My point is that those same people who stood up to a schoolyard bully and were not subjected to anti bullying campaigns often froze when faced with actual mortal peril. This mythic past you envision where people are always able to stand up when faced with a real substantial risk of death never existed. Sure with hindsight we can see that the passengers would be better off charging the hijackers and not being slammed into a building. The passengers didn't have the luxury of a September 12 newspaper. They saw a group of guys who could cause them substantial harm if they charged them and would likely delay their trip if they didn't. As for less bullying by government agents you should take off your rose colored glasses and look at the actual history of the world around you.
Human psychology is a lot more complex than that. Look at the stats in World War 2 for the percentage of soldiers who never fired when in battle. These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is, facing likely death if they froze. Some decent chunk, even if the specific numbers are disputed, froze. There is also the fact that most hijacking didn't end in fiery death, but rather sitting on a tarmac while your release was negotiated.
Everything was not preserved. Lots of stuff was, some wasn't. You see the same pattern any time a large society with specialized knowledge falls. Look at the example of the Baghdad batteries. They seem to have been simple batteries, something that wouldn't be rediscovered for centuries.
The fall of the roman empire resulted in the loss of a rather large number of inventions for a long time. We may not have gone back to living in caves, but things were lost. The fall of specific societies can set us a species back technologically. Societies are fragile on large time scales.
It helps avoid a massive surge in power needs all at once and was a common solution on older light systems where a sensor would have been unreasonable.
There is a legitimate concern that a lot of cops have about being recorded while they work, that isn't because of misdeeds on their part. It is really easy for people to post out of context videos to places like youtube that make it look like the cop did something wrong. I don't think this concern should overcome the public nature of their profession, but they do have a reason to be concerned.
I think it is far too early to blame anarchists for the rioting. Sure the police are pushing that angle, but after the history of major police departments looking for quick easy scapegoats and at times even instigating the very events they seem to be stopping I'm less than eager to accept the official line. Until they come forward with some type of real evidence I'm sticking with the perfectly reasonable assumption that, as has happened all over the planet, a large crow, fueled by alcohol, got out of hand at a sporting event.
Perhaps my question was unclear. When and where was there a successful free market only education system? All of the dates you point to are after the creation of a government funded education system. It may have been at the state and local level, but it was government. I wasn't asking about federalism or central banking's impact on education, just for a situation where a strictly free market system has provided superior outcomes to what a government system has been able to create.
You put in awful lot of faith in the free market working in education. Can you point to a single situation where it has worked? Looking at any list of the world's top economies or eduction systems shows a list filled with countries with a strong government investment in education.
A disproof of evolution as a whole would be tricky without finding something springing into existence in a fully formed modern state. Asking to disprove evolution is like asking to disprove gravity the question is too broad to be of much use. Specific theories within evolution are better things to attempt to disprove. Did species A evolve in manner B? Creationism on the other hand fall completely outside of proof because they rely on the intervention of things that aren't measurable or detectable.
Here are the numbers for US plants as of 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf the section on radiation begins on page 325. For a much easier read the epa radiation risk calculator counts living within 50 miles of a nuke plant as an exposure of.009 mrem per year and a coal plant within the same distance as.03 mrem per year. There is less radiation released with modern scrubbing than there used to be, but it is still more than general operation of a nuke plant.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if a few crimes are missed by criminal SEO gangs the overall picture is probably worth it.
My point is that those same people who stood up to a schoolyard bully and were not subjected to anti bullying campaigns often froze when faced with actual mortal peril. This mythic past you envision where people are always able to stand up when faced with a real substantial risk of death never existed. Sure with hindsight we can see that the passengers would be better off charging the hijackers and not being slammed into a building. The passengers didn't have the luxury of a September 12 newspaper. They saw a group of guys who could cause them substantial harm if they charged them and would likely delay their trip if they didn't. As for less bullying by government agents you should take off your rose colored glasses and look at the actual history of the world around you.
Human psychology is a lot more complex than that. Look at the stats in World War 2 for the percentage of soldiers who never fired when in battle. These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is, facing likely death if they froze. Some decent chunk, even if the specific numbers are disputed, froze. There is also the fact that most hijacking didn't end in fiery death, but rather sitting on a tarmac while your release was negotiated.
The DOJ disagrees with you. Page 4 of the PDF has a breakdown. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf
Everything was not preserved. Lots of stuff was, some wasn't. You see the same pattern any time a large society with specialized knowledge falls. Look at the example of the Baghdad batteries. They seem to have been simple batteries, something that wouldn't be rediscovered for centuries.
The fall of the roman empire resulted in the loss of a rather large number of inventions for a long time. We may not have gone back to living in caves, but things were lost. The fall of specific societies can set us a species back technologically. Societies are fragile on large time scales.
It helps avoid a massive surge in power needs all at once and was a common solution on older light systems where a sensor would have been unreasonable.
You can't copyright a physical invention, you patent them. Early fountain pens were in fact patented.
There is a legitimate concern that a lot of cops have about being recorded while they work, that isn't because of misdeeds on their part. It is really easy for people to post out of context videos to places like youtube that make it look like the cop did something wrong. I don't think this concern should overcome the public nature of their profession, but they do have a reason to be concerned.
Are you out of your mind? Sports riots are well established in the US and Canada prior to this. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=capress-hkn_stanley_cup_riots_list-7164094
I think it is far too early to blame anarchists for the rioting. Sure the police are pushing that angle, but after the history of major police departments looking for quick easy scapegoats and at times even instigating the very events they seem to be stopping I'm less than eager to accept the official line. Until they come forward with some type of real evidence I'm sticking with the perfectly reasonable assumption that, as has happened all over the planet, a large crow, fueled by alcohol, got out of hand at a sporting event.
I had the same thought. A quick search of his name or the institute only returns stories about this. It smells fishy.
Possibly the only time my sig will be relevant to a conversation.
While the governments on both sides are doing some things all evidence suggests that these tanks are aimed at rival cartels.
Caffeine is addictive and kills a much smaller chunk of its users.
So incredibly dangerous.
Like the dumping of toxic waste perhaps?
I prefer their stance on relativity.
Perhaps my question was unclear. When and where was there a successful free market only education system? All of the dates you point to are after the creation of a government funded education system. It may have been at the state and local level, but it was government. I wasn't asking about federalism or central banking's impact on education, just for a situation where a strictly free market system has provided superior outcomes to what a government system has been able to create.
Government funded education well before 1965. Hell it funded it way before 1865.
You put in awful lot of faith in the free market working in education. Can you point to a single situation where it has worked? Looking at any list of the world's top economies or eduction systems shows a list filled with countries with a strong government investment in education.
Not the least damaging, but pretty low on the list. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
A disproof of evolution as a whole would be tricky without finding something springing into existence in a fully formed modern state. Asking to disprove evolution is like asking to disprove gravity the question is too broad to be of much use. Specific theories within evolution are better things to attempt to disprove. Did species A evolve in manner B? Creationism on the other hand fall completely outside of proof because they rely on the intervention of things that aren't measurable or detectable.
If smoking on the job is common and allowed at the factory it should be set up so that a smoking employee doesn't cause an explosion.
Here are the numbers for US plants as of 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf the section on radiation begins on page 325. For a much easier read the epa radiation risk calculator counts living within 50 miles of a nuke plant as an exposure of .009 mrem per year and a coal plant within the same distance as .03 mrem per year. There is less radiation released with modern scrubbing than there used to be, but it is still more than general operation of a nuke plant.