It never goes to a civil suit (albeit Court Marhshall and dishonorable discharge)
And it doesn't even end in a court marshall unless there's reason to believe that somebody acted deliberatly or extremely negligently to hit the wrong target.
Being one house off can be chalked up to 'inaccuracy', hitting a wedding 'bad intelligence', nailing a friendly convoy 'bad communication', etc. Basically, unless somebody knew it was a wedding, or should have obviously known it was a wedding and not a terrorist camp, they're still in the clear.
Combat is a time where you have extremely limited time to make decisions that are life and death for you, your comrades, your enemies, and any non-combatants in the area. Mistakes happen and they cost lives. If you think it's bad today, you should check out any major conflict before to see how truly bad it was during WWII, where it took whole squadrons of planes for one factory. In Korea/Vietnam pasting entire acres of territory was routine. We're still paying out over agent orange, and even if they knew the effects back then they would have likely still used it.
Maybe it can handle three at a time, but that's when you shoot 20 or so at it. At some point the system's resources will be saturated and overloaded and stuff will get through. Then again, this isn't likely to be 100% effective even against lone threats, so you'll still get the occasional golden BB.
Yeah, it's point defense, not shields. A shield system would be more like that high-arc energization that's designed to disrupt the copper penetrator of an RPG.
While the article mentions creationism's 'rising popularity', I'd dispute that. What I'd say is that the exposure of creationism is growing. It wasn't that long ago that whole states banned the teaching of evolution, then we had moaning and complaining about the occasional district that taught 'alternatives' to evolution(IE they'd actually teach them creation along with evolution). Now we're working on stupid 'a theory is only a theory' stickers for a very few districts.
It's almost like a KKK rally. Used to be that one would be local news at best. Nowadays whenever they manage to put together a half dozen people it makes national news. Do we have a 'rising problem with discrimination'. No, not at all. It's just that the remaining events get so much attention that it looks worse.
In my experience, 32" is the largest of 'normal' TV's in the USA. Though I'll agree with that most living room tubes are greater than 24". In this case, I think that it's reasonable to say that slashdot users that have TV's are going to tend to have larger ones.
I have a 32" that I bough years ago on special, but my parents have been hanging onto the 27" living room and 24" downstairs for years... My grandparent's are even smaller.
I checked out walmart and a few other stores, and the largest SD displays I saw were 32". The largest 'reasonable price' HD screens were also 32". I'm talking to go above 32", the price more than doubled.
I'd have to agree with him. In my case even IF I'm buying to have a windows machine I'm going to end up doing a re-install anyways. It's quicker than removing all the cruft from your typical box manufacturer install.
Microsoft's introduction of multiple versions makes this even more likely.
I see the same problem with CEO compensation as athletes. Every corporation wants 'The BEST' CEO they can get. Add in backroom croneyism and you get CEO's making huge amounts of money. A simple change making CEO(and board members) pay dependent upon the vote of stockholders should fix most of this.
While I'll agree that way too many aren't worth the money, but with a sales tax system, they're either going to spend the money(supporting the government), or invest it, benefiting the economy(and ultimately the government). Either way's good.
You have to remember that I have no objection to people getting rich. I dont' feel that CEO's being paid 400x what the average worker is a problem. Competition is good.
I mean, name one corporation that's had trouble finding a rich white guy to do the CEO job because they're all slacking off to avoid tax.
CEO's are an interesting bunch, but not the greatest example as it's an extremely small field occupied mostly by workaholics. Additionally, a CEO's income isn't usually tied to how much work he actually does. I was thinking more along the lines of small business owners, doctors, surgeons, and lawyers. Highly compensated people who still generate a measurable amount of work.
Take me, for example. The way I'm headed, I'm going to be able to retire at 40. I don't make a huge amount of money(~35k), but I'm living on something like 18k of it. I'm investing money left and right.
Ultimitly, if the USA followed my ideas, everybody would be investing much more, allowing our economy to expand even faster, but the sheer amount of investment would drop returns. This would raise the bar for people trying to live solely on their investments. I mean, anybody with a million bucks in the bank shouldn't have to work for the rest of their life if they're willing to practice some fiscal restraint.
First off, I don't see anyone proposing an 85% penalty on anything.
The 85% figure is the highest tax percentage that the united states has had. I used it as an example, listing a figure where 'avoiding taxes' obviously becomes more important and profitable than 'earning money'.
If rich people renounce their citizenship and move abroad, so what? It's not like the US has any shortage of ambitious businessmen wanting to move here to take their place.
That's because we have, compared to the rest of the first world countries, low taxes. Businesses/Businessmen look for many things when locating a business. Availability and cost of workers, available market/transportation to markets, regulation levels*, tax rates, etc...
*Why they aren't much new heavy industry in the USA, the regulation levels(pollution controls) are such that it's easier to build elsewhere.
Probably parted out their assets to people not in such a high tax bracket. Sounds good to me. In fact, if they take the money and spend it in some poor nation they've moved to to avoid tax, that's good too.
Actually, I agree with you in this respect. I remember hearing about Nike and other shoe companies opening factories in dead poor countries. People were whining and complaining about how they were exploiting the poor workers and paying them pennies.
Then a few years ago, I read about the ecomonic effects in those areas. Nearly 80% of the kids of the factory workers are finishing high school, compared with 20% of the general population(mostly subsidence farmers). They were living in actual homes, though still modest, of course. During that period they went from walking to work, to bicycling, and many now have mopeds. Did they feel exploited by the sneaker companies? No, they thought it was the best thing to ever come along.
A refund for poverty level incomes just means that "Fair" tax drains the money disproportionately from the middle class instead of the poorest; it doesn't make it progressive or fair.
I'm not sure if you realize just what I said. EVERYBODY gets the refund. Bill gates, the bum on the street both get it. The only reason that the middle class ends up paying most of the money is the same reason that they pay the most(as a class) now. They so massivly outnumber the rich that even though the rich pay more, the middle class still ends up contributing more to the tax coffers. The poor can't effectivly contribute anyways. This situation isn't going to change.
As for 'Fair', I'll point out that different people have different ideas of fair, and whether it's even a desireable thing. I personally believe that the best we can do is to allow successful people to enjoy their success. There are people out there that, because of the progressive tax codes, stop bothering to make money and either relax or spend effort on avoiding taxes. In either case they're not generating further wealth. Investing money allows for purchase of equipment to increase productivity and expand businesses, allowing for increase quality of life and more jobs.
As for calling it fairtax, well, I didn't come up with the name, but it's the one in common use so I use it. Personally, I want everybody who votes to pay at least some taxes. I have a real problem when almost 50% of people pay almost no taxes. I'd also like people to be reminded on how much they're paying often. Combined with a balanced budget requirement, this might help with getting politicians to practice fiscal restraint.
All true. Though you can substitute terms like 'facist' for populist.
The problem with many of the politicians in government is that they entered politics to fix problems, so they tend to see government action as the solution, not the problem.
I mean, how many politicians run a campaign of 'Things I'm NOT going to do!
The standard 'left-right' scale is a poor predictor for a person's values.
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun.
I wouldn't say that it would have been useless. Weapons become a very useful tool whenever the social order breaks down. While other tools would indeed be used more often, a firearm or other weapon helps to ensure that you keep your tools when many others are less prepared.
If you happen to be in an area that doesn't get flooded and have the necessary supplies to survive until services are restored, a shotgun is a very useful tool to have. You can use it on aggressive animals, of both the four and two legged variety. With a box of shotshells, you can even use it to bring down birds to suppliment your diet.
From what I've heard, they were going to offer free e-filing themselves as it actually saves them money* but H&R and other tax-prep companies sued about 'interference with business' and forced the IRS to stop.
*No need for manual entry or scanning, forms are automatically checked for accuracy, etc...
If you look at the fairtax idea, it includes a monthly 'refund' for the tax that would be paid at the poverty line. Thus it becomes a progressive tax. If you make(or spend) under poverty level income, you'll get more back than what you pay for goods. If you spend double poverty level, your effective tax rate would be half that of the guy who spends millions each year.
Sure, the rich will be able to avoid at least some of it. But then, they avoid income taxes pretty well as is.
My proposals: Balanced budged constitutional amendment. Also, I'd like to see a 'house of repeals' or something dedicated to killing spending/bad/unconstitutional laws.
Our reps are elected to do things. Problem is, many times our best option would be for them to do nothing.
When you're talking about 'being too expensive for military use', remember: 1. This would count as a chemical weapon 2. Explosives to physically cause damage are cheap 3. Guidance packages and such are just as expensive no matter what the payload - whether it be inert, explosive, or NBC.
Also, if the chemicals are expensive, you have to remember that manual application on patients would take alot less than the amount you'd have to spray to try to get a couple hundred people in a field or other uncontrolled area.
This is what I think. Pro-life can't have it both ways by declaring an exception for the mother's life, or for rape, or for any other circumstances. If that really is a human being, then there's no way it can be legal to kill the child. Even for rape.
Life of the mother is actually fairly easy to explain. Let's say that you're a medical technician and happen upon a multiple car accident. There are many people injured, but two are injured seriously. You're the only one with medical training. In your opinion, one is going to die no matter what, the other, you may be able to save.
It's a judgement call. You cannot save both, so you save the one you can. Realistically speaking, this doesn't happen too often today, most of the time either the woman spontaneously aborts or a C-section is performed. Early pregnancies aren't that big of a strain on a woman's resources. They may fail to save the baby, but at that point it's not an abortion. Still, the government deals in 'rare cases' all the time, and it's best to have the law be able to handle it.
That 11 year old girl is just going to give birth. The mother of an hydroencephaletic fetus is just going to have to deliver a baby with a head a foot and a half in diameter, though it'll probably kill her.
C-Sections? As for the 11 year old, I personally agree with you, but I'm sure the situation is rare enough that most would be able to find an out of state doctor to perform the procedure, as well as people willing to pay the expenses.
The South Dakota Law IS bad. Still, it's inhabited by some of the most conservative people in the USA, and I have the feeling that it's more of a statement than a well-thought out law. You also have the whole arguement that only the poorest citizens of North Dakota will be affected. I say 'poorest' because even the middle and upper-poor classes will be able to drive the couple hundred miles out of state to get the procedure, much less the 'rich'.
The fact that most people make exceptions for certain circumstances is an indication that they aren't really pro-life at all, and they don't really view the blastocyst as a full human being. They're saying that a child conceived by a rapist isn't as human as a child conceived by a husband.
Allowing abortion in the case of rape is a sort of extended 'health of the mother' exception. I can't help but feel that there's also an element of punishment in denying abortions. You were foolish enough to get pregnent, now you have to deal with it. This would not apply in cases of rape, where the woman did not choose to engage in procreation activities.
If you were a churchgirl who was raped, then you deserve a second chance, so we'll allow an abortion in that case. Get out of jail free, because this is really about punishing immorality. If you were raped, but you had a history of sleeping around, then maybe you'll have to have the baby after all. You don't have to believe me, just read what South Dakota legislator William Napoli said about the recent SD ban on abortion
Agreed, however I feel that a specific statutory exception has to be made, otherwise women who have been raped will have an even more difficult time finding a doctor than what they would otherwise have. After all, the doctor is looking at a prison sentence if somebody feels that the rape wasn't tramatic enough to the woman to make the abortion for 'the health'.
Of course, I feel that abortion should be legal. If people don't want it to occur, they should subsidize adoptions and medical expenses so that women choose not to abort. Not outright forbid it, only to try the mother for child abuse and possibly murder when she throws it in the trash or shakes it to the point of brain damage. I feel that that is the true crime.
Being a child is tough enough in this life without being unwanted.
Add another 3k in for the inverter and other gear to hook it into your power system.
Mr Solar wants nearly 10k for a 1.4kw system.
Well, I don't really trust this site, but they're number 2 on google, $5k for a 2.4kw system, but they're advertising a $4k cash rebate and $2k california credit.
First, I was talking about Britain's electricity supply, but I'll bite and use the USA.
Wiki States that 2004 US wind capacity was 9,149 MW. Nuclear Power's been stable for a while. Nuclear power capacity is 99,210 MW
However, this doesn't show the whole figure. In the case of the wind turbines, this is the amount of power produced under ideal conditions. For nuclear power, this is it's maximum safe/standard power generation.
The term for what percentage of maximum the plant actually produces is called "Capacity Factor". For nuclear plants, this is 91% Wind seems to be around 30%-35% (Note: One of the sites quotes nuclear at 71%, that's for the UK, not USA)
This means that Nuclear power has an effective capacity of 90,281 MW, while Wind only has 2,745-3,202MW. That means that Nuclear is producing 28 times as much power as wind. That means that it'd take wind a decade of doubling every 2.3 years to even catch up with nuclear. It also assumes that construction ramps up evenly for the next decade. It also means, that at least for 2004, a mere 4% increase in nuclear capacity would equal the increase in wind.
A nuclear power plant, from time of groundbreaking, only takes 5-7 years to build. There's actually a few new generators, built on existing sites, as well as refurbished plants that had either been shut down or had construction stopped before they came online that should come up by 2010.
1. Very likely. All the lists are flawed. We use it as a covering system. 'At least we tried!' type thing. 2. Not as likely. Our base requires the signoff of the commander of the requester's unit as well as the comm squadron commander to open a site. 3. Oh, I agree here, just checkout Peacefire.
Like I said, I once was one of the admins for the filtering. For the USAF not the marines, but it's much the same.
humoly writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that while many are calling for wind power, new wind plants are not the answer to combating climate changes or the wavering energy concerns for the UK. From the article: "The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling wind turbine capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential costs. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs."
Fixed it.;)
Honestly, doubling nuclear capacity would do more towards reducing CO2 emissions than doubling wind capacity. It's not like you couldn't go on a building program and build at a rate to commission, say, 5 plants a year using parallel building. 20 years of that and you'd have another hundred plants, enough to shut down most coal plants. That'd cut down on something like 700 million tons of CO2 a year.
Let's see, you listed two nuclear weapon production facilities and claim that a disposal site that isn't open yet is 'overflowing' as for the problems with nuclear power.
Apples and Oranges. Enriching Uranium or creating enough plutonium to make a bomb is a dirty business, and we weren't exactly too concerned about the enviroment during the cold war(at least for weapons production).
But it's only significantly cleaner than coal when you ignore the waste.
No, it's significantly cleaner when you acknowledge the fact that nuclear waste is actually easily contained because there's so little of it.
Slashdot Mirror
It never goes to a civil suit (albeit Court Marhshall and dishonorable discharge)
And it doesn't even end in a court marshall unless there's reason to believe that somebody acted deliberatly or extremely negligently to hit the wrong target.
Being one house off can be chalked up to 'inaccuracy', hitting a wedding 'bad intelligence', nailing a friendly convoy 'bad communication', etc. Basically, unless somebody knew it was a wedding, or should have obviously known it was a wedding and not a terrorist camp, they're still in the clear.
Combat is a time where you have extremely limited time to make decisions that are life and death for you, your comrades, your enemies, and any non-combatants in the area. Mistakes happen and they cost lives. If you think it's bad today, you should check out any major conflict before to see how truly bad it was during WWII, where it took whole squadrons of planes for one factory. In Korea/Vietnam pasting entire acres of territory was routine. We're still paying out over agent orange, and even if they knew the effects back then they would have likely still used it.
Maybe it can handle three at a time, but that's when you shoot 20 or so at it. At some point the system's resources will be saturated and overloaded and stuff will get through. Then again, this isn't likely to be 100% effective even against lone threats, so you'll still get the occasional golden BB.
Yeah, it's point defense, not shields. A shield system would be more like that high-arc energization that's designed to disrupt the copper penetrator of an RPG.
Editing out the SSNs and DOBs is not only not required by law, it, likely, is against the law.
It violates federal law, which trumps state law. Specifically, the privacy act of 1974
While the article mentions creationism's 'rising popularity', I'd dispute that. What I'd say is that the exposure of creationism is growing. It wasn't that long ago that whole states banned the teaching of evolution, then we had moaning and complaining about the occasional district that taught 'alternatives' to evolution(IE they'd actually teach them creation along with evolution). Now we're working on stupid 'a theory is only a theory' stickers for a very few districts.
It's almost like a KKK rally. Used to be that one would be local news at best. Nowadays whenever they manage to put together a half dozen people it makes national news. Do we have a 'rising problem with discrimination'. No, not at all. It's just that the remaining events get so much attention that it looks worse.
If you think that's scary, check out how much of hte budget is for advertising for many other products.
Jewelry, Cars, Electronics, Soda, Restraunts for example.
It's huge in most industries.
In my experience, 32" is the largest of 'normal' TV's in the USA. Though I'll agree with that most living room tubes are greater than 24". In this case, I think that it's reasonable to say that slashdot users that have TV's are going to tend to have larger ones.
I have a 32" that I bough years ago on special, but my parents have been hanging onto the 27" living room and 24" downstairs for years... My grandparent's are even smaller.
I checked out walmart and a few other stores, and the largest SD displays I saw were 32". The largest 'reasonable price' HD screens were also 32". I'm talking to go above 32", the price more than doubled.
I'd have to agree with him. In my case even IF I'm buying to have a windows machine I'm going to end up doing a re-install anyways. It's quicker than removing all the cruft from your typical box manufacturer install.
Microsoft's introduction of multiple versions makes this even more likely.
I see the same problem with CEO compensation as athletes. Every corporation wants 'The BEST' CEO they can get. Add in backroom croneyism and you get CEO's making huge amounts of money. A simple change making CEO(and board members) pay dependent upon the vote of stockholders should fix most of this.
While I'll agree that way too many aren't worth the money, but with a sales tax system, they're either going to spend the money(supporting the government), or invest it, benefiting the economy(and ultimately the government). Either way's good.
You have to remember that I have no objection to people getting rich. I dont' feel that CEO's being paid 400x what the average worker is a problem. Competition is good.
I mean, name one corporation that's had trouble finding a rich white guy to do the CEO job because they're all slacking off to avoid tax.
CEO's are an interesting bunch, but not the greatest example as it's an extremely small field occupied mostly by workaholics. Additionally, a CEO's income isn't usually tied to how much work he actually does. I was thinking more along the lines of small business owners, doctors, surgeons, and lawyers. Highly compensated people who still generate a measurable amount of work.
Take me, for example. The way I'm headed, I'm going to be able to retire at 40. I don't make a huge amount of money(~35k), but I'm living on something like 18k of it. I'm investing money left and right.
Ultimitly, if the USA followed my ideas, everybody would be investing much more, allowing our economy to expand even faster, but the sheer amount of investment would drop returns. This would raise the bar for people trying to live solely on their investments. I mean, anybody with a million bucks in the bank shouldn't have to work for the rest of their life if they're willing to practice some fiscal restraint.
First off, I don't see anyone proposing an 85% penalty on anything.
The 85% figure is the highest tax percentage that the united states has had. I used it as an example, listing a figure where 'avoiding taxes' obviously becomes more important and profitable than 'earning money'.
If rich people renounce their citizenship and move abroad, so what? It's not like the US has any shortage of ambitious businessmen wanting to move here to take their place.
That's because we have, compared to the rest of the first world countries, low taxes. Businesses/Businessmen look for many things when locating a business. Availability and cost of workers, available market/transportation to markets, regulation levels*, tax rates, etc...
*Why they aren't much new heavy industry in the USA, the regulation levels(pollution controls) are such that it's easier to build elsewhere.
Probably parted out their assets to people not in such a high tax bracket.
Sounds good to me. In fact, if they take the money and spend it in some poor nation they've moved to to avoid tax, that's good too.
Actually, I agree with you in this respect. I remember hearing about Nike and other shoe companies opening factories in dead poor countries. People were whining and complaining about how they were exploiting the poor workers and paying them pennies.
Then a few years ago, I read about the ecomonic effects in those areas. Nearly 80% of the kids of the factory workers are finishing high school, compared with 20% of the general population(mostly subsidence farmers). They were living in actual homes, though still modest, of course. During that period they went from walking to work, to bicycling, and many now have mopeds. Did they feel exploited by the sneaker companies? No, they thought it was the best thing to ever come along.
Like you said, the rich can outsource their assets to avoid taxes. Worst comes to worst, they renounce their citizenship and never come back.
Meanwhile, they've liquidated all their assets in their home country, shut down their businesses, fired hundreds of workers, etc...
Probably parted out their assets to people not in such a high tax bracket.
Or just laid back and retired early, as it's not worth it with an 85% penalty on any money they earn at this point.
A refund for poverty level incomes just means that "Fair" tax drains the money disproportionately from the middle class instead of the poorest; it doesn't make it progressive or fair.
I'm not sure if you realize just what I said. EVERYBODY gets the refund. Bill gates, the bum on the street both get it. The only reason that the middle class ends up paying most of the money is the same reason that they pay the most(as a class) now. They so massivly outnumber the rich that even though the rich pay more, the middle class still ends up contributing more to the tax coffers. The poor can't effectivly contribute anyways. This situation isn't going to change.
As for 'Fair', I'll point out that different people have different ideas of fair, and whether it's even a desireable thing. I personally believe that the best we can do is to allow successful people to enjoy their success. There are people out there that, because of the progressive tax codes, stop bothering to make money and either relax or spend effort on avoiding taxes. In either case they're not generating further wealth. Investing money allows for purchase of equipment to increase productivity and expand businesses, allowing for increase quality of life and more jobs.
As for calling it fairtax, well, I didn't come up with the name, but it's the one in common use so I use it. Personally, I want everybody who votes to pay at least some taxes. I have a real problem when almost 50% of people pay almost no taxes. I'd also like people to be reminded on how much they're paying often. Combined with a balanced budget requirement, this might help with getting politicians to practice fiscal restraint.
All true. Though you can substitute terms like 'facist' for populist.
The problem with many of the politicians in government is that they entered politics to fix problems, so they tend to see government action as the solution, not the problem.
I mean, how many politicians run a campaign of 'Things I'm NOT going to do!
The standard 'left-right' scale is a poor predictor for a person's values.
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun.
I wouldn't say that it would have been useless. Weapons become a very useful tool whenever the social order breaks down. While other tools would indeed be used more often, a firearm or other weapon helps to ensure that you keep your tools when many others are less prepared.
If you happen to be in an area that doesn't get flooded and have the necessary supplies to survive until services are restored, a shotgun is a very useful tool to have. You can use it on aggressive animals, of both the four and two legged variety. With a box of shotshells, you can even use it to bring down birds to suppliment your diet.
The CATO institute is a libertarian think tank.
They're still very much on the right wing side of many issues, but they are fairly libertarian on economic issues.
From what I've heard, they were going to offer free e-filing themselves as it actually saves them money* but H&R and other tax-prep companies sued about 'interference with business' and forced the IRS to stop.
*No need for manual entry or scanning, forms are automatically checked for accuracy, etc...
If you look at the fairtax idea, it includes a monthly 'refund' for the tax that would be paid at the poverty line. Thus it becomes a progressive tax. If you make(or spend) under poverty level income, you'll get more back than what you pay for goods. If you spend double poverty level, your effective tax rate would be half that of the guy who spends millions each year.
Sure, the rich will be able to avoid at least some of it. But then, they avoid income taxes pretty well as is.
My proposals: Balanced budged constitutional amendment. Also, I'd like to see a 'house of repeals' or something dedicated to killing spending/bad/unconstitutional laws.
Our reps are elected to do things. Problem is, many times our best option would be for them to do nothing.
When you're talking about 'being too expensive for military use', remember:
1. This would count as a chemical weapon
2. Explosives to physically cause damage are cheap
3. Guidance packages and such are just as expensive no matter what the payload - whether it be inert, explosive, or NBC.
Also, if the chemicals are expensive, you have to remember that manual application on patients would take alot less than the amount you'd have to spray to try to get a couple hundred people in a field or other uncontrolled area.
This is what I think. Pro-life can't have it both ways by declaring an exception for the mother's life, or for rape, or for any other circumstances. If that really is a human being, then there's no way it can be legal to kill the child. Even for rape.
Life of the mother is actually fairly easy to explain. Let's say that you're a medical technician and happen upon a multiple car accident. There are many people injured, but two are injured seriously. You're the only one with medical training. In your opinion, one is going to die no matter what, the other, you may be able to save.
It's a judgement call. You cannot save both, so you save the one you can. Realistically speaking, this doesn't happen too often today, most of the time either the woman spontaneously aborts or a C-section is performed. Early pregnancies aren't that big of a strain on a woman's resources. They may fail to save the baby, but at that point it's not an abortion. Still, the government deals in 'rare cases' all the time, and it's best to have the law be able to handle it.
That 11 year old girl is just going to give birth. The mother of an hydroencephaletic fetus is just going to have to deliver a baby with a head a foot and a half in diameter, though it'll probably kill her.
C-Sections? As for the 11 year old, I personally agree with you, but I'm sure the situation is rare enough that most would be able to find an out of state doctor to perform the procedure, as well as people willing to pay the expenses.
The South Dakota Law IS bad. Still, it's inhabited by some of the most conservative people in the USA, and I have the feeling that it's more of a statement than a well-thought out law. You also have the whole arguement that only the poorest citizens of North Dakota will be affected. I say 'poorest' because even the middle and upper-poor classes will be able to drive the couple hundred miles out of state to get the procedure, much less the 'rich'.
The fact that most people make exceptions for certain circumstances is an indication that they aren't really pro-life at all, and they don't really view the blastocyst as a full human being. They're saying that a child conceived by a rapist isn't as human as a child conceived by a husband.
Allowing abortion in the case of rape is a sort of extended 'health of the mother' exception. I can't help but feel that there's also an element of punishment in denying abortions. You were foolish enough to get pregnent, now you have to deal with it. This would not apply in cases of rape, where the woman did not choose to engage in procreation activities.
If you were a churchgirl who was raped, then you deserve a second chance, so we'll allow an abortion in that case. Get out of jail free, because this is really about punishing immorality. If you were raped, but you had a history of sleeping around, then maybe you'll have to have the baby after all. You don't have to believe me, just read what South Dakota legislator William Napoli said about the recent SD ban on abortion
Agreed, however I feel that a specific statutory exception has to be made, otherwise women who have been raped will have an even more difficult time finding a doctor than what they would otherwise have. After all, the doctor is looking at a prison sentence if somebody feels that the rape wasn't tramatic enough to the woman to make the abortion for 'the health'.
Of course, I feel that abortion should be legal. If people don't want it to occur, they should subsidize adoptions and medical expenses so that women choose not to abort. Not outright forbid it, only to try the mother for child abuse and possibly murder when she throws it in the trash or shakes it to the point of brain damage. I feel that that is the true crime.
Being a child is tough enough in this life without being unwanted.
I keep wondering where he got the solar system for only 3k.
Mr Solar wants $840 for 175 watts. For 1.2kw, you'd need 7 of them, or almost $6k.
He may be a tad expensive, but within reason
Add another 3k in for the inverter and other gear to hook it into your power system.
Mr Solar wants nearly 10k for a 1.4kw system.
Well, I don't really trust this site, but they're number 2 on google, $5k for a 2.4kw system, but they're advertising a $4k cash rebate and $2k california credit.
First, I was talking about Britain's electricity supply, but I'll bite and use the USA.
Wiki States that 2004 US wind capacity was 9,149 MW.
Nuclear Power's been stable for a while.
Nuclear power capacity is 99,210 MW
However, this doesn't show the whole figure. In the case of the wind turbines, this is the amount of power produced under ideal conditions. For nuclear power, this is it's maximum safe/standard power generation.
The term for what percentage of maximum the plant actually produces is called "Capacity Factor". For nuclear plants, this is 91%
Wind seems to be around 30%-35%
(Note: One of the sites quotes nuclear at 71%, that's for the UK, not USA)
This means that Nuclear power has an effective capacity of 90,281 MW, while Wind only has 2,745-3,202MW. That means that Nuclear is producing 28 times as much power as wind. That means that it'd take wind a decade of doubling every 2.3 years to even catch up with nuclear. It also assumes that construction ramps up evenly for the next decade. It also means, that at least for 2004, a mere 4% increase in nuclear capacity would equal the increase in wind.
A nuclear power plant, from time of groundbreaking, only takes 5-7 years to build. There's actually a few new generators, built on existing sites, as well as refurbished plants that had either been shut down or had construction stopped before they came online that should come up by 2010.
I've worked for USAFE and ACC. AFTC I've heard is a bit anal.
Oh, and I suggest you log in and not post as an AC. I suggest that it's your base/agency that's being anal.
But yeah, allowing sports sites(by category) was a big political thing. Maybe you just need to learn how to push back at the brass.
1. Very likely. All the lists are flawed. We use it as a covering system. 'At least we tried!' type thing.
2. Not as likely. Our base requires the signoff of the commander of the requester's unit as well as the comm squadron commander to open a site.
3. Oh, I agree here, just checkout Peacefire.
Like I said, I once was one of the admins for the filtering. For the USAF not the marines, but it's much the same.
At 6.5 billion people, I think the former should go down. After all, isn't our planet overpopulated as it is?
Sure, you go first.
humoly writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that while many are calling for wind power, new wind plants are not the answer to combating climate changes or the wavering energy concerns for the UK. From the article: "The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling wind turbine capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential costs. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs."
;)
Fixed it.
Honestly, doubling nuclear capacity would do more towards reducing CO2 emissions than doubling wind capacity. It's not like you couldn't go on a building program and build at a rate to commission, say, 5 plants a year using parallel building. 20 years of that and you'd have another hundred plants, enough to shut down most coal plants. That'd cut down on something like 700 million tons of CO2 a year.
Let's see, you listed two nuclear weapon production facilities and claim that a disposal site that isn't open yet is 'overflowing' as for the problems with nuclear power.
Apples and Oranges. Enriching Uranium or creating enough plutonium to make a bomb is a dirty business, and we weren't exactly too concerned about the enviroment during the cold war(at least for weapons production).
But it's only significantly cleaner than coal when you ignore the waste.
No, it's significantly cleaner when you acknowledge the fact that nuclear waste is actually easily contained because there's so little of it.