I recognize that they're probably not for everyone or for every usage (for instance, the color of the light is a bit off as most flouros are. I would think artists might avoid them in the studio), but they have other uses besides their "energy efficientness".
I've found them quite nice. Anybody compaining about the color being 'off' is most likely simply used to incandescants, which have their own biases. Such as towards infrared, which is one of the reasons flourescent's are more energy efficient. Still, if they're that picky, they're likely going to be going for some special lighting system anyways.
It's a win-win deal and I don't understand why the USA still pushes natural gas as a way to heat homes given that the natural gas situation is even more precarious than for liquid oil.
Oh, I agree. It's a dual thing. Many people here in the states love their gas ranges and ovens, and once you've run a line, you might as well heat with it as well. It doesn't hurt that for the last ~30 years it was cheaper to heat with gas.
Personally, I'm looking at going with a heat pump system when I build my house.
I installed compact flourescants in my apartment as the cheap ones the managers installed died. I'm going on 4 years with the same bulbs.
Like what the others said, I love them, not so much for the energy savings, but because I never need to replace them. Changing bulbs every couple of months gets old.
We had cars and were already using oil before Ford came along and improved efficiency such that middle class people could enjoy mobility that was previously restricted to the rich.
Personally, I agree with a guy who wrote an article a while ago.
"Anything that doesn't lead to us eventually leaving the planet, then the solar system is a waste".
I'm all for 'sustainability', but I want sustainable progress. PRT, nuclear power, eventually fusion can all help with the goal of getting off the planet.
Remember, he said [i]long term[/i]. The hybrid market is exploding right now. People are modding no-plug hybrids into ones that can make around 30 miles on battery alone(IE most commutes), and can be plugged into conventional 110V jacks. They're effectivly dual fuel, you can use either gasoline or electricity for short trips.
The SUV market has, relativly speaking, crashed. Not five years ago they were the biggest profit makers for the domestic auto industry. Now they're having to slash thousands of dollars off the price tag to move them. They're shutting down factories associated with them.
Heck, I'm holding onto my gasoline car hoping to skip the current generation of hybrids and hopefully get an ethanol fuel cell one(I don't see a hydrogen one coming soon), or worst comes to worse, a pluggable hybrid.
They may be making good profits right now, but I'm willing to bet that they're going to end up plowing those profits into a major shift of their operating methods.
First, the population growth of the earth is slowing. Europe has negative growth, the USA is barely positive, etc. Japan is facing a 'baby boomer' crisis the likes of which would have the american people who are concerned about the upcoming bankruptcy of social security jumping off of tall buildings. India and Arabic countries are the sources right now of major population growth.
Second, don't forget that a serious threat to our food sources would result in a crash economic/research course that would make Y2K work seem like a joke. For that matter, WWII as well. People today are a whole lot less aware of food supply issues because our ancestors did such a good job in the early 1900's. Still there's alot of techniques to grow more food that aren't economical right now. Hydroponics, for example.
Back on topic: Oil will never run out.
What I see happening, and I've seen the signs already, is that as a matter of pure economics, supply and demand will balance. 1a. Demand increases, mostly due to more people in the world living the industrialized life(China, India, etc). 2a. Supply decreases: the decline is due to exhausted oil fields 2. Price increases: Both sides call for increased prices. 3a. Supply increases: Wells that were previously too expensive to pump are profitable again. New facilities open in areas that were previously judged too expensive. New technology allows more profitable extraction. Shale oil, oil sands, other harder methods of getting oil are now profitable, and plants are made. 3b Demand decreases: Oil/Gasoline/Natural Gas is now more expensive, so alternatives such as an electric heat pump rather than fuel oil or gas looks better to consumers. Rather than use oil to make plastics, organic sources are used. Hybrids, ethanol, electric, biodiesel cars become economical. People are forced to get over their nuclear phobias. Telecommuting, etc... 4. Price stabilizes at a price point that stops most use, usage is reserved for special needs. It might be $10-20 of todays dollar's a gallon, but hardly anybody will be using it.
In some states, owners of private property are allowed the choice of whether to forbid CCW holders from carrying in their buildings. This is done by posting signs on the entrance.
Thing is, in such areas, businesses that post suffer a higher crime rate than those that don't. The reason can be very simple. How many criminals are going to view the signs as anything other than 'Come on in, We're Unarmed, so we can't shoot back!'?
And why, exactly, is turning a bank robbery into a gun battle a good thing?
It's not, depending. It wasn't so long ago in Norfolk, NE where four people walked into the bank, shot and killed everybody(5 people) and left without taking any money. I had passed through on my way to Lincoln the day before.
I am a holder of a CCW license and carry regularly. If I happen to be in any sort of commercial business and a robbery occurs, I'm going to be in decision making mode at first. I'm NOT going to automatically draw my weapon and go 'Dirty Harry' or 'Rambo' on them. Protecting some business's money is not my job. That's the job of the business owner, who usually contracts it out to security guards, and the police.
I will draw, if in my opinion at the moment, it will lead to better chances for the preservation of innocent life. I will not draw to protect something as lowly as money. Innocent life in this context means everybody but the criminals. Nothing in life is sure, I can only go for the best odds. Going by statistics, I will tend to have a more reliable gun*, firing a more effective round*, and be more accurate. But I have to assume that I'll be alone in my action, so if there are multiple crooks, I have to feel that I'll be able to take all or most of them down before they can get me.
Note how I say most. If it's a spree killing type situtation, the odds, and my choice, change. It's not just about me. I can only hope that I have the courage and fortitude to take the action I've decided upon. Taking down the killer or killers by whatever means necessary, denying them the opportunity to cause further harm, even at the cost of my own life. At best, I render them all incapable of causing no further harm without them being able to harm anybody else. At worst, they kill me and continue their slaughter, and at least I can say to God 'I tried my best'. In the middle, there's scenarios where it will become a gun battle, and they waste time and bullets trying to get me. Innocents may be harmed, but then, they most likely would have been anyways. Combat is different than target shooting, hit ratios go down. Hopefully they'll run out of ammo and get mobbed when they try to reload. I hope that the rest of the people can use the opportunity to escape. For the police to arrive.
On the other hand, statistics prove that most criminals run when a civilian presents a firearm. Most criminal 'gun battles' are three shots. Most self-defenses situations are resolved without a shot being fired.
*I'm currently at no failures over thousands of rounds with my ammo choice. I'm amazed at how many crook's guns malfunction on the first or second shot. *Premium hollowpoints, since I'm not in New Jersey. The favored choice among police nationwide.
Personally, I think that this could come back and bite them in the ass. There are other countries out there that are legalizing file sharing. Educate too many people on the law, and they might start pushing to have the law changed.
The Disney-Bono copyright laws might just find themselves overturned.
You dont need a license to carry a gun in public, you only need alicense for certain kinds of guns.
People, this is VERY country and state specific.
For example, in my state of ND, the ultra-short list: 1. Open carry of unloaded firearms is legal, except for prohibited areas. No permit needed. Once you're out of the city/large town or on a firing range it can be loaded. 2. Possession of firearms: The only firearms that you need a 'license' for is fully automatic ones. They must be federally legal, which means you pay a $200 tax, submit a huge load of paperwork and wait months. Oh, and the machinegun has to have been in the registry system before 1986, which is when they closed the registry to new personal entries. 3. Concealed Carry of firearms: Permit needed. If you can buy a gun and pass a fairly easy written & shooting test you got it. This allows you to carry a loaded firearm however you like. Still can't carry in prohibited areas. 4. Prohibited areas: Government buildings, schools, school events, concerts, sporting events, political events.
To make a point, open carry is illegal in Texas, California has banned a number of firearms, in New Jersey possession of Hollow Point bullets are illegal for non-cops.
Driving while impared is NOT a victimless crime. Well, unless they smash themselves up in and on their own property involving nobody else. Which would be their right. Want a racetrack that allows you to drive with a blood alcohol level of.3? Build one yourself. Have a ball. Just don't expect anyone but your heirs to deal with the cleanup, paid for out of your estate.
Driving is a privilage, done on roads owned and maintained by the public, for the public good. Saftey rules are prudent and allowed. This includes rules about not driving while drunk, high, stoned, excessivly tired or ill*. Still, I think that the worst that should happen is loss of driving privilages for life, unless injury or damage occurs. Then you treat it as a deliberate action and punish accordingly. Driving without/on a suspended a license is trespassing, a violation allowing jail time.
That shouldn't prevent me from turning in or hanging up my keys before engaging in recreational pharmaceuticals. A smart person will work up a dosage and avoid drugs that result in irrational decisions to include violence and operating heavy equipment. A truly smart person will avoid them entirely.
You can criticize all you want on islamic law, but I rather look at it from other way around. How many idiotic and barbaric laws do we still have? Death Penalty by EU's standard, it's nothing but barbaric and cruel. What the fuck?
Depends on your scale. Still, I happen to believe that capital punishment should be reserved for the most serious of crimes. Physical punishment has it's place.
However, by my standards Islamic 'Justice' fails both at providing justice and reformation. There are many women who have been whipped, stoned, and hung for being raped. Proving rape in many of those countries requires three male witnesses willing to testify that she was forced. Corruption is rampant.
By my standards for a crime to be commited, you have to have a victim. Using drugs, in and of itself, has no victim. Same with prostitution. Murder, Assault, rape, theft, vandalism all have victims. Heck even polluting has lots of low-grade(or not so low grade) victims.
*All of which detract from driving ability to a greater or lesser extent.
I'll say that you might as well come out and stop posting as an AC.
I just reviewed my posts and found that indeed I've failed to mention other drugs in my posts, well other than peyote. I'm conducting a similar debate on another forum and can get a little confused.
I work on the gradual process. MJ is the easiest drug to legalize, to the point that there's already a fight to do so at various levels. So most of the arguing is about that. But I also support legalization of Opium, Cocaine, and LSD. As well as the various drugs that come from plants such as peyote.
Right now legalizing MJ would only marginally harm drug dealers, as it's often their bulkiest and lowest profit product.
There are still people that will hurt other people regardless...And they should be locked up. Agreed 100%, fellow libertarian.
BTW, you hooked your post to layer3switch's post, does that make me 'the other guy'? But you seem to agree with me?
I'm sure, you'd heard so many lives destroyed by caffeine users and death toll by caffeine OD addicts. LD50 of THC is about 21 grams, but how many people died from smoking pot alone?
Where'd you get 21 grams? The closest I can figure is the 30 mg/kg for intravenous usage with female rats(males can stand double).
For humans, no LD50 has been established. The closest we've come is monkeys, and we didn't achieve LD50 even with 3000 mg/kilo. That'd be 198 grams for our 66 kilo human (most likely rounded to 200).
Well, This site says 79 grams, converting the 2.8 ounces they list to the standard grams. Note they did this off of rat studies, not the larger mammal studies that showed much larger tolerances. This still translates to eating 1.4kg of normal strength weed. Lethality is controlled the same way caffeine is. The drug is simply too diluted in normal substances to be dangerous.
What planet are you from and what biological composition is your body made out of? For a casual marijuana smoker, that may be true, but the effect is definitely not "milder" by volume.
I don't really care about 'volume', but by dose. They're different drugs. It just happens that a MJ dose is more or less one cigarette or 'doobie'. An alcohol dose is generally a 'can' or a 'shot', but is done sequentially for a harder effect. Many pile on 12 or more doses. By milder effects, I was mostly refering to subsequent violent behavior. Marijuana users are almost legendary for their non-violent, non-aggressive behavior. On the other hand, anytime you combine 20 people and a keg of beer and the cops get worried.
So has Prohibition of 1920. So has World War 2. It still does not count for many other things that violates the rights, such as abuse of power. After all, this is where you are going, the abuse of power.
Yep. A major reason that I dislike the war on drugs is that I feel that the LRT(Legalization, Regulation, Taxation) solution is better than the current prohibition. I mean, there are documented instances of police planted drugs in people's homes in order to confiscate them without trial due to drug property forfeiture laws. No knock warrents with weapons any military kill team would be proud of that occasionally hit the wrong house. We're waging a successful if slow campaign against smoking without making it illegal(well, mostly, there are areas that are prohibited).
No, it doesn't. Moderation works. Without moderation, there is no evidence that shows regulation of alcohol could have worked. For instance, Islamic countries around the world shows that alcohol CAN BE EFFECTIVELY ILLEGALIZED.
That's what I'm arguing for. Moderation. I'll fully admit that there would be problems that would be traced to the legalization. However, I feel that we're already experiencing most of them, as well as a rash of problems, including violence, resulting from the prohibition. As for the islamic countries, well, like the other commenter said, this is a dual component of their religion and harsh sentences. We're talking about death, amputations, and whippings. Even so, I've been in a number of Islamic countries and guess what, alcohol was available even there.
Your math is a bit fuzzy and deceptive. 1) 445 years of colonization? I don't think so. 2) wide spread usage of marijuana in US wasn't even until 19th century. 3) herbal use in religious settings wasn't even practiced that commonly, I doubt it's being used that commonly today regardless of the legality
1. I wasn't stating that colonization started then, but that was the first introduction of europeans to the americas, thus the first potential exposure to the plant. It could
First "Drug Screening" most likely be for purposes other than detecting illegal drug usage. It's more likely to be used to detect the effects of various new drugs on various tissue samples.
Many narcotics are highly potent and lethal in small amount Like caffeine? The LD-50 is only 10 grams.
We can't even control drunk driving, what makes you think that "public" is going to be responsible enough to use marijuana Because Marijuana is a different drug than alchohol, with much milder effects?
without screaming civil right violation? Yes, the drug war has resulted in many violations of people's rights.
Alcohol itself is a drug and stupid, making that as some kind of holy grail example to legalize narcotics is nothing but sad and idiotic. Nah, it shows that legalization, regulation. and taxation works. Heck, it shows that the banning of drugs lead to the formation and prominence of criminal gangs. Alchohol prohibition created the Mob, which lost much of it's power when alchohol was legalized. It also showed that when banned, people tended to drink heavier liquers that were easier to smuggle than safer(relativly) beer and wine. For that matter, drinking went up during prohibition, and went down when it ended.
And I'm sure many cancer patients and HIV infected people are going to cry foul and I do sympathize by supporting State Law to legalize it as prescription medicine The states can't do much but bluster until the Federal Government moves it out of Schedule 1(no medical use). They say that the medical version is Marinol, but studies have shown it to be both about a thousand times more expensive per dose and not as effective.
Unless you are a Native Indian, please don't even use the word "We" as in "We have been using it as recreational purpose for centries." How about almost four centuries? Columbus came over in 1492. Marijuana was banned in 1937. That's 445 years. I'll give it over 40 years to spread.
In my training on the Geneva conventions, the whole marking medical buildings/vehicles were never specified as being solely for military. The military, at least on my level, has no concern about the markings of hospitals and ambulances with the cross/crescent. Matter of fact, they LIKE them marked. The only thing we'd hate more than hitting a military hospital would be to hit a civilian one.
It can always be argued that military members are at least occasionally or can be treated there, therefore it's elgible for the markings.
It's even worse. I was just reading in discover magazine that our own cell nucleas may have started as a type of virus. They discovered the largest virus ever. It's DNA code is actually larger than a number of bacteria, and has all sorts of codes common with life with nucleases in it. It even has many of the DNA correction tools.
It's a bit like trying to keep your twin brother phil out of your house.
Low level nuclear waste isn't much of a threat and doesn't have to be stored for very long. High-Level is, but there are alternatives to 'long term storage'.
I was so happy when the president showed support for reproccessing/recycling the waste. It's coming at a fairly good time as the older waste from the plants is getting cool enough that reproccessing it won't create as much ancillery nuclear waste. It's no longer radioactive enough to contaminate materials around it.
Then you use it for launch purposes when electricity is cheap. Sell it to the grid when it isn't. On the other hand, launch windows can be pretty specific, so maybe use it as a hydrogen production facility otherwise.
And this would generally be sharp high power pulse demand, so some sort of super-capaciter bank would help spread out the load.
I don't even think it's in there as a complete viral particle, probably just the RNA.
Close, but not entirely accurate. The HIV virus hides itself in the cell as DNA, actually inserted into a fairly random point of the cell's own DNA. It uses reverse transcriptase to due this.
Viruses of this type are called retroviruses, and less lethal versions are modified for genetic therapy. Normal viruses are DNA within the viral protein, while retros are RNA.
So this would be a cure for AIDS like the invention of artificial insulin was a cure for diabetes. While the human immunoresponse system does have methods for detecting even infected cells, it's a low efficiency system. It's like looking for moles and sleeper agents in the current terrorist situation, you can get some, but have you gotten them all?
Meanwhile, the infected cell can divide, viral code and all, resulting in two infected cells. This can go on for years. Still, if this drug kills enough of the virus, such that between it and the host's immune system each infected cell releasing it's load of fresh virus results on average with less than 1 more cell reaching the release phase and you might eventually win.
Still I wonder if something radical like killing off the immune cells that are susceptable to infection, keeping the patient in a clean room, then doing a bone marrow transplant to reactivate the immunesystem after the life expectency of the virus might work.
Actually, as I understand it--and I may be wrong--senators are appointed by the governor and can be recalled at any time by that governor. The governor can send anybody he or she wants. That said, the governor usually stands by an election because that's what the people want. So the state can decide on whatever system they want for a senator.
This used to be more the case, until the seventeenth amendment was passed in 1913. As of right now, the governer can only appoint someone if the elected senator cannot fulfill his or her duties.
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Then do like what they do with Presidents and Governers. They get 'issued' a house in Washington, for as long as they hold office.
Personally, I think that part of the current outgrowth of the federal government is that the Senate is no longer selected by state legislatures. The idea is that the House represents the people, while the Senate represents the States. Allow the state senate to recall them at any time, with a default term of six years.
Meanwhile, keep up the 2 year period for the house representatives, that way people don't forget what they did in office to piss them off. Maybe have a 6 year limit.
Personally, I feel that the supreme court, which was originally supposed to be the one to strike down unconstitutional laws isn't enough. Even the president signs too much unconstitutional stuff. All the laws supposed to stop corruption doesn't, it just makes the field complicated that you have to be a professional politician w/big friends(ie one of the two big parties) to play.
My Solution: Create a third house. Composed of One half of the total number of representatives in the other two. The State government selects one, and the state's people gets half the number of representatives they get in the house, rounded up. (IE ND, the state gov gets 1, and the people get 1). Call it 'The house of Repeals'. Their only power is the cutting of spending, taxes, programs, laws, etc. They can do this unilaterally with a 2/3rds majority, and with a simple majority with the president's signature. Part of their mandate is to balance the budget, which they can only do by cutting spending.
Cause he hadn't weaponized them yet, because we had protective equipment, because he was afraid that we'd nuke him if he tried it? The options are numberous. Bush's reason to invade Iraq wasn't that Iraq 'Had' WMD's, it was to get him before he could complete them. Seems like that worked. Honestly, I'm disappointed that our intel wasn't that good, just like I wish we could have intercepted 9/11.
Nack when the Chernobyl accident happened, I had a girlfriend whom's dad is a farmer. Now, I live in western Europe, so quite a bit away from Chernobyl, but despite that, this farmer could throw away part of his products of that season due to contamination. He was nto alone in that. A: Chernobyl was a flawed design B: I was only listing reported deaths from the accident, which included estimated deaths attributed to increased cancer, primarily due to radioactive iodine release. C: I'll fully admit that it was a widespread disaster.
You may have noticed (or heard) that there were quite a few people living in the vicinity of the power plant. They had to leave their houses, many of their belongings, and generally spoken, their livelyhood. Like New Orleans? Heck, even like NO, some people stayed behind, and are still living there. The ones allowed to stay were older folks past child-bearing, but many are still around there, and they're dying at ages not much under residents outside the area.
If you believe that the consequences of Chernobyl were 56 dead and thats it then you are stupidly naive. 56 dead and billions of dollars worth of damage from lost crops, contaminated ground and equipment, relocation expenses, emergency measures to build the sarcophagus. Add some more millions for treatment for the treatment costs for the increase in thyroid cancer.
That is not to say that it was worse then Nohpal, it doesn't compare because it is an entirely different kind of accident. Comparing it to the death toll from coal mining makes as little sense because those deaths do not happen in a single accident usually.
People died. You can average it out over number of workers per year, per hours worked, per megawatt produced. While indeed, the big accident has more psychological impact, I care about rate and averages. For example, remember the whole 'air travel is safer than cars' thing? Any individual accident with a plane tends to kill more people than even the worst car wrecks, simply because you have hundreds of people on commercial planes.
Also, little of the fear for nuclear power is based on reason, and no amount of reason is going to 'fix' that fear. Sadly true. Fortuantly, the two big disasters just keep getting older and older, so hopefully we'll be able to get some uncommon sense into policies soon.
Are you sure that you replied to the right message? I'm fully aware that there are differences, depending on the various ages and maturity levels. I never once mentioned abstinence. Heck, I even implied that no prosecutions happen in alot of cases where the activity never makes it to the government's notice.
Heck, I even used a 15 year old as an example. I suggested a test for borderline statutory rape charges.
Should there be laws in place to prevent older adults from exploiting teenagers? I think so. But there needs to be some protection the other way round.
Each case should be judged differently, but when you're talking about pre-teens, well, I think that the book should be thrown at them.
Everyone keeps harping on these "consequences". Just what would those be if both parties just keep their mouths shut about the fact that they were doing the ba-hon-go behind closed doors? Happens more than many would think. Still, most 15 year olds still live with their parents, who pay attention to when their kids come home. They may not have a vehicle, which allows somebody to see the older partner picking the younger up. News gets around, or the teen gets pissed and tells during a snit, etc.
but if a 15-year old purports to be 18 so that she can drop you in the sack, whose fault is it? That's why I'm more sympathetic in this case. 15 year olds get tried as adults fairly frequently. A simple means test would be good. "Did the teenager engage in deliberatly misleading acts in order to get the adult to engage in sexual acts?".(rewritten to be gender inspecific)
And why is this always gender one-way except for the stray major media case? Because the consequences are traditionally much more extreme for females than males. I mean, men don't have to worry about pregnancy except for maybe child support. Until DNA testing came along, even if she did bear a child, it took a high level of circumstantial evidence(compared to DNA testing) to get a court to make him pay child support. Women are, on average, more susceptible to STDs than men, etc. Religious values also plays a role, as does the traditional role for women, that places them as lesser in society, to be protected and sheltered*. We're still feeling out the changes of women's emergence, in mass, from the home. Personally, I feel that at least one of the parents should be a stay at home parent until the child is old enough to enter school.
*As I was writing this I kept thinking about the difference between the role for women in older western society and many areas of the middle-east today. In western society, women were to be protected, even at the possible cost of your life. Men would be sent to prison or hanged for what was effectivly the suspicion of rape. In Iran, a woman who is raped is guilty of adultury or extra-marital sex and faces various penalties unless she can reach an outrageous level of evidence(multiple male witnesses willing to testify that she was forced).
Slashdot Mirror
I recognize that they're probably not for everyone or for every usage (for instance, the color of the light is a bit off as most flouros are. I would think artists might avoid them in the studio), but they have other uses besides their "energy efficientness".
I've found them quite nice. Anybody compaining about the color being 'off' is most likely simply used to incandescants, which have their own biases. Such as towards infrared, which is one of the reasons flourescent's are more energy efficient. Still, if they're that picky, they're likely going to be going for some special lighting system anyways.
It's a win-win deal and I don't understand why the USA still pushes natural gas as a way to heat homes given that the natural gas situation is even more precarious than for liquid oil.
Oh, I agree. It's a dual thing. Many people here in the states love their gas ranges and ovens, and once you've run a line, you might as well heat with it as well. It doesn't hurt that for the last ~30 years it was cheaper to heat with gas.
Personally, I'm looking at going with a heat pump system when I build my house.
I installed compact flourescants in my apartment as the cheap ones the managers installed died. I'm going on 4 years with the same bulbs.
Like what the others said, I love them, not so much for the energy savings, but because I never need to replace them. Changing bulbs every couple of months gets old.
We had cars and were already using oil before Ford came along and improved efficiency such that middle class people could enjoy mobility that was previously restricted to the rich.
Personally, I agree with a guy who wrote an article a while ago.
"Anything that doesn't lead to us eventually leaving the planet, then the solar system is a waste".
I'm all for 'sustainability', but I want sustainable progress. PRT, nuclear power, eventually fusion can all help with the goal of getting off the planet.
Remember, he said [i]long term[/i]. The hybrid market is exploding right now. People are modding no-plug hybrids into ones that can make around 30 miles on battery alone(IE most commutes), and can be plugged into conventional 110V jacks. They're effectivly dual fuel, you can use either gasoline or electricity for short trips.
The SUV market has, relativly speaking, crashed. Not five years ago they were the biggest profit makers for the domestic auto industry. Now they're having to slash thousands of dollars off the price tag to move them. They're shutting down factories associated with them.
Heck, I'm holding onto my gasoline car hoping to skip the current generation of hybrids and hopefully get an ethanol fuel cell one(I don't see a hydrogen one coming soon), or worst comes to worse, a pluggable hybrid.
They may be making good profits right now, but I'm willing to bet that they're going to end up plowing those profits into a major shift of their operating methods.
First, the population growth of the earth is slowing. Europe has negative growth, the USA is barely positive, etc. Japan is facing a 'baby boomer' crisis the likes of which would have the american people who are concerned about the upcoming bankruptcy of social security jumping off of tall buildings. India and Arabic countries are the sources right now of major population growth.
Second, don't forget that a serious threat to our food sources would result in a crash economic/research course that would make Y2K work seem like a joke. For that matter, WWII as well. People today are a whole lot less aware of food supply issues because our ancestors did such a good job in the early 1900's. Still there's alot of techniques to grow more food that aren't economical right now. Hydroponics, for example.
Back on topic:
Oil will never run out.
What I see happening, and I've seen the signs already, is that as a matter of pure economics, supply and demand will balance.
1a. Demand increases, mostly due to more people in the world living the industrialized life(China, India, etc).
2a. Supply decreases: the decline is due to exhausted oil fields
2. Price increases: Both sides call for increased prices.
3a. Supply increases: Wells that were previously too expensive to pump are profitable again. New facilities open in areas that were previously judged too expensive. New technology allows more profitable extraction. Shale oil, oil sands, other harder methods of getting oil are now profitable, and plants are made.
3b Demand decreases: Oil/Gasoline/Natural Gas is now more expensive, so alternatives such as an electric heat pump rather than fuel oil or gas looks better to consumers. Rather than use oil to make plastics, organic sources are used. Hybrids, ethanol, electric, biodiesel cars become economical. People are forced to get over their nuclear phobias. Telecommuting, etc...
4. Price stabilizes at a price point that stops most use, usage is reserved for special needs. It might be $10-20 of todays dollar's a gallon, but hardly anybody will be using it.
In some states, owners of private property are allowed the choice of whether to forbid CCW holders from carrying in their buildings. This is done by posting signs on the entrance.
Thing is, in such areas, businesses that post suffer a higher crime rate than those that don't. The reason can be very simple. How many criminals are going to view the signs as anything other than 'Come on in, We're Unarmed, so we can't shoot back!'?
10 Stores that posted are robbed
New York residents place 'No guns in this House' signs, suffered robbery/burglury spree. Oh, and during a police strike in Albuquerque, armed citizens patrolled during police strike and felonies dropped sharply.
Criminals don't seem to mind No-Gun signs in Ohio
Lengthy article Texas's CCW laws, includes posting
A good reference for CCW and other gun laws in the USA
A collection of interesting statistics
And why, exactly, is turning a bank robbery into a gun battle a good thing?
It's not, depending. It wasn't so long ago in Norfolk, NE where four people walked into the bank, shot and killed everybody(5 people) and left without taking any money. I had passed through on my way to Lincoln the day before.
I am a holder of a CCW license and carry regularly. If I happen to be in any sort of commercial business and a robbery occurs, I'm going to be in decision making mode at first. I'm NOT going to automatically draw my weapon and go 'Dirty Harry' or 'Rambo' on them. Protecting some business's money is not my job. That's the job of the business owner, who usually contracts it out to security guards, and the police.
I will draw, if in my opinion at the moment, it will lead to better chances for the preservation of innocent life. I will not draw to protect something as lowly as money. Innocent life in this context means everybody but the criminals. Nothing in life is sure, I can only go for the best odds. Going by statistics, I will tend to have a more reliable gun*, firing a more effective round*, and be more accurate. But I have to assume that I'll be alone in my action, so if there are multiple crooks, I have to feel that I'll be able to take all or most of them down before they can get me.
Note how I say most. If it's a spree killing type situtation, the odds, and my choice, change. It's not just about me. I can only hope that I have the courage and fortitude to take the action I've decided upon. Taking down the killer or killers by whatever means necessary, denying them the opportunity to cause further harm, even at the cost of my own life. At best, I render them all incapable of causing no further harm without them being able to harm anybody else. At worst, they kill me and continue their slaughter, and at least I can say to God 'I tried my best'. In the middle, there's scenarios where it will become a gun battle, and they waste time and bullets trying to get me. Innocents may be harmed, but then, they most likely would have been anyways. Combat is different than target shooting, hit ratios go down. Hopefully they'll run out of ammo and get mobbed when they try to reload. I hope that the rest of the people can use the opportunity to escape. For the police to arrive.
On the other hand, statistics prove that most criminals run when a civilian presents a firearm. Most criminal 'gun battles' are three shots. Most self-defenses situations are resolved without a shot being fired.
*I'm currently at no failures over thousands of rounds with my ammo choice. I'm amazed at how many crook's guns malfunction on the first or second shot.
*Premium hollowpoints, since I'm not in New Jersey. The favored choice among police nationwide.
Personally, I think that this could come back and bite them in the ass. There are other countries out there that are legalizing file sharing. Educate too many people on the law, and they might start pushing to have the law changed.
The Disney-Bono copyright laws might just find themselves overturned.
You dont need a license to carry a gun in public, you only need alicense for certain kinds of guns.
People, this is VERY country and state specific.
For example, in my state of ND, the ultra-short list:
1. Open carry of unloaded firearms is legal, except for prohibited areas. No permit needed. Once you're out of the city/large town or on a firing range it can be loaded.
2. Possession of firearms: The only firearms that you need a 'license' for is fully automatic ones. They must be federally legal, which means you pay a $200 tax, submit a huge load of paperwork and wait months. Oh, and the machinegun has to have been in the registry system before 1986, which is when they closed the registry to new personal entries.
3. Concealed Carry of firearms: Permit needed. If you can buy a gun and pass a fairly easy written & shooting test you got it. This allows you to carry a loaded firearm however you like. Still can't carry in prohibited areas.
4. Prohibited areas: Government buildings, schools, school events, concerts, sporting events, political events.
To make a point, open carry is illegal in Texas, California has banned a number of firearms, in New Jersey possession of Hollow Point bullets are illegal for non-cops.
Driving while impared is NOT a victimless crime. Well, unless they smash themselves up in and on their own property involving nobody else. Which would be their right. Want a racetrack that allows you to drive with a blood alcohol level of .3? Build one yourself. Have a ball. Just don't expect anyone but your heirs to deal with the cleanup, paid for out of your estate.
Driving is a privilage, done on roads owned and maintained by the public, for the public good. Saftey rules are prudent and allowed. This includes rules about not driving while drunk, high, stoned, excessivly tired or ill*. Still, I think that the worst that should happen is loss of driving privilages for life, unless injury or damage occurs. Then you treat it as a deliberate action and punish accordingly. Driving without/on a suspended a license is trespassing, a violation allowing jail time.
That shouldn't prevent me from turning in or hanging up my keys before engaging in recreational pharmaceuticals. A smart person will work up a dosage and avoid drugs that result in irrational decisions to include violence and operating heavy equipment. A truly smart person will avoid them entirely.
You can criticize all you want on islamic law, but I rather look at it from other way around. How many idiotic and barbaric laws do we still have? Death Penalty by EU's standard, it's nothing but barbaric and cruel. What the fuck?
Depends on your scale. Still, I happen to believe that capital punishment should be reserved for the most serious of crimes. Physical punishment has it's place.
However, by my standards Islamic 'Justice' fails both at providing justice and reformation. There are many women who have been whipped, stoned, and hung for being raped. Proving rape in many of those countries requires three male witnesses willing to testify that she was forced. Corruption is rampant.
By my standards for a crime to be commited, you have to have a victim. Using drugs, in and of itself, has no victim. Same with prostitution. Murder, Assault, rape, theft, vandalism all have victims. Heck even polluting has lots of low-grade(or not so low grade) victims.
*All of which detract from driving ability to a greater or lesser extent.
I'll say that you might as well come out and stop posting as an AC.
I just reviewed my posts and found that indeed I've failed to mention other drugs in my posts, well other than peyote. I'm conducting a similar debate on another forum and can get a little confused.
I work on the gradual process. MJ is the easiest drug to legalize, to the point that there's already a fight to do so at various levels. So most of the arguing is about that. But I also support legalization of Opium, Cocaine, and LSD. As well as the various drugs that come from plants such as peyote.
Right now legalizing MJ would only marginally harm drug dealers, as it's often their bulkiest and lowest profit product.
There are still people that will hurt other people regardless...And they should be locked up.
Agreed 100%, fellow libertarian.
BTW, you hooked your post to layer3switch's post, does that make me 'the other guy'? But you seem to agree with me?
I'm sure, you'd heard so many lives destroyed by caffeine users and death toll by caffeine OD addicts. LD50 of THC is about 21 grams, but how many people died from smoking pot alone?
LD50 for caffeine is 150mg/kilo of body weight,orally using the 'standard' 66kilo human makes lethal dose about 10 grams.
Where'd you get 21 grams? The closest I can figure is the 30 mg/kg for intravenous usage with female rats(males can stand double).
For humans, no LD50 has been established. The closest we've come is monkeys, and we didn't achieve LD50 even with 3000 mg/kilo. That'd be 198 grams for our 66 kilo human (most likely rounded to 200).
Well, This site says 79 grams, converting the 2.8 ounces they list to the standard grams. Note they did this off of rat studies, not the larger mammal studies that showed much larger tolerances. This still translates to eating 1.4kg of normal strength weed. Lethality is controlled the same way caffeine is. The drug is simply too diluted in normal substances to be dangerous.
What planet are you from and what biological composition is your body made out of? For a casual marijuana smoker, that may be true, but the effect is definitely not "milder" by volume.
I don't really care about 'volume', but by dose. They're different drugs. It just happens that a MJ dose is more or less one cigarette or 'doobie'. An alcohol dose is generally a 'can' or a 'shot', but is done sequentially for a harder effect. Many pile on 12 or more doses. By milder effects, I was mostly refering to subsequent violent behavior. Marijuana users are almost legendary for their non-violent, non-aggressive behavior. On the other hand, anytime you combine 20 people and a keg of beer and the cops get worried.
So has Prohibition of 1920. So has World War 2. It still does not count for many other things that violates the rights, such as abuse of power. After all, this is where you are going, the abuse of power.
Yep. A major reason that I dislike the war on drugs is that I feel that the LRT(Legalization, Regulation, Taxation) solution is better than the current prohibition. I mean, there are documented instances of police planted drugs in people's homes in order to confiscate them without trial due to drug property forfeiture laws. No knock warrents with weapons any military kill team would be proud of that occasionally hit the wrong house. We're waging a successful if slow campaign against smoking without making it illegal(well, mostly, there are areas that are prohibited).
No, it doesn't. Moderation works. Without moderation, there is no evidence that shows regulation of alcohol could have worked. For instance, Islamic countries around the world shows that alcohol CAN BE EFFECTIVELY ILLEGALIZED.
That's what I'm arguing for. Moderation. I'll fully admit that there would be problems that would be traced to the legalization. However, I feel that we're already experiencing most of them, as well as a rash of problems, including violence, resulting from the prohibition. As for the islamic countries, well, like the other commenter said, this is a dual component of their religion and harsh sentences. We're talking about death, amputations, and whippings. Even so, I've been in a number of Islamic countries and guess what, alcohol was available even there.
Your math is a bit fuzzy and deceptive. 1) 445 years of colonization? I don't think so. 2) wide spread usage of marijuana in US wasn't even until 19th century. 3) herbal use in religious settings wasn't even practiced that commonly, I doubt it's being used that commonly today regardless of the legality
1. I wasn't stating that colonization started then, but that was the first introduction of europeans to the americas, thus the first potential exposure to the plant. It could
First "Drug Screening" most likely be for purposes other than detecting illegal drug usage. It's more likely to be used to detect the effects of various new drugs on various tissue samples.
Many narcotics are highly potent and lethal in small amount
Like caffeine? The LD-50 is only 10 grams.
We can't even control drunk driving, what makes you think that "public" is going to be responsible enough to use marijuana
Because Marijuana is a different drug than alchohol, with much milder effects?
without screaming civil right violation?
Yes, the drug war has resulted in many violations of people's rights.
Alcohol itself is a drug and stupid, making that as some kind of holy grail example to legalize narcotics is nothing but sad and idiotic.
Nah, it shows that legalization, regulation. and taxation works. Heck, it shows that the banning of drugs lead to the formation and prominence of criminal gangs. Alchohol prohibition created the Mob, which lost much of it's power when alchohol was legalized. It also showed that when banned, people tended to drink heavier liquers that were easier to smuggle than safer(relativly) beer and wine. For that matter, drinking went up during prohibition, and went down when it ended.
And I'm sure many cancer patients and HIV infected people are going to cry foul and I do sympathize by supporting State Law to legalize it as prescription medicine
The states can't do much but bluster until the Federal Government moves it out of Schedule 1(no medical use). They say that the medical version is Marinol, but studies have shown it to be both about a thousand times more expensive per dose and not as effective.
Unless you are a Native Indian, please don't even use the word "We" as in "We have been using it as recreational purpose for centries."
How about almost four centuries? Columbus came over in 1492. Marijuana was banned in 1937. That's 445 years. I'll give it over 40 years to spread.
In my training on the Geneva conventions, the whole marking medical buildings/vehicles were never specified as being solely for military. The military, at least on my level, has no concern about the markings of hospitals and ambulances with the cross/crescent. Matter of fact, they LIKE them marked. The only thing we'd hate more than hitting a military hospital would be to hit a civilian one.
It can always be argued that military members are at least occasionally or can be treated there, therefore it's elgible for the markings.
It's even worse. I was just reading in discover magazine that our own cell nucleas may have started as a type of virus. They discovered the largest virus ever. It's DNA code is actually larger than a number of bacteria, and has all sorts of codes common with life with nucleases in it. It even has many of the DNA correction tools.
It's a bit like trying to keep your twin brother phil out of your house.
Low level nuclear waste isn't much of a threat and doesn't have to be stored for very long. High-Level is, but there are alternatives to 'long term storage'.
I was so happy when the president showed support for reproccessing/recycling the waste. It's coming at a fairly good time as the older waste from the plants is getting cool enough that reproccessing it won't create as much ancillery nuclear waste. It's no longer radioactive enough to contaminate materials around it.
Then you use it for launch purposes when electricity is cheap. Sell it to the grid when it isn't. On the other hand, launch windows can be pretty specific, so maybe use it as a hydrogen production facility otherwise.
And this would generally be sharp high power pulse demand, so some sort of super-capaciter bank would help spread out the load.
I don't even think it's in there as a complete viral particle, probably just the RNA.
Close, but not entirely accurate. The HIV virus hides itself in the cell as DNA, actually inserted into a fairly random point of the cell's own DNA. It uses reverse transcriptase to due this.
Viruses of this type are called retroviruses, and less lethal versions are modified for genetic therapy. Normal viruses are DNA within the viral protein, while retros are RNA.
So this would be a cure for AIDS like the invention of artificial insulin was a cure for diabetes. While the human immunoresponse system does have methods for detecting even infected cells, it's a low efficiency system. It's like looking for moles and sleeper agents in the current terrorist situation, you can get some, but have you gotten them all?
Meanwhile, the infected cell can divide, viral code and all, resulting in two infected cells. This can go on for years. Still, if this drug kills enough of the virus, such that between it and the host's immune system each infected cell releasing it's load of fresh virus results on average with less than 1 more cell reaching the release phase and you might eventually win.
Still I wonder if something radical like killing off the immune cells that are susceptable to infection, keeping the patient in a clean room, then doing a bone marrow transplant to reactivate the immunesystem after the life expectency of the virus might work.
Actually, as I understand it--and I may be wrong--senators are appointed by the governor and can be recalled at any time by that governor. The governor can send anybody he or she wants. That said, the governor usually stands by an election because that's what the people want. So the state can decide on whatever system they want for a senator.
This used to be more the case, until the seventeenth amendment was passed in 1913. As of right now, the governer can only appoint someone if the elected senator cannot fulfill his or her duties.
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Then do like what they do with Presidents and Governers. They get 'issued' a house in Washington, for as long as they hold office.
Personally, I think that part of the current outgrowth of the federal government is that the Senate is no longer selected by state legislatures. The idea is that the House represents the people, while the Senate represents the States. Allow the state senate to recall them at any time, with a default term of six years.
Meanwhile, keep up the 2 year period for the house representatives, that way people don't forget what they did in office to piss them off. Maybe have a 6 year limit.
Personally, I feel that the supreme court, which was originally supposed to be the one to strike down unconstitutional laws isn't enough. Even the president signs too much unconstitutional stuff. All the laws supposed to stop corruption doesn't, it just makes the field complicated that you have to be a professional politician w/big friends(ie one of the two big parties) to play.
My Solution: Create a third house. Composed of One half of the total number of representatives in the other two. The State government selects one, and the state's people gets half the number of representatives they get in the house, rounded up. (IE ND, the state gov gets 1, and the people get 1). Call it 'The house of Repeals'. Their only power is the cutting of spending, taxes, programs, laws, etc. They can do this unilaterally with a 2/3rds majority, and with a simple majority with the president's signature. Part of their mandate is to balance the budget, which they can only do by cutting spending.
Cause he hadn't weaponized them yet, because we had protective equipment, because he was afraid that we'd nuke him if he tried it? The options are numberous. Bush's reason to invade Iraq wasn't that Iraq 'Had' WMD's, it was to get him before he could complete them. Seems like that worked.
Honestly, I'm disappointed that our intel wasn't that good, just like I wish we could have intercepted 9/11.
Nack when the Chernobyl accident happened, I had a girlfriend whom's dad is a farmer. Now, I live in western Europe, so quite a bit away from Chernobyl, but despite that, this farmer could throw away part of his products of that season due to contamination. He was nto alone in that.
A: Chernobyl was a flawed design
B: I was only listing reported deaths from the accident, which included estimated deaths attributed to increased cancer, primarily due to radioactive iodine release.
C: I'll fully admit that it was a widespread disaster.
You may have noticed (or heard) that there were quite a few people living in the vicinity of the power plant. They had to leave their houses, many of their belongings, and generally spoken, their livelyhood.
Yeah, like chemical spills and contamination haven't ever required relocation.
80% of black population of New Orleans may not return
You may have noticed (or heard) that there were quite a few people living in the vicinity of the power plant. They had to leave their houses, many of their belongings, and generally spoken, their livelyhood.
Like New Orleans? Heck, even like NO, some people stayed behind, and are still living there. The ones allowed to stay were older folks past child-bearing, but many are still around there, and they're dying at ages not much under residents outside the area.
If you believe that the consequences of Chernobyl were 56 dead and thats it then you are stupidly naive.
56 dead and billions of dollars worth of damage from lost crops, contaminated ground and equipment, relocation expenses, emergency measures to build the sarcophagus. Add some more millions for treatment for the treatment costs for the increase in thyroid cancer.
That is not to say that it was worse then Nohpal, it doesn't compare because it is an entirely different kind of accident. Comparing it to the death toll from coal mining makes as little sense because those deaths do not happen in a single accident usually.
People died. You can average it out over number of workers per year, per hours worked, per megawatt produced. While indeed, the big accident has more psychological impact, I care about rate and averages. For example, remember the whole 'air travel is safer than cars' thing? Any individual accident with a plane tends to kill more people than even the worst car wrecks, simply because you have hundreds of people on commercial planes.
Also, little of the fear for nuclear power is based on reason, and no amount of reason is going to 'fix' that fear.
Sadly true. Fortuantly, the two big disasters just keep getting older and older, so hopefully we'll be able to get some uncommon sense into policies soon.
Are you sure that you replied to the right message? I'm fully aware that there are differences, depending on the various ages and maturity levels. I never once mentioned abstinence. Heck, I even implied that no prosecutions happen in alot of cases where the activity never makes it to the government's notice.
Heck, I even used a 15 year old as an example. I suggested a test for borderline statutory rape charges.
Should there be laws in place to prevent older adults from exploiting teenagers? I think so. But there needs to be some protection the other way round.
Each case should be judged differently, but when you're talking about pre-teens, well, I think that the book should be thrown at them.
Everyone keeps harping on these "consequences". Just what would those be if both parties just keep their mouths shut about the fact that they were doing the ba-hon-go behind closed doors?
Happens more than many would think. Still, most 15 year olds still live with their parents, who pay attention to when their kids come home. They may not have a vehicle, which allows somebody to see the older partner picking the younger up. News gets around, or the teen gets pissed and tells during a snit, etc.
but if a 15-year old purports to be 18 so that she can drop you in the sack, whose fault is it?
That's why I'm more sympathetic in this case. 15 year olds get tried as adults fairly frequently. A simple means test would be good. "Did the teenager engage in deliberatly misleading acts in order to get the adult to engage in sexual acts?".(rewritten to be gender inspecific)
And why is this always gender one-way except for the stray major media case?
Because the consequences are traditionally much more extreme for females than males. I mean, men don't have to worry about pregnancy except for maybe child support. Until DNA testing came along, even if she did bear a child, it took a high level of circumstantial evidence(compared to DNA testing) to get a court to make him pay child support. Women are, on average, more susceptible to STDs than men, etc. Religious values also plays a role, as does the traditional role for women, that places them as lesser in society, to be protected and sheltered*. We're still feeling out the changes of women's emergence, in mass, from the home. Personally, I feel that at least one of the parents should be a stay at home parent until the child is old enough to enter school.
*As I was writing this I kept thinking about the difference between the role for women in older western society and many areas of the middle-east today. In western society, women were to be protected, even at the possible cost of your life. Men would be sent to prison or hanged for what was effectivly the suspicion of rape. In Iran, a woman who is raped is guilty of adultury or extra-marital sex and faces various penalties unless she can reach an outrageous level of evidence(multiple male witnesses willing to testify that she was forced).