementation via amendment? That is one example of an amendment that probably would have passed with no problems and yet we never hear anything besides how defence is a legitimate part of government.
I think the gp is thinking of large loaded trucks that have to go through a few gears just to make it through the intersection and might leave the intersection at 10-15 MPH. These trucks also usually try to avoid actually stopping when approaching the intersection, rather slowing down to a couple of MPH
every year without an accident is a 5% discount (used to be 10%) to a maximum of 40%
Forgot to mention, at fault accidents put a premium on the basic rate, can't remember if it's still 10%, probably is, then it drops again as above.
I have socialized auto insurance, every year without an accident is a 5% discount (used to be 10%) to a maximum of 40%, doesn't matter what sex, age or occupation. Violations have a point system with most being 3 points, over 5 points pay a premium, lose so many points a year without infractions.
Of course vehicle type, area that you do most of your driving, whether pleasure or work and actual coverage affects the rates.
Medical is just a basic rate based on size of family and low income people are subsidized.
Both types of insurance cut out a lot of overhead and are administered on the Provincial level with the Feds mandating minimum levels in the case of health insurance. I think that only low income people here get subsidized birth control (not counting savings from the government buying bulk) but that will vary on province.
You do know that America put nuclear armed missiles on the USSR borders first (Turkey) and then the Soviets retaliated by putting missiles in Cuba and then America had a hissy fit and threatened to start a global nuclear war over those missiles and finally agreed to secretly remove their missiles if the Soviets publicly removed theirs.
No country likes nukes too close
The post I replied to was
Let existing state nuance laws handle the peeping-tom problems
which is a much different word from nuisance though sounding similar and I think if nuisance laws being for things like loud public drunkenness or even parties. Anyways I was tired and my attempt at a joke failed.
To be honest, I haven't seen one in operation and the small ones being electric, I assumed would be somewhat quiet.
I believe it was the Stuarts that started the modern army thing with full time professional soldiers who were also used on their own subjects. Of course the Stuarts were nuts and really believed that they were appointed by God and had a natural right to be tyrants. This led to two revolutions, one with the King losing his head and the second Parliament replacing the King and becoming supreme. It was also the time when the average person came to believe in natural rights and the second revolution gave the first Bill of Rights, which included the right to bear arms (for protestants).
One of the things that pissed off the American colonists was that they considered their natural rights as Englishmen was being infringed and most of the Bill of Rights of 1789 reflected this with many of the rights expanded including the right to bear arms expanded from self-defence.
Look up the long bow, a skilled user would limit himself to six shots a minute. Range was 220+ yards and they would pierce older (14th century) armour easily. Of course you had to grow up using them to be proficient especially as some estimates give a 200 lb pull though most 130+ lb pull.
Smaller bows were also a formidable weapon in a skilled archers hands.
The thing with firearms is that with little training and a bit of luck anyone could kill at a range further then hand to hand.
Not if they have dual fences, one around the yard and another around their private hot tub area. Could be a hedge rather then a fence as well.
Have they really got nuance laws in the States? And how would that work? Probably better to make sure peeking tom laws have teeth and people are aware of them.
OK, another case of a good idea and bad implementation. Probably would have been better just to require commercial mail to have a clear opt out, which it seems to me most legitimate commercial email all ready has.