when countries have tested nuclear weapons, they didn't face the consequences
You seem to be equating countries like Israel, Pakistan, and India — who never promised not to seek nuclear weapons — with the likes of Iran and North Korea, who did make such a promise, but developed (or are developing) them anyway.
Maybe, both groups should see some consequences, but the latter group's punishment ought to be much more severe.
It is impossible to own land in Israel. People lease plots from the government. The only ones with ownership are the folks holding deeds from the times before Israel was created.
Only Jewish holy sites are protected by the government, not Christian or Muslim sites
Another bold-faced lie. Were it not for Israeli police, various Christian sects would've torn each other apart limb-by-limb, for example.
Given the amount of obvious lies in your post, I am not even going to dig through the rest of your statements. Nor should anybody else.
The titles of both the submission and TFA promised to explain, why it matters, but contain nothing but evidence of the test taking place.
Ok, suppose Israel did, in fact, test a nuke in 1979 and remained nuclear-armed ever since — for over 35 years. Why does it matter today?
I could offer some suggestions of my own — quickly to be denounced as "troll" and "flamebait" by the dimmer part of the audience — but neither the write-up nor the article deliver any of theirs.
majority of affordable housing within driving distance lies in an area known for its high crime rate
Dude, like, be nice about it. Embrace the local disadvantaged kids — they didn't have mommy and daddy provide them with computers and nice schools growing up, so what's left for them to do but robbery and selling drugs?
Don't be no hater and give them your money and iPhone voluntarily and be sure to attend all community meetings resisting the evil money-grabbing developers intent on gentrification of the area for profit — it raises the rents for everyone, hitting women and the poor the worst, of course.
Ah, and never miss a chance to flip a birdie to the police while filming them doing their jobs. Every time — they are the ones, you do not have to be nice to.
So if they say that skin cancer incidences in the Sunshine State are above average, then there's good chance it's the sun doing it.
There is an even better chance, that it is caused by excessive exposure. This subthread started with someone stating, he uses sunscreen only on occasion — he got quickly denounced by someone claiming, the exposure is cumulative and that, consequently, there is no such thing as a "safe" amount of it.
Well, the first two links talk mostly or exclusively about indoor tanning — not the actual Sun. And the last link warns against sunburns and "excessive" tanning as harmful. None of the three cites actual scientific studies...
Do people, who sun-tan regularly but in moderation, have higher incidence of skin-cancer? Are their lives shorter because of that, or is there, perhaps, some benefit from Sun-exposure, that mitigates the alleged risks?
I'm afraid, my request for citations remains unfulfilled and your earlier claims, — unsubstantiated.
Waiting for the protests from the folks who believe Sunscreen actually causes cancer
The sunscreen usage is not mandatory (not yet?) — so there is little grounds to object on that account. But tax-paying is very mandatory, so, while you are waiting, could you explain, why Miami's taxpayers are more concerned about other people getting skin-cancer, than those would-be victims themselves are?
If they don't offer static addressing, then it's a waste of time.
Sorry, but that's how things are going to be from now on — a government monopoly, the worst combination imaginable. Tech support by municipal workers... Any violation of rules — and you'll get a citation from police (maybe, not today, but soon — just wait). And no alternative, because who is going to compete with the City Hall? It is hard enough to get the permits even when your service does not compete with anything the government already runs...
Ah, and look at all of these fan-boys explaining, why you "don't need" static IP...
They decided to do so because the private ISPs in the area weren't willing to invest more in the local infrastructure
So, private companies, in their greedy quest for the almighty buck, did not see this as a profit-opportunity. Which means, the local residents didn't want the service — not in the sufficient numbers to justify the cost. So, the government decided to use its power to confiscate money at gun-point (also known as "tax collection") to finance a project, that people didn't want to participate in voluntarily. Tyranny has won...
The West has no such industry, most factories aren't set up to build anything but specific products for the owners of the factory concerned
But those owners can have a rather diverse set of products to make still. For example, when we were placing an order for "Lutron" light-switches for our house, the manufacturer made that customized order for us — a total of about 60 devices, some of them standard (sold at Home Depot), but others more specific.
as long as we assume manufacturing is somehow beneath us as a nation
I don't know, if such sentiment exists at all. But, if it does exist, it is certainly not universally shared. Those, who do not feel that way, aren't — or should not be — obliged to hold back whatever manufacturing capacity they control.
And what do you actually know about psychological research?
I fail to see, what meglon's knowledge of psychological research has to do with his argument. Which is that psychologists — by the very nature of their chosen domain — aren't particularly good at conducting experiments. He may be wrong, or he may be right, but his own proficiency in psychology has little to no connection to the argument. One does not need to have ever touched the oddly-shaped ball to see, that the quarterback sucks.
I am also a fan of the "hard" sciences
Yeah, and I am a fan of synchronized swimming... But I don't pretend to be any good at it.
I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking)
It would seem, that the very point of TFA is that the "when done correctly" part is true a lot less often, than the taxpayers financing most of these had the right to believe...
With humans, animals, and other living things, the noise factor is intense.
Yes, of course. Your work is harder in that respect. But this does not mean, your profession is any better at it... You may have collectively lowered the bar for each other — either because of these difficulties or because of some inherent imprecision of your domain and/or sloppiness of its practitioners — and TFA reflects the sorry outcome...
We have had to develop highly sophisticated techniques to be able to perform science and uncover truth.
Once again, TFA suggests, that over half of what you are portraying to be the "uncovered truth" is not... And meglon thinks, that's because you are untrained for (and perhaps even uninterested in) proper experimentation.
Describing your profession's challenges does not refute his accusation, nor does a claim of being "a fan" of physics.
Khmm, that wall on the left seemed so solid, and yet you managed to walk straight through it and are now posting from the closet behind it — if the Washington Post really is "right wing dogma" in your opinion...
Not a quadcopter that took 30 minutes to get to the scene, setup and send to the target.
Drones are both cheaper and faster-moving than human police. Of course, having a cop on every corner would do more to suppress crime, but that's way too expensive a proposition. Omni-present cameras and drones are the economical compromise...
How exactly is this not a dystopian sci-fi novel come to life?
The dystopian novels may concentrate on the methods, but the real reasons for gloom are the governments behind them. A vibrant democracy arming its peace officers with effective tools to help them fight crime is starkly different from a repressive dictatorship doing the same.
And, although the US is not any longer the vibrant democracy (republic) we once were, it is not the brutal police force, that is used by our overlords today to keep opposition at bay. Not yet, anyway — for now they still use the IRS and other "civilized" tools to suppress would-be challengers. Possibly, because their support among actual police is not all that high.
If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety
That justification, obviously, will not apply to drones. But there are other justifications — such as to disrupt a crime in progress. For example, I can see, how a sound cannon can make a would-be rapist go limp...
Only it was not the government's to give away in the first place. It was unsettled land and the government merely approved a claim. When you say "gave away" you lead the reader to believe, there was a monetary loss — an expense — to the taxpayer from the action. There was not, and your leading to that incorrect believe thus qualifies as a lie. Congratulations.
Improved designs became popular and mass produced
Yes. I referred exactly to that creation of popular designs — and their mass-production.
as governments built water supplies and sewers run to each house.
Except neither was government-provided in the 19th century. In fact, many houses use artesian water supplies even today. And many still use septic tanks to treat sewage. Yet another attempt to portray government as somehow necessary for running water debunked.
a demonstration line between Washington and Baltimore funded by Congress was built by Morse
Are you saying, commercial telegraph would never have gotten built, were it not for that $30000 appropriation?
Early commercial air travel was supported by US mail delivery.
Another lie. US mail used the commercial air-travel to deliver "air-mail" faster. It was not necessary for the air-lines' survival — although, characteristically, the government's involvement produced its share of corruption.
And that is what are the non-direct costs on society of those people that fail
Those costs are imposed on society not by the failures themselves, but by the folks, who — out of greatness of their hearts — want to help them. And not just help them, but compel everybody else to help them as well.
in both the socialist and non countries
You are right that this is a problem in any regime. Free market Capitalist ones are just much wealthier and thus can afford to take better care of the losers. The hobos in New York have cell phones and are otherwise better off, than North Korea's "middle class"...
Oh and the US govt spending is around the 35% mark of GDP.
That enormous figure includes only the Federal government. Once you add the State and local government spending, you'll come to over 40% and up to 50%.(depending on the method used).
Does it? The US got nation-wide railroad network, flush toilet, telegraph, commercial air-travel, and massively-affordable personal car under laissez-fair economy. Was that wrong?
It makes the bullies and cutthroats rise to the top without any negative repercussions.
You mean, bullies and cutthroats like Che Guevara and Stalin? Or those like Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers?
Which of the two groups I listed has actually cut a throat in your opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be equating countries like Israel, Pakistan, and India — who never promised not to seek nuclear weapons — with the likes of Iran and North Korea, who did make such a promise, but developed (or are developing) them anyway.
Maybe, both groups should see some consequences, but the latter group's punishment ought to be much more severe.
It is impossible to own land in Israel. People lease plots from the government. The only ones with ownership are the folks holding deeds from the times before Israel was created.
Another bold-faced lie. Were it not for Israeli police, various Christian sects would've torn each other apart limb-by-limb, for example.
Given the amount of obvious lies in your post, I am not even going to dig through the rest of your statements. Nor should anybody else.
The titles of both the submission and TFA promised to explain, why it matters, but contain nothing but evidence of the test taking place.
Ok, suppose Israel did, in fact, test a nuke in 1979 and remained nuclear-armed ever since — for over 35 years. Why does it matter today?
I could offer some suggestions of my own — quickly to be denounced as "troll" and "flamebait" by the dimmer part of the audience — but neither the write-up nor the article deliver any of theirs.
A sloppy piece of propaganda to help Obama close his disastrous deal with an evil regime.
Dude, like, be nice about it. Embrace the local disadvantaged kids — they didn't have mommy and daddy provide them with computers and nice schools growing up, so what's left for them to do but robbery and selling drugs?
Don't be no hater and give them your money and iPhone voluntarily and be sure to attend all community meetings resisting the evil money-grabbing developers intent on gentrification of the area for profit — it raises the rents for everyone, hitting women and the poor the worst, of course.
Ah, and never miss a chance to flip a birdie to the police while filming them doing their jobs. Every time — they are the ones, you do not have to be nice to.
And the answer is very simple: if you get sunburned, it was excessive.
And the people I know have not got skin cancer at all... Do you really want to talk about personal experiences and anecdotes?
There is an even better chance, that it is caused by excessive exposure. This subthread started with someone stating, he uses sunscreen only on occasion — he got quickly denounced by someone claiming, the exposure is cumulative and that, consequently, there is no such thing as a "safe" amount of it.
It is that assertion, that I'm questioning...
Well, the first two links talk mostly or exclusively about indoor tanning — not the actual Sun. And the last link warns against sunburns and "excessive" tanning as harmful. None of the three cites actual scientific studies...
Do people, who sun-tan regularly but in moderation, have higher incidence of skin-cancer? Are their lives shorter because of that, or is there, perhaps, some benefit from Sun-exposure, that mitigates the alleged risks?
I'm afraid, my request for citations remains unfulfilled and your earlier claims, — unsubstantiated.
Citations needed.
The sunscreen usage is not mandatory (not yet?) — so there is little grounds to object on that account. But tax-paying is very mandatory, so, while you are waiting, could you explain, why Miami's taxpayers are more concerned about other people getting skin-cancer, than those would-be victims themselves are?
Awesome! Shall nominate for the best universal rebuttal on the Internet.
Sorry, but that's how things are going to be from now on — a government monopoly, the worst combination imaginable. Tech support by municipal workers... Any violation of rules — and you'll get a citation from police (maybe, not today, but soon — just wait). And no alternative, because who is going to compete with the City Hall? It is hard enough to get the permits even when your service does not compete with anything the government already runs...
Ah, and look at all of these fan-boys explaining, why you "don't need" static IP...
So, private companies, in their greedy quest for the almighty buck, did not see this as a profit-opportunity. Which means, the local residents didn't want the service — not in the sufficient numbers to justify the cost. So, the government decided to use its power to confiscate money at gun-point (also known as "tax collection") to finance a project, that people didn't want to participate in voluntarily. Tyranny has won...
But those owners can have a rather diverse set of products to make still. For example, when we were placing an order for "Lutron" light-switches for our house, the manufacturer made that customized order for us — a total of about 60 devices, some of them standard (sold at Home Depot), but others more specific.
I don't know, if such sentiment exists at all. But, if it does exist, it is certainly not universally shared. Those, who do not feel that way, aren't — or should not be — obliged to hold back whatever manufacturing capacity they control.
I denounce this propaganda attack piece paid for by Koch brothers seeking to destroy the planet and drown the poor for profit!!!!
Oh, this is not about Climate science? Never mind...
I fail to see, what meglon's knowledge of psychological research has to do with his argument. Which is that psychologists — by the very nature of their chosen domain — aren't particularly good at conducting experiments. He may be wrong, or he may be right, but his own proficiency in psychology has little to no connection to the argument. One does not need to have ever touched the oddly-shaped ball to see, that the quarterback sucks.
Yeah, and I am a fan of synchronized swimming... But I don't pretend to be any good at it.
It would seem, that the very point of TFA is that the "when done correctly" part is true a lot less often, than the taxpayers financing most of these had the right to believe...
Yes, of course. Your work is harder in that respect. But this does not mean, your profession is any better at it... You may have collectively lowered the bar for each other — either because of these difficulties or because of some inherent imprecision of your domain and/or sloppiness of its practitioners — and TFA reflects the sorry outcome...
Once again, TFA suggests, that over half of what you are portraying to be the "uncovered truth" is not... And meglon thinks, that's because you are untrained for (and perhaps even uninterested in) proper experimentation.
Describing your profession's challenges does not refute his accusation, nor does a claim of being "a fan" of physics.
Have they tried some other country's factories? Like, to pick at random, the US? Just a thought...
How much more expensive would it make each unit, if they were made in a better place?
Khmm, that wall on the left seemed so solid, and yet you managed to walk straight through it and are now posting from the closet behind it — if the Washington Post really is "right wing dogma" in your opinion...
Drones are both cheaper and faster-moving than human police. Of course, having a cop on every corner would do more to suppress crime, but that's way too expensive a proposition. Omni-present cameras and drones are the economical compromise...
Sounds good to me... I've always been rather disheartened by protesters engaging in bona-fide criminality getting off scott-free for lack of evidence.
The dystopian novels may concentrate on the methods, but the real reasons for gloom are the governments behind them. A vibrant democracy arming its peace officers with effective tools to help them fight crime is starkly different from a repressive dictatorship doing the same.
And, although the US is not any longer the vibrant democracy (republic) we once were, it is not the brutal police force, that is used by our overlords today to keep opposition at bay. Not yet, anyway — for now they still use the IRS and other "civilized" tools to suppress would-be challengers. Possibly, because their support among actual police is not all that high.
The Sci-Fi writers didn't see any of that coming.
That justification, obviously, will not apply to drones. But there are other justifications — such as to disrupt a crime in progress. For example, I can see, how a sound cannon can make a would-be rapist go limp...
Only it was not the government's to give away in the first place. It was unsettled land and the government merely approved a claim. When you say "gave away" you lead the reader to believe, there was a monetary loss — an expense — to the taxpayer from the action. There was not, and your leading to that incorrect believe thus qualifies as a lie. Congratulations.
Yes. I referred exactly to that creation of popular designs — and their mass-production.
Except neither was government-provided in the 19th century. In fact, many houses use artesian water supplies even today. And many still use septic tanks to treat sewage. Yet another attempt to portray government as somehow necessary for running water debunked.
Are you saying, commercial telegraph would never have gotten built, were it not for that $30000 appropriation?
Another lie. US mail used the commercial air-travel to deliver "air-mail" faster. It was not necessary for the air-lines' survival — although, characteristically, the government's involvement produced its share of corruption.
Those costs are imposed on society not by the failures themselves, but by the folks, who — out of greatness of their hearts — want to help them. And not just help them, but compel everybody else to help them as well.
You are right that this is a problem in any regime. Free market Capitalist ones are just much wealthier and thus can afford to take better care of the losers. The hobos in New York have cell phones and are otherwise better off, than North Korea's "middle class"...
That enormous figure includes only the Federal government. Once you add the State and local government spending, you'll come to over 40% and up to 50%.(depending on the method used).
Serious accusations — got any citations handy to back them up?
Khm, you are posting in HTML. Do you not know, how to embed links with it, or do you just have nothing to support your accusations?
Ah, but you know better and can see straight through those hordes. I get it.
The rest of your post is just unparsable, sorry.
Are you seriously going to argue, the US was more laissez-fair in 2007, than in 1907? Please, confirm — make my day...
Does it? The US got nation-wide railroad network, flush toilet, telegraph, commercial air-travel, and massively-affordable personal car under laissez-fair economy. Was that wrong?
You mean, bullies and cutthroats like Che Guevara and Stalin? Or those like Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers?
Which of the two groups I listed has actually cut a throat in your opinion?