If you include Chernobyl, it has killed quite a few.
* 31 immediate deaths, 6000 long term estimated. The zone of "dangerous health effects" is a LOT lower than you think it is, when you pull up the actual dosages and affected areas.
* 50 miners die in the US every year, 1000 globally. There are 4000 cases of black lung in the US every single year.
* Dam failures happen every couple of years, and routinely kill 100+ people. The worst of them-- Bangqiao Dam (China, 1975) killed an estimated 171,000 people.
Do we maybe want to take a deep breath, get a firm grasp on reality, and stop with the hysterics?
Nuclear has one of the BEST safety record of any power source by mWh, honestly
Nuclear power in the last 100 years has killed fewer people (all inclusive) than die in mining accidents in a decade. Fewer people have died from anything nuclear (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki), ever, than have died in hydroelectric dam disasters.
And lets not go into "long term health effects". You dont want to know the numbers for lung disease from miners, or from a dam failure (Its Oregon Trail all over again: YOU HAVE DIED OF DYSENTERY).
Solar and wind stack up nicely, except for the whole "they cant do base load" and "solar is horribly expensive" and "energy storage is hard" problems. So pick your poison: a nuclear power source that has statistically insignificant deaths (except Chernobyl -- 6000 deaths est.), or one that kills ~50 miners in the US and nearly 1000 globally every year-- and has nasty particulates to boot.
ITT: Geeks think that technical knowledge translates to legal knowledge.
DVDs encrypted with CSS were also "patterns of bits", but reading them in a very particular way (DeCSS) was determined to be illegal under the DMCA. Technical facts are different than legal facts. If you arent a lawyer, you probably arent qualified to make statements of legal fact.
Ive come to the conclusion that using ANYTHING in conjunction with adblock is a bad idea-- they seem to overlap and cause conflicts, and adblock already attempts to do the stuff that Ghostery / disconnect / etc do.
I have 3 posts on this topic (4 now), one of which is completely off topic. One defines the terms "murder" and "terrorism", and the other (the parent post here) expresses disdain for Weev's glorification of McVeigh.
If youre attempting to post-stalk me, youre doing a crappy job of it. Nothing I've posted here could remotely be described as character assassination. I do give you props for accusing me of ad hominems and following it up with an (apparent) attack on the fact that I practice a religion, though-- that takes a good deal of chutzpah.
Post WW2 German officials were not charged with "murder", but with provoking war, crimes against humanity, and so on. Generally you dont fire up an international tribunal because one country's soldiers killed yours-- theres an understanding that thats how war works. Where international courts get involved is when you go beyond the standard "soldiers killing each other" stuff.
You may wanna take that class, but heres a brief answer.
Bullshit. Murder is murder. Whether the murdered is armed or not.
Self-defense has NEVER legally been defined as murder, nor have international courts EVER considered one soldier killing another to be murder. Murder generally involves an unprovoked killing of an unarmed person in a non-combat scenario. This isnt a technical or legal definition, but my summary of the ones I have gotten (from poly sci classes, research, etc).
Define "non-governmental organization"
Id recommend you look that up, but this is a fairly general term. Im sort of surprised you've never heard anyone mention "NGOs"
And McVeigh might say he was not targeting civilians
"Government employees" are still civilians, if they arent in the military or police.
2 individuals killing one person is murder.
2 individuals generally do not form an NGO. If they WERE acting as an NGO, you probably could call it terrorism.
Most of your questions are answered in things like the Geneva convention (where it establishes ground rules, such as requiring the use of clear uniforms and so forth). Generally if you have soldiers with clear uniforms and nationality, them killing each other is governed by the Geneva convention and other such treaties. If one side is not wearing uniforms but IS taking up arms, they generally lose many of their protections, but remain valid targets.
But really you need to google this stuff, Im summarizing what is basic entry-level international relations stuff. NGO, "combat", "soldier", "murder", "civilian"-- these are all well defined terms, and its sort of irritating to pretend like theyre not. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here and spelling some of this stuff out, but really you have a personal responsibility to be informed if you want to enter a discussion on this stuff.
Im not sure what you're proposing, but I guess I dont see the problem here. Google has terms for youtube / their streaming service; if musicians/viewers dont like it they can let google know and leave the site.
But this is, at the end of the day, a matter between Google and the musicians, so it seems like it should be the musicians who (collectively, if they want to) negotiate with Google.
Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not
Your rights to the use of a Google service? I wasnt aware that those existed.
Maybe you're new to the internet, so Ill spell it out for you: when you enter someone's domain / website, its not a democracy, its a dictatorship, and your "vote" is to leave the site if you dont like their rules.
Its not murder when nation states with clearly declared intentions are involved. Its murder when its an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians. Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians.
If you're still not getting it, you may want to re-take that poly sci class.
Its generally referred to as a "supply-and-demand driven market", where AT&T, Verizon, etc offer you a service, which you pay for and then receive; generally, failing to pay for your service results in the service being withheld.
I know this is graduate level stuff, but try to stick with me here.
The "nasty things" and "UK tweet" comments were regarding a the hate speech laws in the UK which recently resulted in the imprisonment of someone over a racially charged tweet. Here in the US you could use some pretty nasty slurs on the president and while you might get fired or have other social consequences over it, the state itself wouldnt really have anything to say about it.
I appreciate a balanced post, and you're right that we have our own issues; I personally wonder why we dont institute loser pays as in the UK (though that, too, has its own abuses) to avoid some of the one-sidedness of situations in the US vs large corporations. But I guess my take is that Im far, far less worried about about one individual's rights getting trampled by a corporation, than I am about the state going full Fascist / Communist / Socialist / other Murderous Regime. I see free speech as incredibly important in fighting this tendencies of governments-- and its worth noting that the governments of that sort during the 20th century ALSO feared (and continue to fear) unrestricted speech.
I think thats probably a good way of summing up my whole take on politics in general, actually. Individual plight just isnt as big a concern as a government run amok to me.
I guess my take on it is, the black mark is deserved. Society punished the person by depriving them of freedom, but its still well deserved to treat the person with some degree of mistrust-- they did in fact show themselves to be untrustworthy, and statistically past offenders are more likely to be repeat offenders.
More than that, the "black mark" is an opinion thing, and I dont see how its healthy to try to legislate to change people's opinions.
The whole point is that Google makes it easy to say "screw you guys, I want to take my data and go somewhere else". With just about every one of their services-- including the ones they close down-- they provide an exit strategy.
AOL, Outlook.com, and others tend to make it DIFFICULT to leave their ecosystems-- its called lock in, and its kind of a crummy strategy because no one really thinks about it until years of their data are locked up on someone's servers. The fact that theres an unofficial-and-only-partly-functional exit strategy from Outlook.com sort of reinforces this; Microsoft doesnt really value giving you an exit strategy, because theyre in favor of locking you into their system.
In the context of Google being a "rotten" company, Im just pointing how relatively benevolent they are compared with just about any of their competitors. Im not even going into their competitor's collaboration with oppressive regimes, here, Im just looking at their relative openness.
The "fundamental issues leading to imprisonment" are that a free-willed individual broke society's rules.
There are factors that can cause people to go down a bad path, and we should work to address them-- but lets not ever make the mistake of shifting responsibility away from the person who made the choices.
Slashdot Mirror
If you include Chernobyl, it has killed quite a few.
* 31 immediate deaths, 6000 long term estimated. The zone of "dangerous health effects" is a LOT lower than you think it is, when you pull up the actual dosages and affected areas.
* 50 miners die in the US every year, 1000 globally. There are 4000 cases of black lung in the US every single year.
* Dam failures happen every couple of years, and routinely kill 100+ people. The worst of them-- Bangqiao Dam (China, 1975) killed an estimated 171,000 people.
Do we maybe want to take a deep breath, get a firm grasp on reality, and stop with the hysterics?
Nuclear has one of the BEST safety record of any power source by mWh, honestly
Nuclear power in the last 100 years has killed fewer people (all inclusive) than die in mining accidents in a decade. Fewer people have died from anything nuclear (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki), ever, than have died in hydroelectric dam disasters.
And lets not go into "long term health effects". You dont want to know the numbers for lung disease from miners, or from a dam failure (Its Oregon Trail all over again: YOU HAVE DIED OF DYSENTERY).
Solar and wind stack up nicely, except for the whole "they cant do base load" and "solar is horribly expensive" and "energy storage is hard" problems. So pick your poison: a nuclear power source that has statistically insignificant deaths (except Chernobyl -- 6000 deaths est.), or one that kills ~50 miners in the US and nearly 1000 globally every year-- and has nasty particulates to boot.
Its fair criticism though, given how many people died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.
Weren't DC-10s flying for many thousands of years longer than that? I feel like I've heard something about that.
ITT: Geeks think that technical knowledge translates to legal knowledge.
DVDs encrypted with CSS were also "patterns of bits", but reading them in a very particular way (DeCSS) was determined to be illegal under the DMCA. Technical facts are different than legal facts. If you arent a lawyer, you probably arent qualified to make statements of legal fact.
There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.
Theyre called "businesses".
Ive come to the conclusion that using ANYTHING in conjunction with adblock is a bad idea-- they seem to overlap and cause conflicts, and adblock already attempts to do the stuff that Ghostery / disconnect / etc do.
I have 3 posts on this topic (4 now), one of which is completely off topic. One defines the terms "murder" and "terrorism", and the other (the parent post here) expresses disdain for Weev's glorification of McVeigh.
If youre attempting to post-stalk me, youre doing a crappy job of it. Nothing I've posted here could remotely be described as character assassination. I do give you props for accusing me of ad hominems and following it up with an (apparent) attack on the fact that I practice a religion, though-- that takes a good deal of chutzpah.
Post WW2 German officials were not charged with "murder", but with provoking war, crimes against humanity, and so on. Generally you dont fire up an international tribunal because one country's soldiers killed yours-- theres an understanding that thats how war works. Where international courts get involved is when you go beyond the standard "soldiers killing each other" stuff.
You may wanna take that class, but heres a brief answer.
Bullshit. Murder is murder. Whether the murdered is armed or not.
Self-defense has NEVER legally been defined as murder, nor have international courts EVER considered one soldier killing another to be murder. Murder generally involves an unprovoked killing of an unarmed person in a non-combat scenario. This isnt a technical or legal definition, but my summary of the ones I have gotten (from poly sci classes, research, etc).
Define "non-governmental organization"
Id recommend you look that up, but this is a fairly general term. Im sort of surprised you've never heard anyone mention "NGOs"
And McVeigh might say he was not targeting civilians
"Government employees" are still civilians, if they arent in the military or police.
2 individuals killing one person is murder.
2 individuals generally do not form an NGO. If they WERE acting as an NGO, you probably could call it terrorism.
Most of your questions are answered in things like the Geneva convention (where it establishes ground rules, such as requiring the use of clear uniforms and so forth). Generally if you have soldiers with clear uniforms and nationality, them killing each other is governed by the Geneva convention and other such treaties. If one side is not wearing uniforms but IS taking up arms, they generally lose many of their protections, but remain valid targets.
But really you need to google this stuff, Im summarizing what is basic entry-level international relations stuff. NGO, "combat", "soldier", "murder", "civilian"-- these are all well defined terms, and its sort of irritating to pretend like theyre not. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here and spelling some of this stuff out, but really you have a personal responsibility to be informed if you want to enter a discussion on this stuff.
Google doesnt have a monopoly over streaming, or over online video.
Im not sure what you're proposing, but I guess I dont see the problem here. Google has terms for youtube / their streaming service; if musicians /viewers dont like it they can let google know and leave the site.
But this is, at the end of the day, a matter between Google and the musicians, so it seems like it should be the musicians who (collectively, if they want to) negotiate with Google.
Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not
Your rights to the use of a Google service? I wasnt aware that those existed.
Maybe you're new to the internet, so Ill spell it out for you: when you enter someone's domain / website, its not a democracy, its a dictatorship, and your "vote" is to leave the site if you dont like their rules.
I might be wrong, but my middle school level of physics leads me to believe that would not solve the problem of the pilot's forward momentum.
That's always been a mass vs mass game. More mass always wins.
So, lead brakes then.
If you want to pay nearly double for the same equipment, sure.
Anyone wanna run a price/performance analysis on a Nexus 5, or a Moto G, compared to the latest iPhone?
Its not murder when nation states with clearly declared intentions are involved. Its murder when its an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians. Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians.
If you're still not getting it, you may want to re-take that poly sci class.
I dont know that you could call "esteeming McVeigh" "browbeating them with superiority".
I sort of feel like theres a distinction there.
Its generally referred to as a "supply-and-demand driven market", where AT&T, Verizon, etc offer you a service, which you pay for and then receive; generally, failing to pay for your service results in the service being withheld.
I know this is graduate level stuff, but try to stick with me here.
SharePoint plugins
Whoah now, even criminals have standards.
The summary (and the article, to an extent) is bad
In case you're on a browser thats removed the URL bar: This is slashdot.
The "nasty things" and "UK tweet" comments were regarding a the hate speech laws in the UK which recently resulted in the imprisonment of someone over a racially charged tweet. Here in the US you could use some pretty nasty slurs on the president and while you might get fired or have other social consequences over it, the state itself wouldnt really have anything to say about it.
I appreciate a balanced post, and you're right that we have our own issues; I personally wonder why we dont institute loser pays as in the UK (though that, too, has its own abuses) to avoid some of the one-sidedness of situations in the US vs large corporations. But I guess my take is that Im far, far less worried about about one individual's rights getting trampled by a corporation, than I am about the state going full Fascist / Communist / Socialist / other Murderous Regime. I see free speech as incredibly important in fighting this tendencies of governments-- and its worth noting that the governments of that sort during the 20th century ALSO feared (and continue to fear) unrestricted speech.
I think thats probably a good way of summing up my whole take on politics in general, actually. Individual plight just isnt as big a concern as a government run amok to me.
big black mark on their record.
I guess my take on it is, the black mark is deserved. Society punished the person by depriving them of freedom, but its still well deserved to treat the person with some degree of mistrust-- they did in fact show themselves to be untrustworthy, and statistically past offenders are more likely to be repeat offenders.
More than that, the "black mark" is an opinion thing, and I dont see how its healthy to try to legislate to change people's opinions.
The whole point is that Google makes it easy to say "screw you guys, I want to take my data and go somewhere else". With just about every one of their services-- including the ones they close down-- they provide an exit strategy.
AOL, Outlook.com, and others tend to make it DIFFICULT to leave their ecosystems-- its called lock in, and its kind of a crummy strategy because no one really thinks about it until years of their data are locked up on someone's servers. The fact that theres an unofficial-and-only-partly-functional exit strategy from Outlook.com sort of reinforces this; Microsoft doesnt really value giving you an exit strategy, because theyre in favor of locking you into their system.
In the context of Google being a "rotten" company, Im just pointing how relatively benevolent they are compared with just about any of their competitors. Im not even going into their competitor's collaboration with oppressive regimes, here, Im just looking at their relative openness.
The "fundamental issues leading to imprisonment" are that a free-willed individual broke society's rules.
There are factors that can cause people to go down a bad path, and we should work to address them-- but lets not ever make the mistake of shifting responsibility away from the person who made the choices.