Are you saying I can vacation on the gulf coast this year? Hooray, the claims of global doom due to the Deepwater Horizon spill were crazy overblown!
I also work in the pipeline industry, and yes... People don't understand how ridiculous oil companies are about cleaning up the tiny spills they do have. And how even more ridiculous regulatory bodies are on even vapors of crude oil getting out into the environment.
Furthermore, people are against new stuff because old stuff breaks down. How the heck does that make sense? Sure 1940s pipelines have leaks from time to time. That doesn't mean that a 2015 pipeline will be constructed to the same standards.
Not only that but people complain about the maintenance of old pipelines to stop the construction of new pipelines... Because you know, we don't build better pipelines today than we did 40+ years ago right? The Pinto was not a safe car. Ford doesn't make Pintos anymore. Let us build a Fusion to get more Pintos off the road.
New pipelines have a very good safety record. The DOT regulates their construction and their maintenance. There are heavy fines for non-compliance.
Or maybe it could be that the gulf coast has the majority of refining capacity in the United States. In addition to water access, the gulf coast also has these things called "product pipelines" that can move refined products back to the Midwest and eastern half of the country. The alternative to piping it to the gulf coast would be to build new refineries in North and South Dakoka (not going to happen) and then build products pipelines to where it needs to go.
The point of the pipeline is to bring the oil to a transportation and refining hub. Without mentioning China, it's still the damn gulf coast.
No one is taking property from those that won't lease. There is no selling or taking of land for a pipeline (except maybe minimal amounts for stations along the way). This shows the ignorance of those opposed to it. The land used by the pipeline is called "right-of-way." The property owner remains owning the land. They are just restricted from digging and constructing certain things in a safe zone area where the pipeline crosses their property. The property owners are compensated on a yearly basis for the use of their land.
Trucks and rail are more likely to leak than a pipeline. Even more true of a new pipeline. Drinking water supplies are not as badly influenced by oil spills as you might think. Oil and water are pretty easy to separate.
Oil sands are already being refined, by low throughput refineries in the upper midwest. The pipeline will allow the crude to be sent to much larger capacity refineries. There is no such thing as a "duty free port." Those same gulf coast refineries also have products pipelines that bring the refined gasoline and diesel back to the midwest and all down the eastern half of the US.
Only crazy people would mod an AC to +5 Interesting with bullshit paranoia and even worse, one that uses an apostrophe for a plural.
The point is that trains are running through the midwest and will be for the next few years because the pipeline isn't there. The risk of rail accident is higher than pipeline and a pipeline couldn't care less about snow and the weather. No one seriously says Keystone would have prevented this accident, but they cite this accident as what we are making more likely to occur by delaying the pipeline.
There's only one elephant foot that we have found... Stroll about and search, but I think even today 30 minutes in the room with it will get you a lifetime dose of radiation.
It is possible that I underestimate my own attraction to brands based on advertising. However, the idea that it must be effective because companies do it doesn't work logically. They advertise because their competitors do and there is momentum in the industry of advertising. I think of it like calling a time out to "ice the kicker" in football. Evidence suggests this doesn't negatively impact the kicker and may in fact improve their chances but coaches continue to do it because everyone else does and they'd get negative press if they didn't. Coke advertises because Pepsi does and if they were to announce that they were dropping their ad campaigns their stock would plummet regardless of if sales actually dropped. I like Coke, but I don't buy it because of their advertising. Pepsi advertises a bunch too, but I don't drink it because it tastes like shit. I actually prefer RC cola where I can find it.
People must or Bayer, Excedrin, Motrin, or Tylenol wouldn't exist. There is literally the exact same pills with a different name right next to them at a lot lower price.
The advertising business is split, roughly, into two. On one side are direct-response ads meant to induce an immediate purchase: Think classifieds, the Yellow Pages, catalogs or Google's own text-based ads running alongside its search results. But the bulk of the ad industry is devoted to something called brand ads, the ads you see on television and print magazines that work on your emotions in the belief that, in time, your dollars will follow.
On one side, you get data that relates the advertising to sales directly. On the other side there is no actual evidence of return for investment. Emotional advertising is bull crap. No one buys Wonder Bread because a car in NASCAR is covered with its logos. Why that kind of advertising is still done is beyond me. Then again, the majority of the population are idiots. BRAWNDO THE THIRST MUTILATOR!
Actually it's more like you bought a house and now the water company stopped treating water and pumping it to the house. The fact that you own a house without running water makes your property useless for the desired purpose of being a residence. In this case the law forbids you from digging a well and treating water yourself to make your property useful again.
You are totally correct. All those "free speech" claims aren't being applied toward child porn. Both are grave human abuses and not just committing the act is a crime, but filming it, distributing it, even hosting it are also crimes. Why should murder be any different?
I agree with you 100%. People claiming "free speech" wouldn't be doing so if it were a child porn video that ISIS released. And if it were child porn instead of brutal murder porn, Fox News would be in huge legal trouble for distributing it. Abuse of a child is a crime and so is creating or distributing a video of it. Why should murder be any different?
There are limits to free speech and I believe there should be. And I'm not talking about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. I'm talking about things that are illegal to create, distribute, and view. For example: Child porn. Are you arguing child porn should not only be legal, but Fox News should be allowed to host it on their website? Maybe you are. If someone films a crime and distributes it in order to encourage others to commit criminal acts, it should be illegal to host and distribute it as well. You might be inclined to set a limit on what crimes might be included, maybe exclude street racing or selling pot or something else... But I think child porn and murder should probably be included in the list of banned subjects. The truth should be shared and if there is ever a trial, the jury should be able to view the evidence, but in no way should videos like this be distributed to the public for gawking at. And this is a Libertarian espousing this...
On a less government control end of things, I don't believe people should go watch this either. In the same way the cops cover a body or put up a sheet to prevent people from peeping at the dead, this is a matter or respect for the dead and the loved ones of the dead to not stare at horrific images of those killed.
When a major world power does a systematic genocide while trying to take over the globe it will have a parallel. Currently it's just a big group of thugs in an area of the world without a stable government. This would be better compared to pirates earlier in our history which the US handled very poorly. Religion may have something to do with it, but ISIS isn't killing people from Jordan over religion. Certainly not a major religious difference, maybe over sects.
There is still a difference in whether or not the perpetrators wants the public to know about their actions. The Nazis surely didn't.
There is still a big difference. Nazis didn't take pictures of concentration camps to generate sympathy for their cause. They deliberately hid the evidence because it would hurt their cause if known to the world. ISIS is intentionally staging these executions, recording it, and sending it to the media to get attention. Fox News just gave them attention. Do you think they might do something even more horrific next to make sure it gets on the news? This video shouldn't have been released because it tells terrorists that to get their message broadcast to the world, all they have to do is commit atrocities.
In my opinion this video shouldn't be shown and evidence of concentration camps should be. Both are equally disgusting in terms of horrors to human life. However, I think the distinction should be that one is intentionally desired to be shown by the perpetrators and the other is not. Giving the terrorists (or nazis or any other group what they want) sends the wrong message and ENCOURAGES more atrocities. ISIS obviously wanted people to see this horror, that's why they made the video and they released it to the media. The Nazis didn't want people to know the horrors they were performing and they didn't submit the evidence for the world to brag.
And most importantly, viewing evidence of the Holocaust makes it less likely that there will be another Holocaust like incident in the future. Showing evidence of terrorist executions makes them MORE likely to execute people in increasingly horrific ways to get attention from the world. It's the same reason why you shouldn't release videos or notes of people who go on shooting sprees and then commit suicide. It is a perverse way of encouraging insane people to commit horrible things or they will be forgotten.
News agencies shouldn't have to censor any material, but they should consider the ramifications of releasing it. Fox News decided money and page views were more important than discouraging future atrocities.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying I can vacation on the gulf coast this year? Hooray, the claims of global doom due to the Deepwater Horizon spill were crazy overblown!
I also work in the pipeline industry, and yes... People don't understand how ridiculous oil companies are about cleaning up the tiny spills they do have. And how even more ridiculous regulatory bodies are on even vapors of crude oil getting out into the environment.
Furthermore, people are against new stuff because old stuff breaks down. How the heck does that make sense? Sure 1940s pipelines have leaks from time to time. That doesn't mean that a 2015 pipeline will be constructed to the same standards.
Yes, because the environment of Canada never crosses the border.
Not only that but people complain about the maintenance of old pipelines to stop the construction of new pipelines... Because you know, we don't build better pipelines today than we did 40+ years ago right? The Pinto was not a safe car. Ford doesn't make Pintos anymore. Let us build a Fusion to get more Pintos off the road.
New pipelines have a very good safety record. The DOT regulates their construction and their maintenance. There are heavy fines for non-compliance.
Or maybe it could be that the gulf coast has the majority of refining capacity in the United States. In addition to water access, the gulf coast also has these things called "product pipelines" that can move refined products back to the Midwest and eastern half of the country. The alternative to piping it to the gulf coast would be to build new refineries in North and South Dakoka (not going to happen) and then build products pipelines to where it needs to go.
The point of the pipeline is to bring the oil to a transportation and refining hub. Without mentioning China, it's still the damn gulf coast.
No one is taking property from those that won't lease. There is no selling or taking of land for a pipeline (except maybe minimal amounts for stations along the way). This shows the ignorance of those opposed to it. The land used by the pipeline is called "right-of-way." The property owner remains owning the land. They are just restricted from digging and constructing certain things in a safe zone area where the pipeline crosses their property. The property owners are compensated on a yearly basis for the use of their land.
Trucks and rail are more likely to leak than a pipeline. Even more true of a new pipeline. Drinking water supplies are not as badly influenced by oil spills as you might think. Oil and water are pretty easy to separate.
Oil sands are already being refined, by low throughput refineries in the upper midwest.
The pipeline will allow the crude to be sent to much larger capacity refineries. There is no such thing as a "duty free port."
Those same gulf coast refineries also have products pipelines that bring the refined gasoline and diesel back to the midwest and all down the eastern half of the US.
Only crazy people would mod an AC to +5 Interesting with bullshit paranoia and even worse, one that uses an apostrophe for a plural.
The point is that trains are running through the midwest and will be for the next few years because the pipeline isn't there. The risk of rail accident is higher than pipeline and a pipeline couldn't care less about snow and the weather. No one seriously says Keystone would have prevented this accident, but they cite this accident as what we are making more likely to occur by delaying the pipeline.
This needs to be modded insightful. I can only imagine how the Catholic Church will respond to a male birth control solution.
There's only one elephant foot that we have found... Stroll about and search, but I think even today 30 minutes in the room with it will get you a lifetime dose of radiation.
I wonder if we can get some good images of the elephant feet that are all over that building...
It is possible that I underestimate my own attraction to brands based on advertising. However, the idea that it must be effective because companies do it doesn't work logically. They advertise because their competitors do and there is momentum in the industry of advertising. I think of it like calling a time out to "ice the kicker" in football. Evidence suggests this doesn't negatively impact the kicker and may in fact improve their chances but coaches continue to do it because everyone else does and they'd get negative press if they didn't. Coke advertises because Pepsi does and if they were to announce that they were dropping their ad campaigns their stock would plummet regardless of if sales actually dropped. I like Coke, but I don't buy it because of their advertising. Pepsi advertises a bunch too, but I don't drink it because it tastes like shit. I actually prefer RC cola where I can find it.
People must or Bayer, Excedrin, Motrin, or Tylenol wouldn't exist. There is literally the exact same pills with a different name right next to them at a lot lower price.
The advertising business is split, roughly, into two. On one side are direct-response ads meant to induce an immediate purchase: Think classifieds, the Yellow Pages, catalogs or Google's own text-based ads running alongside its search results. But the bulk of the ad industry is devoted to something called brand ads, the ads you see on television and print magazines that work on your emotions in the belief that, in time, your dollars will follow.
On one side, you get data that relates the advertising to sales directly. On the other side there is no actual evidence of return for investment. Emotional advertising is bull crap. No one buys Wonder Bread because a car in NASCAR is covered with its logos. Why that kind of advertising is still done is beyond me. Then again, the majority of the population are idiots. BRAWNDO THE THIRST MUTILATOR!
Better question, if I enter $2,147,483,648 will their server crash?
I miss Mandrake... Back when Gnome was awesome.
Actually it's more like you bought a house and now the water company stopped treating water and pumping it to the house. The fact that you own a house without running water makes your property useless for the desired purpose of being a residence. In this case the law forbids you from digging a well and treating water yourself to make your property useful again.
So to be clear you think child porn distribution should be legal?
You are totally correct. All those "free speech" claims aren't being applied toward child porn. Both are grave human abuses and not just committing the act is a crime, but filming it, distributing it, even hosting it are also crimes. Why should murder be any different?
I think you should question why you want to see it...
I agree with you 100%. People claiming "free speech" wouldn't be doing so if it were a child porn video that ISIS released. And if it were child porn instead of brutal murder porn, Fox News would be in huge legal trouble for distributing it. Abuse of a child is a crime and so is creating or distributing a video of it. Why should murder be any different?
There are limits to free speech and I believe there should be. And I'm not talking about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. I'm talking about things that are illegal to create, distribute, and view. For example: Child porn. Are you arguing child porn should not only be legal, but Fox News should be allowed to host it on their website? Maybe you are. If someone films a crime and distributes it in order to encourage others to commit criminal acts, it should be illegal to host and distribute it as well. You might be inclined to set a limit on what crimes might be included, maybe exclude street racing or selling pot or something else... But I think child porn and murder should probably be included in the list of banned subjects. The truth should be shared and if there is ever a trial, the jury should be able to view the evidence, but in no way should videos like this be distributed to the public for gawking at. And this is a Libertarian espousing this...
On a less government control end of things, I don't believe people should go watch this either. In the same way the cops cover a body or put up a sheet to prevent people from peeping at the dead, this is a matter or respect for the dead and the loved ones of the dead to not stare at horrific images of those killed.
When a major world power does a systematic genocide while trying to take over the globe it will have a parallel. Currently it's just a big group of thugs in an area of the world without a stable government. This would be better compared to pirates earlier in our history which the US handled very poorly. Religion may have something to do with it, but ISIS isn't killing people from Jordan over religion. Certainly not a major religious difference, maybe over sects.
There is still a difference in whether or not the perpetrators wants the public to know about their actions. The Nazis surely didn't.
There is still a big difference. Nazis didn't take pictures of concentration camps to generate sympathy for their cause. They deliberately hid the evidence because it would hurt their cause if known to the world. ISIS is intentionally staging these executions, recording it, and sending it to the media to get attention. Fox News just gave them attention. Do you think they might do something even more horrific next to make sure it gets on the news? This video shouldn't have been released because it tells terrorists that to get their message broadcast to the world, all they have to do is commit atrocities.
In my opinion this video shouldn't be shown and evidence of concentration camps should be. Both are equally disgusting in terms of horrors to human life. However, I think the distinction should be that one is intentionally desired to be shown by the perpetrators and the other is not. Giving the terrorists (or nazis or any other group what they want) sends the wrong message and ENCOURAGES more atrocities. ISIS obviously wanted people to see this horror, that's why they made the video and they released it to the media. The Nazis didn't want people to know the horrors they were performing and they didn't submit the evidence for the world to brag.
And most importantly, viewing evidence of the Holocaust makes it less likely that there will be another Holocaust like incident in the future. Showing evidence of terrorist executions makes them MORE likely to execute people in increasingly horrific ways to get attention from the world. It's the same reason why you shouldn't release videos or notes of people who go on shooting sprees and then commit suicide. It is a perverse way of encouraging insane people to commit horrible things or they will be forgotten.
News agencies shouldn't have to censor any material, but they should consider the ramifications of releasing it. Fox News decided money and page views were more important than discouraging future atrocities.