As far as isolationism, I had meant the time before the Spanish-American War;-)
Also, does wind suffer from the same negative net energy balance as solar, that is, it takes more energy to create the solar panels than they actually produce in a reasonable lifetime? Does the cost per KWH in the link (thanks!) include the long-term capital costs? And what's so bad about having the Germans and Danes work out the kinks? It's not like the US and Denmark and Germany don't get along... I'd guess we're all pretty big trading partners.
>>Saddam Hussein may certainly have been very evil. But his "crime" was not his oppression of people, but rather that he tried too hard to be like the U.S. - a sovereign nation possessing weapons of strategic deterrence.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The US didn't sign treaties that Iraq did. Iraq signed the NNPT, the US did not. The US did not ratify the Kyoto Accord... should the US have to abide by it? If it was ratified, should the US have to abide by it?
I can't really find all that much I agree with in your statement, except the last line: I think I'd like to go back to being isolationists, too!:-)
I do have a question for you, though... isn't nuclear power our best bet right now? Some places don't have all that much sun and others don't have that much wind, but you can always ship Uranium in.
>>Both candidates are out of step with the rest of world opinion.
For some reason this makes very little sense to me. It'd be like me saying, "Canada is in trouble because its elected officals are out of step with U.S. opinion." Do we really want to elect people who care more about world opinion than our own? Why not just elect the Pope?
>>All the surveys I've seen indicate that despite a rising GDP, people don't feel that their standard of living has gone up.
Money is only worth something because of perceived rarity. If more people have more money, the value of the money goes down, doesn't it? Or am I not getting something?
Shouldn't you be equal opportunity and present the, "It's tough to be a Democrat" list? After all, you can be a Republican and think everything on that list is crap.
Just like how you can be a Democrat and think Hillary and/ or Diane are insane.
Why don't people ever think, "Hey, I might save a few bucks this month at the uber-store, but Herb's Grocery has alwasy treated me right so I should give them my business?"
That's complete and utter crap. Good God, at the Catholic high school I attended, the frickin' priest during Freshman theology said the Bible was not to be taken literally.
Guns aren't allowed in Japan, which has THE highest suicide rate in the industrialized world. We let cops carry guns. They (usually) don't go about killing people when they get mad? Are cops better than the rest of us?
That said, take away all the guns, there will still be plenty of crime. So guns don't cause crime. Take away the people, no more crime. So clearly, the objective is to ban people to reduce crime:-)
Besides, when you take all the guns away, it's the government that kills you instead of the average crook.
I submit to you the #5 on the Slashdot Hall of Fame, browsing at +3 and nested, to get more and better answers than I can provide.
I guess I did miss your point. It was my understanding that your point is that putting guns in someone's hands makes them a killer. If this is the case, then I simply don't agree with it.
Also, living in an apartment complex, there'd be no reason for the postwoman to visit my grandmother, and post office workers usually don't accost elderly women.
Caliber is extremely relevant! Kill someone with a.000000001:-). Or, shoot someone with a 50... I don't think it'll happen.
Besides, it's not a secret that guns make it easier for people to kill. But normal people don't kill others, so it shouldn't matter what type of firearm a normal person has.
Guns also makes it easier for my single, 89-year-old grandmother to discourage the stupidity of home intruders, if it ever came down to it. And, it provides for the defense against not just the common criminals but the uncommon ones in Washington, DC.
You can only man-carry a.50 cal rifle, it's bolt action, and you can only do a shot every 20 seconds at best. Plenty of time for citizens with balls to remove you as a threat.
All I'm saying is that documentaries have to be unbiased. All the other stuff should be called edutainment or some other stupid blending of words. If something is based on documents, it doesn't require narration as the viewing audience can make the decision for themselves.
Besides, I don't think whales can argue their own points or write their own documents.
Then that means, by definition, he doesn't make documentaries.
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
In my state you need neither permission to own nor to carry. One is supposed to get licensed to carry, but it's shall issue. Our nice neighbor VT does not require a carry license.
Slashdot Mirror
Hong Kong isn't a country, is it?
;-)
You know, like Africa isn't a country... or Korea
As far as isolationism, I had meant the time before the Spanish-American War ;-)
Also, does wind suffer from the same negative net energy balance as solar, that is, it takes more energy to create the solar panels than they actually produce in a reasonable lifetime? Does the cost per KWH in the link (thanks!) include the long-term capital costs? And what's so bad about having the Germans and Danes work out the kinks? It's not like the US and Denmark and Germany don't get along... I'd guess we're all pretty big trading partners.
>>Saddam Hussein may certainly have been very evil. But his "crime" was not his oppression of people, but rather that he tried too hard to be like the U.S. - a sovereign nation possessing weapons of strategic deterrence.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The US didn't sign treaties that Iraq did. Iraq signed the NNPT, the US did not. The US did not ratify the Kyoto Accord... should the US have to abide by it? If it was ratified, should the US have to abide by it?
Thanks for the quick reply!
:-)
I can't really find all that much I agree with in your statement, except the last line: I think I'd like to go back to being isolationists, too!
I do have a question for you, though... isn't nuclear power our best bet right now? Some places don't have all that much sun and others don't have that much wind, but you can always ship Uranium in.
Have a good one,
E. Normus Johnson, Esq.
>>Both candidates are out of step with the rest of world opinion.
For some reason this makes very little sense to me. It'd be like me saying, "Canada is in trouble because its elected officals are out of step with U.S. opinion." Do we really want to elect people who care more about world opinion than our own? Why not just elect the Pope?
>>All the surveys I've seen indicate that despite a rising GDP, people don't feel that their standard of living has gone up.
Money is only worth something because of perceived rarity. If more people have more money, the value of the money goes down, doesn't it? Or am I not getting something?
Shouldn't you be equal opportunity and present the, "It's tough to be a Democrat" list? After all, you can be a Republican and think everything on that list is crap.
Just like how you can be a Democrat and think Hillary and/ or Diane are insane.
Planes don't hold territory, people do. And most people don't use Stingers on other people.
Swords aren't regulated. I can buy them at comic book stores. You must live in CA, NY, MA or CT.
They're actually designed to fire a projectile. Very fast. That's it: no more and no less.
FOX good, FOX bad, can't decide which anti-Americanism I want to pitch... brain exploding...
That's the main problem the Russians had... if they'd kept the women in the kitchen and out of the space race, they would have won the cold war! :-)
There's more than one type of capital. It's not just money.
Why don't people ever think, "Hey, I might save a few bucks this month at the uber-store, but Herb's Grocery has alwasy treated me right so I should give them my business?"
That's complete and utter crap. Good God, at the Catholic high school I attended, the frickin' priest during Freshman theology said the Bible was not to be taken literally.
>>Firearms are used every day to subjugate, murder, and maim.
Would you feel better, little girl, if these people were pushed out of a window instead? -- Archie Bunker
Also, two wrongs can make a right: kill one person to prevent 2+ killings. The net effect is more lives lived.
Guns aren't allowed in Japan, which has THE highest suicide rate in the industrialized world. We let cops carry guns. They (usually) don't go about killing people when they get mad? Are cops better than the rest of us?
:-)
That said, take away all the guns, there will still be plenty of crime. So guns don't cause crime. Take away the people, no more crime. So clearly, the objective is to ban people to reduce crime
Besides, when you take all the guns away, it's the government that kills you instead of the average crook.
I submit to you the #5 on the Slashdot Hall of Fame, browsing at +3 and nested, to get more and better answers than I can provide.
I guess I did miss your point. It was my understanding that your point is that putting guns in someone's hands makes them a killer. If this is the case, then I simply don't agree with it.
Also, living in an apartment complex, there'd be no reason for the postwoman to visit my grandmother, and post office workers usually don't accost elderly women.
Every other country has a weaker military and all governments are questionable :-)
Caliber is extremely relevant! Kill someone with a .000000001 :-). Or, shoot someone with a 50... I don't think it'll happen.
Besides, it's not a secret that guns make it easier for people to kill. But normal people don't kill others, so it shouldn't matter what type of firearm a normal person has.
Guns also makes it easier for my single, 89-year-old grandmother to discourage the stupidity of home intruders, if it ever came down to it. And, it provides for the defense against not just the common criminals but the uncommon ones in Washington, DC.
End rant.
You can only man-carry a .50 cal rifle, it's bolt action, and you can only do a shot every 20 seconds at best. Plenty of time for citizens with balls to remove you as a threat.
So, if the US is off the rest of the Internet, how will Linus talk with his non-American counter parts?
All I'm saying is that documentaries have to be unbiased. All the other stuff should be called edutainment or some other stupid blending of words. If something is based on documents, it doesn't require narration as the viewing audience can make the decision for themselves.
Besides, I don't think whales can argue their own points or write their own documents.
Then that means, by definition, he doesn't make documentaries.
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Aren't you thousands of times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun?
Nukes are ordnance, not arms.
Besides, most people can't afford them anyway, and who wants the liability?
In my state you need neither permission to own nor to carry. One is supposed to get licensed to carry, but it's shall issue. Our nice neighbor VT does not require a carry license.