How about we focus on real problems like lead (and mercury) in the water and asbestos, soot and sulfur dioxide in the air instead of made-up problems like stray cats and carbon dioxide?
Hydrocarbons are simply a form of energy storage. They happen to be very convenient because of their unparalleled energy density so it's still worth it to synthesize them even when you account for the conversion losses.
and in this case, there's little justification for protecting the minority
You're a little fuzzy on the concept of "rights" aren't you?
as it doesn't impose on you anymore than anybody else.
You're neglecting the class of people who is entitled to receive services they have not paid for. It certainly does impose more on me than them.
Your moral code allows 50%+1 of the population to vote themselves a benefit that 50%-1 will be forcefully compelled to pay for. Why won't you just admit that your morality consists of nothing more than "might makes right"?
Just as society has determined that there is no problem forcing me to pay taxes to wage questionable wars on foreign soil, to force me to pay taxes to provide subsidies to massive corporations like ConAgra and ADM, etc., I believe it is just for you, as a member of society, to be forced to pay taxes to ensure the right of access to medical care for the poor.
There was a time when society had no problem buying and selling humans as property and forcing them to work against their will for the benefit of their owners. What's the moral difference between involuntary taxation and slavery?
We need public funding of health insurance for the poor, and regulation to ensure that no one can be refused insurance for pre-existing conditions.
"I want the poor to have health insurance so I have no problem forcing you to pay for it whether you like it or not and dispatching armed IRS agents to force your compliance should you disagree."
I highly doubt that the original inventor has claimed to produce perpetual motion, but the summary will certainly lead people to think in that direction.
They're converting carbon monoxide into hydrocarbon chains. The only energy you are getting out of the car's exhaust is what it didn't use the first time around due to incomplete combustion.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
This question can not be answered without pinning down the definition of "child".
In some legal jurisdictions an 18 year old person having sex with a 17 year old person is considered a pedophile while in others an 80 year old could have sex with a 14 year old without any legal problems whatsoever.
There's a stronger case for asserting that a prepubescent individual can not give informed consent than there is for asserting that someone 15 years, 364 days, 11 hours and 59 minutes can not give informed consent.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibilities like this is exactly why you do double-blind controlled trials anyway even if you already "know" what the outcome will be.
How about we focus on real problems like lead (and mercury) in the water and asbestos, soot and sulfur dioxide in the air instead of made-up problems like stray cats and carbon dioxide?
The SEC fails to stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources to stop it.
The SEC doesn't stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources.
Eliminating marriage licenses does not abolish marriage - it simply removes the government from the equation.
They get punished the same way. Under US law every type of "sex offender" gets put on the same list.
Of course.
Hydrocarbons are simply a form of energy storage. They happen to be very convenient because of their unparalleled energy density so it's still worth it to synthesize them even when you account for the conversion losses.
You're a little fuzzy on the concept of "rights" aren't you?
You're neglecting the class of people who is entitled to receive services they have not paid for. It certainly does impose more on me than them.
Your moral code allows 50%+1 of the population to vote themselves a benefit that 50%-1 will be forcefully compelled to pay for. Why won't you just admit that your morality consists of nothing more than "might makes right"?
Please explain why.
There was a time when society had no problem buying and selling humans as property and forcing them to work against their will for the benefit of their owners. What's the moral difference between involuntary taxation and slavery?
"We could pick our cotton ourselves but on the whole, we have decided that this isn't going to happen so get on the boat and stop complaining."
"I want the poor to have health insurance so I have no problem forcing you to pay for it whether you like it or not and dispatching armed IRS agents to force your compliance should you disagree."
When one person is compelled to "share" with or without his consent it's called "theft".
When the arraignment becomes permanent and sanctioned by the law it's called "slavery".
You'd be better off just making the car completely burn the fuel in the first place.
Converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons is a solved problem.
It converts carbon monoxide, which is even less abundant.
I highly doubt that the original inventor has claimed to produce perpetual motion, but the summary will certainly lead people to think in that direction.
They're converting carbon monoxide into hydrocarbon chains. The only energy you are getting out of the car's exhaust is what it didn't use the first time around due to incomplete combustion.
If your version of "civilization" does not include individual liberty then I'm not interested.
Actually conditions in Somalia are improving faster under anarchy than then did under a government. Sometimes less really is more.
Are you one of those shills who gets paid to post this kind of crap on blogs?
California
North Dakota
Virginia
Wisconsin
If I have a legally enforceable right to receive a service regardless of my ability to pay this means that one of two things must happen:
1) The person rendering the service must be compelled to provide it for free.
2) Some third party must be compelled to pay for it instead.
Do you now see how this is incompatible with individual liberty?
Slow, but very secure.
This question can not be answered without pinning down the definition of "child".
In some legal jurisdictions an 18 year old person having sex with a 17 year old person is considered a pedophile while in others an 80 year old could have sex with a 14 year old without any legal problems whatsoever.
There's a stronger case for asserting that a prepubescent individual can not give informed consent than there is for asserting that someone 15 years, 364 days, 11 hours and 59 minutes can not give informed consent.
No one is forcing you to make that choice.
You might as well say that freedom of speech is a positive right because your right to speak forces me to spend my time refuting your bullshit.