There are also alternatives to recycling like the plasma trash incineration, which is able to generate electricity and reduce landfill volume even with traditionally non-recyclable materials.
Wow that is pretty messed up. Someone should sue the water rights holders for negligence when the rain floods their yards. Put their "rights" in perspective.
The small city I live in checks cardboard boxes for labels with your name and address. Shipping labels, pizza box labels, etc. I think they have told the pizza places to put labels including the address even if you pick up the pizza yourself, because they all have them. I actually got a warning in the mail with a picture of a pizza box with the label on it. I say fuck the city for wasting my tax money so now I recycle nothing at all. I just rip the labels off and throw the box in the trash.
That's funny, because if you look at where federal tax revenue comes from vs where it goes, you'll see that it's primarily the more densely populated areas paying federal taxes, and the rural, less densely populated areas receiving taxes.
That's an artifact of the top 1% of income earners paying over 40% of all federal income tax. It's spun as the average noble city dweller subsidizing the lazy ungrateful Republican farmer, but in reality it's a tiny proportion of each city subsidizing the rest of the city and the countryside. I would love to see a tax payment/benefit breakdown by neighborhood rather than the grossly ridiculous urban/rural divide. I suspect you would see most cities turn from seas of green to tiny pinpricks of green with a deep red surrounding them, and rather less red in the rural areas. But I'm just guessing.
Yeah that makes more sense. My problem was more with the wording of "criminal intent." That doesn't seem to be a requirement, instead it's just regular old intent. In my opinion it's unfair, but I see the need for a practical restriction on how easy it would be to claim lack of knowledge.
That seems to conflict with the old adage that ignorance of the law is no defense. If you are truly ignorant of the law, it's impossible by definition to have criminal intent, isn't it? I mean, even if you intend the action that's illegal, it's not an intent to do something illegal if you don't know it's illegal.
I'm pretty sure bestiality and snuff films are illegal to possess, but that's only part of the point. When you said "the arguable exception of child porn" I thought you meant you had an argument that shows child porn should be illegal whereas other obscene content shouldn't be. Usually an argument for child porn being illegal is naive and would lead to all of the things I mentioned being illegal as well. As you noted they're not. So I was wondering what your argument was.
1. The usual things -- bestiality, snuff films 2. In general, pictures of illegal activities 3. Pictures of illegal activities involving children (murder, torture, abuse) 4. Things illegal in some other countries like blasphemous material 5. Content that isn't necessarily obscene, but harmful, like slander 6. Generally private information like credit card and social security numbers
Just examples, not implying that each requires a different argument.
I believe it's a problem of density. Each individual particle is cold, but they are so dispersed in space that you don't come into contact with enough of them to lose much heat. So we have to rely on radiation instead of conduction, which is much less effective, especially for objects that are already really cold.
Just wanted to reply to the bit about extradjudicial executions. How do you think it should work? Domestically even non-terrorist suspects may get killed if they are summoned to court but they refuse to come and instead fight the police. Do you think if someone refuses to cooperate we should just be like "nevermind, we can't use force on you because you haven't been given due process.."
But it also has significant advantages over petroleum, like the huge supply in the US. And it has advantages over other alternatives, like the fact that it's available now, and it's cheap. I don't particularly like the idea, I'd rather see fully electric cars and more nuclear power, but it shouldn't be dismissed.
I applaud people who push the limits in using corporate email for their own private use. Whether "Your work email isn't yours" or not is a question for society, not you (no offense). These guys are pushing it in a direction I like. I think the world would be better if individuality and privacy were allowed to be practiced a bit more openly in corporations, which are really just a way to organize team work for the benefit of society.
Is it fear that society would make you a pariah post-mortem? Whet do you care? Death is forever, the last thing you'll do in your life:)
It might be uncomfortable for your still-living family. Why would you not care what happens to your family after you die? Do you also think people who buy life insurance are dumb?
After he's dead, he still doesn't want people to know because it'll reflect badly on him and make people he's close to feel bad or uncomfortable?
I mean just because you'll be dead doesn't mean that you, now, alive, can't think of other people's feelings and how future revelations will affect them.
If you have a bunch of radioactive material, it's harmful to people in the vicinity whether you distribute it or not (in the classical sense, not counting the radiation itself as distributing it). Silly corner case though. In general I agree with the point.
Given people's reactions to mere accusations, you'd do fine planting legal nude pics of children and just saying "well it looked like child porn to ME".
The main reason I go to Barnes is the cafe and checking out girls. I hope that before they sell themselves or close, they do a bit to explore the advantages of retail space over online-only access.
I would buy a game that portrayed more realistic warfare just like I enjoy seeing a movie that makes me really sad. A game that made everybody cry and stop playing half way through would probably be a bestseller and an instant classic. Though to be fair, it would have to be priced at a level that acknowledges the lack of replay value.
My guess is that the reason games don't do that is because it's easier to succeed at other types of entertainment, and they conflict. For instance, throw in a good multiplayer mode and your game is pretty much a hit.
I see where you're coming from but religion is different from nationality. I'm not sure of all the implications, but there's a certainly a difference.
It's definitely not going to smooth things over with the moderates that we need to be on good terms with either.
You hear this a lot, but doesn't it go two ways? Don't the moderates "need to be on good terms" with us? I feel like we're at a much higher level of tolerance and respect than Muslim countries. And I don't buy the "But we're better than them and have higher standards for ourselves" argument. People are people.
Slashdot Mirror
There are also alternatives to recycling like the plasma trash incineration, which is able to generate electricity and reduce landfill volume even with traditionally non-recyclable materials.
Wow that is pretty messed up. Someone should sue the water rights holders for negligence when the rain floods their yards. Put their "rights" in perspective.
The small city I live in checks cardboard boxes for labels with your name and address. Shipping labels, pizza box labels, etc. I think they have told the pizza places to put labels including the address even if you pick up the pizza yourself, because they all have them. I actually got a warning in the mail with a picture of a pizza box with the label on it. I say fuck the city for wasting my tax money so now I recycle nothing at all. I just rip the labels off and throw the box in the trash.
That's a great idea actually. Why not have a scale built into the garbage truck?
Or we could just not recycle AND not sort the trash. There's a thought!
The Chinese probably won't have to spend 5 years doing environmental impact studies though.
That's funny, because if you look at where federal tax revenue comes from vs where it goes, you'll see that it's primarily the more densely populated areas paying federal taxes, and the rural, less densely populated areas receiving taxes.
That's an artifact of the top 1% of income earners paying over 40% of all federal income tax. It's spun as the average noble city dweller subsidizing the lazy ungrateful Republican farmer, but in reality it's a tiny proportion of each city subsidizing the rest of the city and the countryside. I would love to see a tax payment/benefit breakdown by neighborhood rather than the grossly ridiculous urban/rural divide. I suspect you would see most cities turn from seas of green to tiny pinpricks of green with a deep red surrounding them, and rather less red in the rural areas. But I'm just guessing.
Yeah that makes more sense. My problem was more with the wording of "criminal intent." That doesn't seem to be a requirement, instead it's just regular old intent. In my opinion it's unfair, but I see the need for a practical restriction on how easy it would be to claim lack of knowledge.
That seems to conflict with the old adage that ignorance of the law is no defense. If you are truly ignorant of the law, it's impossible by definition to have criminal intent, isn't it? I mean, even if you intend the action that's illegal, it's not an intent to do something illegal if you don't know it's illegal.
I'm pretty sure bestiality and snuff films are illegal to possess, but that's only part of the point. When you said "the arguable exception of child porn" I thought you meant you had an argument that shows child porn should be illegal whereas other obscene content shouldn't be. Usually an argument for child porn being illegal is naive and would lead to all of the things I mentioned being illegal as well. As you noted they're not. So I was wondering what your argument was.
1. The usual things -- bestiality, snuff films
2. In general, pictures of illegal activities
3. Pictures of illegal activities involving children (murder, torture, abuse)
4. Things illegal in some other countries like blasphemous material
5. Content that isn't necessarily obscene, but harmful, like slander
6. Generally private information like credit card and social security numbers
Just examples, not implying that each requires a different argument.
I believe it's a problem of density. Each individual particle is cold, but they are so dispersed in space that you don't come into contact with enough of them to lose much heat. So we have to rely on radiation instead of conduction, which is much less effective, especially for objects that are already really cold.
Out of curiosity, what's your argument for excluding it in a way that doesn't exclude other types of "unlawful content"?
Just wanted to reply to the bit about extradjudicial executions. How do you think it should work? Domestically even non-terrorist suspects may get killed if they are summoned to court but they refuse to come and instead fight the police. Do you think if someone refuses to cooperate we should just be like "nevermind, we can't use force on you because you haven't been given due process.."
But it also has significant advantages over petroleum, like the huge supply in the US. And it has advantages over other alternatives, like the fact that it's available now, and it's cheap. I don't particularly like the idea, I'd rather see fully electric cars and more nuclear power, but it shouldn't be dismissed.
I applaud people who push the limits in using corporate email for their own private use. Whether "Your work email isn't yours" or not is a question for society, not you (no offense). These guys are pushing it in a direction I like. I think the world would be better if individuality and privacy were allowed to be practiced a bit more openly in corporations, which are really just a way to organize team work for the benefit of society.
It might be uncomfortable for your still-living family. Why would you not care what happens to your family after you die? Do you also think people who buy life insurance are dumb?
After he's dead, he still doesn't want people to know because it'll reflect badly on him and make people he's close to feel bad or uncomfortable?
I mean just because you'll be dead doesn't mean that you, now, alive, can't think of other people's feelings and how future revelations will affect them.
If you have a bunch of radioactive material, it's harmful to people in the vicinity whether you distribute it or not (in the classical sense, not counting the radiation itself as distributing it). Silly corner case though. In general I agree with the point.
Given people's reactions to mere accusations, you'd do fine planting legal nude pics of children and just saying "well it looked like child porn to ME".
Was that because of fairness towards others, or fear that the army would be used against our own citizens? Different problem imho.
The main reason I go to Barnes is the cafe and checking out girls. I hope that before they sell themselves or close, they do a bit to explore the advantages of retail space over online-only access.
Haha! The small bookstore near me has 2 cats who live there. I thought that was cool and unique. Is it common enough that it's a stereotype?
I would buy a game that portrayed more realistic warfare just like I enjoy seeing a movie that makes me really sad. A game that made everybody cry and stop playing half way through would probably be a bestseller and an instant classic. Though to be fair, it would have to be priced at a level that acknowledges the lack of replay value.
My guess is that the reason games don't do that is because it's easier to succeed at other types of entertainment, and they conflict. For instance, throw in a good multiplayer mode and your game is pretty much a hit.
I see where you're coming from but religion is different from nationality. I'm not sure of all the implications, but there's a certainly a difference.
It's definitely not going to smooth things over with the moderates that we need to be on good terms with either.
You hear this a lot, but doesn't it go two ways? Don't the moderates "need to be on good terms" with us? I feel like we're at a much higher level of tolerance and respect than Muslim countries. And I don't buy the "But we're better than them and have higher standards for ourselves" argument. People are people.