I'm not so sure that's true. You would probably never see a human that is completely resistant to fire, but after a few generations I think you would certainly see humans with a greater ability to recuperate from burns. Over time you would absolutely see humans with skin and physiology more resistance to heat damage.
It wouldn't happen quickly, but I think you would eventually see selection for some qualities that improve the organism's ability to survive fire.
I see your point on this, but there are lots of important/cool potential applications for this that are not centered on carrying passengers.
I'm thinking surveillance aircraft capable of near continuous operation, or replacing the Goodyear blimp. You could even equip a plane like this as a cell tower, and be able to shift the hardware to cover areas with high call volume, like during a local emergency.
Right now, this tech doesn't seem capable of transporting cargo or people. However there are lots of reasons why we might want to get man-sized equipment aloft for extended periods of time.
I am also from an area where people predominantly use firewood for heating. In my experience that homes that heat with firewood don't burn what they cut right away. Wood is cut and left to season for 2-3 years before burning.
The term deforestation might be a little strong, but the GP is mostly correct. Dense human communities burning wood for heat will consume the resource faster than it grows. Isolated individuals have the luxury of harvesting and burning already dead wood, but for the most part the wood used for home heating is harvested and seasoned.
Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?
There are some that would argue that it would have been inappropriate for the State (I'm assuming you mean State to represent Government as a whole, rather than just the State of Louisiana) to selectively assist only those districts based on their lack of social mobility. The people as a whole have a right to Government assistance, but 'poor' people don't have a greater right to assistance than 'rich' people.
On a personal level, I would argue that lack of social mobility doesn't translate to a lack of physical mobility. Even if these people were not able to afford to move out of these risky areas, given the several days of warnings that preceded Katrina's landfall, most NO residents should have been able to simply walk out of harms way. Instead many of them simply sat in their homes waiting for someone to tell them what to do. In the days immediately following the storm, many residents were something like 7 miles away from help, but refused to walk there under their own power.
I have a friend that was a Marine at the time. His unit was sent to the area to assist in disaster operations. He personally wound up as a door gunner of an evacuation helicopter, this was necessary because people were shooting at helicopters to get their attention.
The State certainly has an obligation to act for the benefit of its citizens. The citizens also have a responsibility to act for themselves.
Also useful in Southeast Asian countries, where cleanup is all but ignored by local government, and the practical cost of disposal is roughly 1 human appendage per mine.
His solution after becoming president? A "residual force" of more than 50,000 troops which will remain indefinitely. Well, so much for that...
IMO, simply packing up and leaving on some arbitrary timetable is irrational and likely to create even more problems in future.
Agreed. Forcing the Military to comply with a purely political promise is a recipe for disaster. Politicians make statements like this all the time, seemingly committing their Military's to success, without any real intention of that promise being kept. Its nothing new, both World Wars saw promises to bring troops home by "Christmas" for nearly every year of both conflicts.
At worst, we should hold him accountable for blatant false promises, Military or otherwise. Of course, we should also hold We The People accountable for being gullible enough to believe him. Like I said, this is nothing new.
That is a wonderful point, and if you take this down to the most basic level of whether an individual is carrying concealed then that argument does make some sense. I would tend to agree with the thought that concealed carry is an incomplete deterrent. Open carry is a much more effective deterrent, it guarantees to a mugger that their prospective victim has the ability to protect themselves. But that doesn't solve the issue of whether carrying at all is appropriate.
However in areas that do allow concealed carry, the fact that citizens might be carrying concealed is not secret at all. IANAM, but I would expect that if my chosen profession involved using force to compel someone to give me their money, I would pay attention to the probability of my targets being able to defend themselves. The ability of an armed citizenry to protect themselves make it very difficult for criminals like this to operate.
You don't really get the concept of deterrents do you? Muggers by nature are lazy, many of them have determined the easiest way to make money is to forcibly obtain it from people that don't have the power to stop them. Muggers that know they are in an area where law abiding citizens are forbidden from carrying will have no real reason not to mug people. If muggers think that any given person on the street might be carrying will eventually determine that the risk outweighs the reward.
As to your second point, the nutjobs that think they're going to outlast the oppressive government and create a Libertarian Utopia aren't planning to do that with 9mm's. They're the reason that people feel the need for Assault weapons bans and gun registry's.
More than that, one huge common criticism of American research is that most studies are conducted at Universities. As a result, most research volunteers tend to be undergraduate college students. This leads to selection biases for things like specific education level, socio-economic status, age, race, and to a lesser extent gender. Of course, your right in that being at BYU many of these volunteers were likely Mormon. This doesn't sound like representative data to me.
Other obvious criticisms of their research methods aside, the way I read this study is basically "American college students are more likely to behave in a room that smells like it was cleaned". Speaking as a former American college student, this isn't all that shocking.
People absolutely have the right to be made aware of who proposes legislation/referenda. This is not the same as having access to all the people that support that support the referenda. When I walk into my town hall and cast my vote for Proposition X, I have an expectation of privacy. No-one is allowed to force me to divulge how I voted, and I cannot be discriminated against based on my vote. This is a product of a very long civil rights struggle.
Failing to extend that expectation of privacy to items still being petitioned is a strong-armed tactic aimed at preventing unpopular topics from reaching a public vote.
Well, they should just get over that.
Imagine the Gay Rights communities outrage at being told to "get over" their fear of discrimination and persecution. You are right in that the Gay rights community has no history of true violence against opposition, and you are also right that the people who signed this petition are afraid of is that their friends, colleagues, and customers will shun them for it. As an American, I have the right to not be discriminated against based on my political, spiritual, or sexual affiliations.
The Gay rights community has long been oppressed and not offered this protection. However the way to correct this cannot be to quash the very same rights of those that hold opposing beliefs.
I'll propose a hypothetical trade. I'll give you a list of all the people in the country that openly and privately oppose gay marriage. You give me a list of all the people in the country that openly and privately support the right for all people to marry. Do you think the people on either list will want to see that list published openly, in a way that can be accessed instantly and anonymously?
For decades, gay rights activists have put their lives on the line to fight for safety, security, acceptance, and civil rights. Many have been murdered, more beaten up merely for speaking out, and many have lost their jobs. They have been vilified and persecuted. But finally, they have been making some headway.
Now a minority of bigots wants turn back the clock and they don't even have the decency and honesty to stand up and identify themselves when putting a referendum on the ballot?
Perhaps that is because the people that signed this petition witnessed the persecution of those gay rights activists, and simply want to ensure that they will not be similarly persecuted.
The public has a right to know where these kinds of referenda come from.
Perhaps you should review the concept of rights. People most certainly have basic human rights (including the right to marry), and the right to be made aware of and have the opportunity to vote on legislation. People do not have the right the be provided a list of people that oppose their opinions. That is silly and dangerous.
their attempts to shield their names is like the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.
No its not. Wishing anonymity in signing a petition for a referendum to be put to a Public Vote is nothing at all like the atrocities committed by the KKK. Comparing the two is an insult to anyone victimized by the Klan.
Organizations that operate those industries and are capable of claiming such privilege are probably unlikely to be using pirate business software (intentionally).
Smaller business or business dealing in less critical undustries would ironically be more likely to use such software, and be less financially capable of defending themselves from legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
So do I.
I'm not so sure that's true. You would probably never see a human that is completely resistant to fire, but after a few generations I think you would certainly see humans with a greater ability to recuperate from burns. Over time you would absolutely see humans with skin and physiology more resistance to heat damage.
It wouldn't happen quickly, but I think you would eventually see selection for some qualities that improve the organism's ability to survive fire.
Then we could take a lesson from China, and bill the family for the bullet!
I see your point on this, but there are lots of important/cool potential applications for this that are not centered on carrying passengers.
I'm thinking surveillance aircraft capable of near continuous operation, or replacing the Goodyear blimp. You could even equip a plane like this as a cell tower, and be able to shift the hardware to cover areas with high call volume, like during a local emergency.
Right now, this tech doesn't seem capable of transporting cargo or people. However there are lots of reasons why we might want to get man-sized equipment aloft for extended periods of time.
The term deforestation might be a little strong, but the GP is mostly correct. Dense human communities burning wood for heat will consume the resource faster than it grows. Isolated individuals have the luxury of harvesting and burning already dead wood, but for the most part the wood used for home heating is harvested and seasoned.
Just my two cents.
Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?
There are some that would argue that it would have been inappropriate for the State (I'm assuming you mean State to represent Government as a whole, rather than just the State of Louisiana) to selectively assist only those districts based on their lack of social mobility. The people as a whole have a right to Government assistance, but 'poor' people don't have a greater right to assistance than 'rich' people.
On a personal level, I would argue that lack of social mobility doesn't translate to a lack of physical mobility. Even if these people were not able to afford to move out of these risky areas, given the several days of warnings that preceded Katrina's landfall, most NO residents should have been able to simply walk out of harms way. Instead many of them simply sat in their homes waiting for someone to tell them what to do. In the days immediately following the storm, many residents were something like 7 miles away from help, but refused to walk there under their own power.
I have a friend that was a Marine at the time. His unit was sent to the area to assist in disaster operations. He personally wound up as a door gunner of an evacuation helicopter, this was necessary because people were shooting at helicopters to get their attention.
The State certainly has an obligation to act for the benefit of its citizens. The citizens also have a responsibility to act for themselves.
Also useful in Southeast Asian countries, where cleanup is all but ignored by local government, and the practical cost of disposal is roughly 1 human appendage per mine.
His solution after becoming president? A "residual force" of more than 50,000 troops which will remain indefinitely. Well, so much for that...
IMO, simply packing up and leaving on some arbitrary timetable is irrational and likely to create even more problems in future.
Agreed. Forcing the Military to comply with a purely political promise is a recipe for disaster. Politicians make statements like this all the time, seemingly committing their Military's to success, without any real intention of that promise being kept. Its nothing new, both World Wars saw promises to bring troops home by "Christmas" for nearly every year of both conflicts.
At worst, we should hold him accountable for blatant false promises, Military or otherwise. Of course, we should also hold We The People accountable for being gullible enough to believe him. Like I said, this is nothing new.
However in areas that do allow concealed carry, the fact that citizens might be carrying concealed is not secret at all. IANAM, but I would expect that if my chosen profession involved using force to compel someone to give me their money, I would pay attention to the probability of my targets being able to defend themselves. The ability of an armed citizenry to protect themselves make it very difficult for criminals like this to operate.
As to your second point, the nutjobs that think they're going to outlast the oppressive government and create a Libertarian Utopia aren't planning to do that with 9mm's. They're the reason that people feel the need for Assault weapons bans and gun registry's.
Other obvious criticisms of their research methods aside, the way I read this study is basically "American college students are more likely to behave in a room that smells like it was cleaned". Speaking as a former American college student, this isn't all that shocking.
Failing to extend that expectation of privacy to items still being petitioned is a strong-armed tactic aimed at preventing unpopular topics from reaching a public vote.
Well, they should just get over that.
Imagine the Gay Rights communities outrage at being told to "get over" their fear of discrimination and persecution. You are right in that the Gay rights community has no history of true violence against opposition, and you are also right that the people who signed this petition are afraid of is that their friends, colleagues, and customers will shun them for it. As an American, I have the right to not be discriminated against based on my political, spiritual, or sexual affiliations.
The Gay rights community has long been oppressed and not offered this protection. However the way to correct this cannot be to quash the very same rights of those that hold opposing beliefs.
I'll propose a hypothetical trade. I'll give you a list of all the people in the country that openly and privately oppose gay marriage. You give me a list of all the people in the country that openly and privately support the right for all people to marry. Do you think the people on either list will want to see that list published openly, in a way that can be accessed instantly and anonymously?
For decades, gay rights activists have put their lives on the line to fight for safety, security, acceptance, and civil rights. Many have been murdered, more beaten up merely for speaking out, and many have lost their jobs. They have been vilified and persecuted. But finally, they have been making some headway.
Now a minority of bigots wants turn back the clock and they don't even have the decency and honesty to stand up and identify themselves when putting a referendum on the ballot?
Perhaps that is because the people that signed this petition witnessed the persecution of those gay rights activists, and simply want to ensure that they will not be similarly persecuted.
The public has a right to know where these kinds of referenda come from.
Perhaps you should review the concept of rights. People most certainly have basic human rights (including the right to marry), and the right to be made aware of and have the opportunity to vote on legislation. People do not have the right the be provided a list of people that oppose their opinions. That is silly and dangerous.
their attempts to shield their names is like the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.
No its not. Wishing anonymity in signing a petition for a referendum to be put to a Public Vote is nothing at all like the atrocities committed by the KKK. Comparing the two is an insult to anyone victimized by the Klan.
Organizations that operate those industries and are capable of claiming such privilege are probably unlikely to be using pirate business software (intentionally). Smaller business or business dealing in less critical undustries would ironically be more likely to use such software, and be less financially capable of defending themselves from legal action.