Grinding too long will kill you via corruption. It's advance in the game or have no chance at success.
In other words, it's a game where if you work hard to avoid the a Rogue-like's traditional punishment of "you just wasted all that time, start over," it punishes you for it.
YOU'LL TAKE YOUR LUMPS AND LIKE IT.
In tabletop gaming, this is known as "railroading," and it's universally hated for a reason.
Why are IQ tests a bad metric? Are they a bad metric because people in general can have largely varying results or are they a bad metric because different breeds score consistently lower? If it's consistent, good or bad, it shows there is an obvious difference.
IQ tests only measure a few, testing-friendly types of intelligence; they do not, by far, fairly measure the full range of human cognition. For example, they poorly test long-term memory and ability to categorize general knowledge (and not a particular, dominant culture's assumed shared knowledge), navigation and non-local spatial awareness, empathy and awareness of the emotional state of other humans, musical ability, kinetic learning, fluency with multiple languages and the ease of learning new ones, etc.
Most IQ tests are biased somewhat towards testing the kind of capability that formal schooling imparts to people. Naturally, the more schooling you've had, and the more schooling your parents had, the better you'll do on these tests. But that's not the kind of intellectual ability that necessarily thrives in a hunter-gatherer society. There are different social and environmental pressures in said societies.
For example, I score extremely well on tests that measure verbal and math ability and have a well above average IQ. However, I'm utterly incompetent at learning how to speak new languages whereas I know several people from my sister's church who were mediocre high school students (and who didn't go on to college) who speak 3-4 languages now. Different aptitudes; different IQ scores. But am I inherently more intelligent than them due to a higher IQ score and greater academic ability? As I get older and wiser, I really don't think so anymore. If I lived in a culture where traveling a mere 5-10 miles meant that no one spoke the same language as you, I'd be helpless.
I recommend you read the opening chapter of "Guns, Germs, and Steel." The author, who spent many years with tribesmen of Papua New Guinea, takes an aggressive stance against the notion that some races are just mentally "superior" to others. The people he spent time with were capable of many mental feats he wasn't -- traveling long distances through unfamiliar wilderness without getting lost, being able to identify thousands of plant and animal species at a glance, etc. These are forms in intelligence that IQ tests do not measure well, and in the eyes of the people who live in these societies, our most valued forms of intelligence might make us seem stupid in comparison.
I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.
I would agree, that your body is inviolate so long as you pay for its upkeep, but once you start waving the cup around for someone else's dough to take care of you, the placer of the coin in the cup has more say than you.
In other words, you only believe that people have the rights their money can buy and that once someone pays a dime to help you, that they own you. You might as well not have a right to an attorney if you're poor by that logic.
Frankly, I find this worldview abhorrent because it denies that people have any rights at all -- only that which they have the might to take for themselves. I can't think of any more anti-democratic notion than that right there.
Quite honestly, the thing that is causing abortions more than anything else is free trade and its attendant destruction of the middle class.
Actually, I'd argue that refusing to teach kids about condoms is probably causing more abortions than any other policy decision in America today.
Why should you be required to support the life of someone who openly hates your culture and is trying to get rid of it? Should a Jewish person be required to pay taxes and provide health care for someone who is a member of a Neo-Nazi organization? Should a black man be required to pay health insurance for someone who is a member of the Klan? Should a member of PETA be required to pay health insurance for a hunter of baby seals? You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
Seriously? Of course they should. You might as well ask, "Why have free speech? Why have freedom of religion? Why not incarcerate people who dissent from the government?" We live in a democracy, and part of the price of freedom is having to put up with people who disagree with you.
I mean, the Republicans are in the minority now. Do you support having the Democratic-led government deny them life-protecting services, or are you just in favor of bloody civil/holy war where each side tries to kill or forcibly convert the other? The questions you ask as if they "open up a can of worms" are incredibly bloody and short-sighted and frankly say terrible things about your commitment to the American way of life.
But here's the thing, if health care is so important, why can't people pay for it themselves?
Probably because we have to pay for food & shelter first and because protection from sickness is something that's "around the corner" instead of an ever-present need. There are a lot of people who can't afford healthcare who can still survive, but that doesn't mean that our society should tolerate that anymore than it should tolerate undernourished or uneducated children (which is why we have public schools and school lunch programs).
Do you not see the problem that we actually have? We have health care that is beyond the ability of anyone to afford it, and so foolishly people look at insurers as if they can magically make it affordable. They can't, and replacing them with government won't make it affordable either.
Actually, it can, and it does in other countries who spend far less of their GDP on healthcare and manage to have equal or better life expectancy rates. I don't think this current proposal will do that. A public-private hybrid gains all the bureaucratic inefficiency of a public system's closed market with all the profit-seeking greed of a private system. But a single-payer system has been proven in other countries. It's not merely a hypothetical.
And if you can't afford it, you can take yourself a medical vacation to a country where you can. The important thing is that, here, we don't ration our healthcare.
Because if you can't afford healthcare, taking a flight to foreign country and taking days or weeks off your job is obviously within your means! (And I'll bet this is a *great* solution for getting preventative care too!)
Oh, crazy right wingers... One wonders if you ever even talked to someone who is a member of the working poor.
Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
Actually, the real lesson is that a socialist government will fail when you let a tinpot dictator practice collective punishment to advance his own political agenda as happened in the USSR under Stalin but didn't happen in Sweden under a democratic government. This is really more of a fable about college professors pushing an agenda and punishing students' grades when they disagree.
I'm not condoning actual rape in any form, but surely a simulation of such a thing running on someone's computer can't be worse than an equally detailed simulation of killing and then dismembering someone with a chainsaw?
Maybe because crime statistics show that rape is 5-7x more likely to occur than murder. And that's just reported rape, and I'm pretty sure those stats don't include molestation. It seems like the risks are higher in that people are more likely to commit that type of crime than violent murder.
In extreme cases, it may even be a way for sexual misfits to satisfy their urges without harming actual, living people, letting them be functional members of society.
People say that, but they never offer data to back it up, really. In my experience, the few friends I knew who got into the more deviant side of porn just kept getting deeper and deeper into it. Can't say that I know any loli fans (that I know of), but it seems that once you get a taste for the horrible, it plays a larger and larger part of your sexual fantasies.
Not that I'm saying I expected any of them to become rapists. It takes a special kind of mind to cross that line.
I'm looking at this page and seeing nothing but page after page of support for a game that depicts child rape and decrying of people who object to such games a fascists and nanny-state supporters.
Seriously, when did it get so in vogue to have the kind of knee-jerk reaction against the "think of the children!" mindset that Slashdot swung all the way into the NAMBLA camp? Are there honestly no limits in what society must condone?
If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.
If you tickled me, especially if you when I was a small child, I would make sounds that were easy to mistake for joy when they were really sounds of pain or distress. I HATED being tickled. Hated it. My Mom would tickle me until I couldn't breathe when I was about 3-4, and I tried desperately to get away, but I couldn't stop laughing or uncurl myself from a ball. It took her a few years to get that I really, honestly despised it.
My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
I've never understood this aversion to fat. Humans are evolved to digest fat. If you want to make your mac'n'cheese healthier, don't eat all the reprocessed crap that's in Kraft.
Seriously? You've never heard of saturated fat and its effect on cholesterol?
As flavorless and unimpressive as most processed crap is from Kraft, Mac & Cheese made with skim milk is going to be a hell of a lot healthier than your average, tasty, cheesy homemade recipe -- even if you use low fat cheese. All the recipes I can dig up weigh in over 300 calories per serving against Kraft's 260. And most normal recipes not targeted to dieters weigh in over 600 calories per serving. To get lower than that the low-fat cheese recipes, you're going to have to start putting substitute ingredients like squash purees. Sodium is really the biggest place Kraft's going to lose.
(To be fair, I would have never noticed this fact if you hadn't used that example -- and I hadn't just made a delicious, full-fat mac & cheese recipe last night.)
How can warrantless GPS tracking be legal while warrantless car searching is illegal. I am sure that a higher court will reverse this ruling... but it is scary to speculate about what happens if it is not reversed.
All the Wisconsin court is doing is applying U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Knotts (or its successor Karo) is a case that every single law student studying Criminal Procedure probably reads. In this case, the court ruled that it was okay for police to attach a "beeper" to a drum of chloroform and track the movements of a car carrying the drum around since a person traveling in a car on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy. All Fourth Amendment law today is based on that "reasonable expectation of privacy." In short, if anybody could see what you are doing, then you don't have one.
Possibly the two most offensive examples of that logic to me are Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), where the Court ruled that it was okay to use aerial photography from a height of 12,000 feet to view a matter that people on the ground could not, and California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), where the Court that it was okay for police to search your sealed trashbags because in both situations you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (from other people flying planes over your property or from "animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public," respectively).
Incidentally, while Wisconsin applied Knotts and its progeny in what I consider unfortunately to be the most straightforward manner, the Washington Supreme Court went the other direction on GPS trackers in State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2003):
It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson.... We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.
The court also noted in a footnote that the GPS lets you track wholly past movements, which tailing someone does not. Personally, I think the Washington court got the law wrong even if they philosophically got everything right in this case. I frankly wish the law worked the way they thought it did. (I think it's kind of strange that they'd rule the way they did while citing Karo later in the decision. If this case were appealed to the Supreme Court, I think it would get overturned.)
Hear! Hear! I don't recall any problems of this nature back on version 2.x of Firefox.
I am so glad to hear that I'm not the only one who has this problem. Ever since I moved to 3.0, the damn browser just seizes up for a few seconds every now and then, like it's got an important date with your page file and doesn't want to be disturbed by petty "users." I've just been futilely hoping each time I get an update that the *next* one will fix the issue.
So, I am guessing that in your opinion Global Warming is not a major problem.
And I am guessing you either have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills, a truly tragic and delusional level of confirmation bias, or just a that pathetic, partisan mindset that lumps everyone who disagrees with you on any point as all being just the same on every point, since I never said anything about global warming one way or the other.
The waste storage solution that the Man in the White House decided to stop funding was an valid medium term solution.
Yucca Mountain is a combination of both being a victim of the very NIMBY-ism I mentioned earlier and also turning out to be a faulty solution (pun intended). Read more.
Because that's all that's keeping the Bigfoot population in check. Don't you know what kind of furry, cannibalistic hell would descend on America if we didn't regularly spray for cryptozoa?
Because nuclear power is a workable way to reduce Green house gases; but Democrats want nothing to do with real solutions; they just want reasons to tax and tax and tax.
Nuclear is a workable solution, but it's not the only one, and it's not problem free. Power companies won't invest in new plants without massive government subsidies, it produces waste that we have no workable solution to deal with (and that many companies basically expect the taxpayers to deal with), and it suffers from massive NIMBY-ism problems. Throwing more money down a hole can help with the first two, but it won't get you past that last one.
Slashdot Mirror
Grinding too long will kill you via corruption. It's advance in the game or have no chance at success.
In other words, it's a game where if you work hard to avoid the a Rogue-like's traditional punishment of "you just wasted all that time, start over," it punishes you for it.
YOU'LL TAKE YOUR LUMPS AND LIKE IT.
In tabletop gaming, this is known as "railroading," and it's universally hated for a reason.
Why are IQ tests a bad metric? Are they a bad metric because people in general can have largely varying results or are they a bad metric because different breeds score consistently lower? If it's consistent, good or bad, it shows there is an obvious difference.
IQ tests only measure a few, testing-friendly types of intelligence; they do not, by far, fairly measure the full range of human cognition. For example, they poorly test long-term memory and ability to categorize general knowledge (and not a particular, dominant culture's assumed shared knowledge), navigation and non-local spatial awareness, empathy and awareness of the emotional state of other humans, musical ability, kinetic learning, fluency with multiple languages and the ease of learning new ones, etc.
Most IQ tests are biased somewhat towards testing the kind of capability that formal schooling imparts to people. Naturally, the more schooling you've had, and the more schooling your parents had, the better you'll do on these tests. But that's not the kind of intellectual ability that necessarily thrives in a hunter-gatherer society. There are different social and environmental pressures in said societies.
For example, I score extremely well on tests that measure verbal and math ability and have a well above average IQ. However, I'm utterly incompetent at learning how to speak new languages whereas I know several people from my sister's church who were mediocre high school students (and who didn't go on to college) who speak 3-4 languages now. Different aptitudes; different IQ scores. But am I inherently more intelligent than them due to a higher IQ score and greater academic ability? As I get older and wiser, I really don't think so anymore. If I lived in a culture where traveling a mere 5-10 miles meant that no one spoke the same language as you, I'd be helpless.
I recommend you read the opening chapter of "Guns, Germs, and Steel." The author, who spent many years with tribesmen of Papua New Guinea, takes an aggressive stance against the notion that some races are just mentally "superior" to others. The people he spent time with were capable of many mental feats he wasn't -- traveling long distances through unfamiliar wilderness without getting lost, being able to identify thousands of plant and animal species at a glance, etc. These are forms in intelligence that IQ tests do not measure well, and in the eyes of the people who live in these societies, our most valued forms of intelligence might make us seem stupid in comparison.
I did actually mean "raises an interesting question," but that's just too funny.
Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.
Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?
I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.
Is there a cellphone provider that doesn't require you to provide your SSN before signing up for a contract?
I think your title is a bit misleading. When you say "Linux" I think Linux kernel. Like the Linux operating system itself.
GNo/One cares.
I would agree, that your body is inviolate so long as you pay for its upkeep, but once you start waving the cup around for someone else's dough to take care of you, the placer of the coin in the cup has more say than you.
In other words, you only believe that people have the rights their money can buy and that once someone pays a dime to help you, that they own you. You might as well not have a right to an attorney if you're poor by that logic.
Frankly, I find this worldview abhorrent because it denies that people have any rights at all -- only that which they have the might to take for themselves. I can't think of any more anti-democratic notion than that right there.
Quite honestly, the thing that is causing abortions more than anything else is free trade and its attendant destruction of the middle class.
Actually, I'd argue that refusing to teach kids about condoms is probably causing more abortions than any other policy decision in America today.
Why should you be required to support the life of someone who openly hates your culture and is trying to get rid of it? Should a Jewish person be required to pay taxes and provide health care for someone who is a member of a Neo-Nazi organization? Should a black man be required to pay health insurance for someone who is a member of the Klan? Should a member of PETA be required to pay health insurance for a hunter of baby seals? You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
Seriously? Of course they should. You might as well ask, "Why have free speech? Why have freedom of religion? Why not incarcerate people who dissent from the government?" We live in a democracy, and part of the price of freedom is having to put up with people who disagree with you.
I mean, the Republicans are in the minority now. Do you support having the Democratic-led government deny them life-protecting services, or are you just in favor of bloody civil/holy war where each side tries to kill or forcibly convert the other? The questions you ask as if they "open up a can of worms" are incredibly bloody and short-sighted and frankly say terrible things about your commitment to the American way of life.
But here's the thing, if health care is so important, why can't people pay for it themselves?
Probably because we have to pay for food & shelter first and because protection from sickness is something that's "around the corner" instead of an ever-present need. There are a lot of people who can't afford healthcare who can still survive, but that doesn't mean that our society should tolerate that anymore than it should tolerate undernourished or uneducated children (which is why we have public schools and school lunch programs).
Do you not see the problem that we actually have? We have health care that is beyond the ability of anyone to afford it, and so foolishly people look at insurers as if they can magically make it affordable. They can't, and replacing them with government won't make it affordable either.
Actually, it can, and it does in other countries who spend far less of their GDP on healthcare and manage to have equal or better life expectancy rates. I don't think this current proposal will do that. A public-private hybrid gains all the bureaucratic inefficiency of a public system's closed market with all the profit-seeking greed of a private system. But a single-payer system has been proven in other countries. It's not merely a hypothetical.
And if you can't afford it, you can take yourself a medical vacation to a country where you can. The important thing is that, here, we don't ration our healthcare.
Because if you can't afford healthcare, taking a flight to foreign country and taking days or weeks off your job is obviously within your means! (And I'll bet this is a *great* solution for getting preventative care too!)
Oh, crazy right wingers... One wonders if you ever even talked to someone who is a member of the working poor.
Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
Actually, the real lesson is that a socialist government will fail when you let a tinpot dictator practice collective punishment to advance his own political agenda as happened in the USSR under Stalin but didn't happen in Sweden under a democratic government. This is really more of a fable about college professors pushing an agenda and punishing students' grades when they disagree.
if only they allowed concealed carry on campuses, we'd have a few less rock throwers in this country. . .
Yeah. Why throw rocks, when you could just shoot him dead? Seems more efficient.
I'm not condoning actual rape in any form, but surely a simulation of such a thing running on someone's computer can't be worse than an equally detailed simulation of killing and then dismembering someone with a chainsaw?
Maybe because crime statistics show that rape is 5-7x more likely to occur than murder. And that's just reported rape, and I'm pretty sure those stats don't include molestation. It seems like the risks are higher in that people are more likely to commit that type of crime than violent murder.
In extreme cases, it may even be a way for sexual misfits to satisfy their urges without harming actual, living people, letting them be functional members of society.
People say that, but they never offer data to back it up, really. In my experience, the few friends I knew who got into the more deviant side of porn just kept getting deeper and deeper into it. Can't say that I know any loli fans (that I know of), but it seems that once you get a taste for the horrible, it plays a larger and larger part of your sexual fantasies.
Not that I'm saying I expected any of them to become rapists. It takes a special kind of mind to cross that line.
I'm looking at this page and seeing nothing but page after page of support for a game that depicts child rape and decrying of people who object to such games a fascists and nanny-state supporters.
Seriously, when did it get so in vogue to have the kind of knee-jerk reaction against the "think of the children!" mindset that Slashdot swung all the way into the NAMBLA camp? Are there honestly no limits in what society must condone?
From the article:
If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.
If you tickled me, especially if you when I was a small child, I would make sounds that were easy to mistake for joy when they were really sounds of pain or distress. I HATED being tickled. Hated it. My Mom would tickle me until I couldn't breathe when I was about 3-4, and I tried desperately to get away, but I couldn't stop laughing or uncurl myself from a ball. It took her a few years to get that I really, honestly despised it.
My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Neanderthals aren't birds. They don't have a wishbone.
I've never understood this aversion to fat. Humans are evolved to digest fat. If you want to make your mac'n'cheese healthier, don't eat all the reprocessed crap that's in Kraft.
Seriously? You've never heard of saturated fat and its effect on cholesterol?
As flavorless and unimpressive as most processed crap is from Kraft, Mac & Cheese made with skim milk is going to be a hell of a lot healthier than your average, tasty, cheesy homemade recipe -- even if you use low fat cheese. All the recipes I can dig up weigh in over 300 calories per serving against Kraft's 260. And most normal recipes not targeted to dieters weigh in over 600 calories per serving. To get lower than that the low-fat cheese recipes, you're going to have to start putting substitute ingredients like squash purees. Sodium is really the biggest place Kraft's going to lose.
(To be fair, I would have never noticed this fact if you hadn't used that example -- and I hadn't just made a delicious, full-fat mac & cheese recipe last night.)
How can warrantless GPS tracking be legal while warrantless car searching is illegal. I am sure that a higher court will reverse this ruling... but it is scary to speculate about what happens if it is not reversed.
All the Wisconsin court is doing is applying U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Knotts (or its successor Karo) is a case that every single law student studying Criminal Procedure probably reads. In this case, the court ruled that it was okay for police to attach a "beeper" to a drum of chloroform and track the movements of a car carrying the drum around since a person traveling in a car on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy. All Fourth Amendment law today is based on that "reasonable expectation of privacy." In short, if anybody could see what you are doing, then you don't have one.
Possibly the two most offensive examples of that logic to me are Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), where the Court ruled that it was okay to use aerial photography from a height of 12,000 feet to view a matter that people on the ground could not, and California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), where the Court that it was okay for police to search your sealed trashbags because in both situations you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (from other people flying planes over your property or from "animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public," respectively).
Incidentally, while Wisconsin applied Knotts and its progeny in what I consider unfortunately to be the most straightforward manner, the Washington Supreme Court went the other direction on GPS trackers in State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2003):
It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson. ... We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.
The court also noted in a footnote that the GPS lets you track wholly past movements, which tailing someone does not. Personally, I think the Washington court got the law wrong even if they philosophically got everything right in this case. I frankly wish the law worked the way they thought it did. (I think it's kind of strange that they'd rule the way they did while citing Karo later in the decision. If this case were appealed to the Supreme Court, I think it would get overturned.)
Hear! Hear! I don't recall any problems of this nature back on version 2.x of Firefox.
I am so glad to hear that I'm not the only one who has this problem. Ever since I moved to 3.0, the damn browser just seizes up for a few seconds every now and then, like it's got an important date with your page file and doesn't want to be disturbed by petty "users." I've just been futilely hoping each time I get an update that the *next* one will fix the issue.
NOTE: The president if he really thought GW was a major can solve the NIMBY issue without a lot of effort.
That would truly be an impressive use of a magic wand.
So, I am guessing that in your opinion Global Warming is not a major problem.
And I am guessing you either have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills, a truly tragic and delusional level of confirmation bias, or just a that pathetic, partisan mindset that lumps everyone who disagrees with you on any point as all being just the same on every point, since I never said anything about global warming one way or the other.
The waste storage solution that the Man in the White House decided to stop funding was an valid medium term solution.
Yucca Mountain is a combination of both being a victim of the very NIMBY-ism I mentioned earlier and also turning out to be a faulty solution (pun intended). Read more.
Because that's all that's keeping the Bigfoot population in check. Don't you know what kind of furry, cannibalistic hell would descend on America if we didn't regularly spray for cryptozoa?
Because nuclear power is a workable way to reduce Green house gases; but Democrats want nothing to do with real solutions; they just want reasons to tax and tax and tax.
Nuclear is a workable solution, but it's not the only one, and it's not problem free. Power companies won't invest in new plants without massive government subsidies, it produces waste that we have no workable solution to deal with (and that many companies basically expect the taxpayers to deal with), and it suffers from massive NIMBY-ism problems. Throwing more money down a hole can help with the first two, but it won't get you past that last one.
Where can I view (in human-readable form) the whole fucking budget. All of it. I'll streamline that shit like a soft turd in a wind tunnel.
I'll do it for free, and in under a week, too.
Give me a Fortune 500 company's total expenditures, and I'd make one heck of a profit-making machine out of it too!
I'll bet I could do that to any random piece of software too. I wouldn't even need to know the history of the project or what the users do with it.
Why? Because Ti is far too cheap, easily obtained, and free from African bloodshed?
And a universally delivered mood stabilizer makes for a conveniently complacent population.
If you only look at the manic side of things. Apathy sits on the other half of that balance.