I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes
I think you are too lenient. What these people are doing is trying to obstruct any attempt at doing anything about the problems, thus endangering the lives and livelihoods of possibly hundreds of millions of people, not to mention future generations. If stealing or selling cannabis can send you to jail for an inordinate amount of time, why are these people not being put behind bars? I must say in this case I don't care whether it is technically not at crime - morally it is, and they should not only be jailed for life, but stripped of all their ill-gotten wealth.
What we need is to think of some radically new solutions. And it isn't even difficult either - we already know the technology: wind-, wave-, tidal-, solar power, just to mention a few. All that is needed is the political will to pursue this course. What would it take, technologically, to replace all the existing fossil and nuclear powerplants with eg. solar power? A lot, certainly, but far less than what most people imagine; it is certainly within our reach already now. But of course, there are businesses with far too much political power, who would lose out on doing this, so the US will certainly not be leading the world that way; not unless you guys give your political system a very major overhaul.
What we need is to think of some radically new solutions. And it isn't even difficult either - we already know the technology: wind-, wave-, tidal-, solar power, just to mention a few. All that is needed is the political will to pursue this course. What would it take, technologically, to replace all the existing fossil and nuclear powerplants with eg. solar power? A lot, certainly, but far less than what most people imagine; it is certainly within our reach already now. But of course, there are businesses with far too much political power, who would lose out on doing this, so the US will certainly not be leading the world that way; not unless you guys give your political system a very major overhaul.
Before we start dreaming about how this would solve all the problems in the world, it may be worth asking yourself a question or two. Like, what do you know about extracting water from air? I can only think of two methods, really: condensation and osmosis. Osmosis is something that requires chemistry, so it is probably not that. Condensation usually requires a surface to condense on as well as enough cooling to make the relative humidity ~100%. How can a windmill provide that? My gut instinct says this is bogus, but you never know.
History is a long time ago - this is like saying 'WE freed Europe from Hitler' like many Americans said a few years ago when France didn't fall for the transparent lies about Iraq; which apart from being historically incorrect is also disingenious. For one thing, it was not this present generation of Americans who went to Europe during WWII, and then only with considerable reluctance, after it was clear that it wouldn't be more opportune to support Hitler.
And don't talk to me about America giving up wealth to help freedom and democracy. The US is giving comparatively little in aid, and most of that goes to Israel in the form of weapons as far as I know. And what little actually reaches poor countries in Africa and other places is richly rewarded because it always comes with strings attached, such as 'Open your markets for American companies so they can suck you dry'.
he created a new title, huangdi, combining the word huang from the legendary Three Huang (Three August Ones) who ruled at the dawn of Chinese history, and the word di from the legendary Five Di (Five Sovereigns) who ruled immediately after the Three Huang
His original name was Qin Shihuang, and it is a simple, but clever trick when he invents the title 'Huangdi' (~'emperor') and changes his name to Shi Huangdi, which was almost hist name before. If you want to look it up yourself, try this online dictionary: http://www.zhongwen.com/noads.htm.
Apart from that, I find you opinion absurd. The Chinese don't 'tolerate' Hu Jintao and the Communist Party because they are 'culturally conditioned' or whatever. The simply like what they see around them, in general: increased wealth, increased status in the world etc etc. They want more of it - wouldn't you? Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time. And calling the Chinese president an 'emperor' is simply childish name-calling and just goes to show that you don't have anything else to have your opinion in.
- but there's always only one cause for obesity: when you eat more than you need.
There's a number of contributing factors: sedentary lifestyle, easily available, high-calorie food etc. Sprawl makes it difficult to do anything without a car, so people get less exercise; but a possibly much greater factor is the fact that we eat more and more instant meals and other industrialised foods. This kind of food has been prepared with unnatural fats (containing eg. trans-fatty acids, which tend push you towards metabolic syndrome), cheap, but unhealthy sugars (such as fructose, which seems to be converted to fat more readily than glucose) and additives that upset your body chemistry. The general boredom that often pervades a sedentary lifestyle means that people eat too much - what else is there to do? - and the pounds just pile on.
So, the answer is - sprawl contributes towards obesity, but if you want to lose weight/avoid gaining it, avoid factory food (IOW cook your own meals) and get out much more.
- when people give power to religious extremists. What America needs more than anything else is a pragmatic leadership - one that doesn't dream up 'great principles' and religious moral, but simply relates to reality as it is. Sigh.
I agree in principle, but on the other hand 'climate sceptics', ID'ers and other groups who pretend to be interested in scientific discourse are stealing more and more time and other resources from serious, scientific research. This means that there's less money for things that actually matter, and just because there are groups who try to hijack science for religious or political purposes. So whose freedom do we need to protect? It is a question about spending our limited resources sensibly, not about freedom.
- Freedom of speech means that you have right speak your opinion without being punished for doing do. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have a right to be anonymous. In fact, freedom of speech should encourage everybody to speak openly rather than hiding behind anonymity; if you want anonymity, perhaps it is because you that what you have to say is something you should be ashamed of?
- I can't see why anybody would expect the Democratic party to be any different from the Republicans. It is only from an American viewpoint they seem to be 'leftists', to everybody else they are more or less the same: ultra-conservative, religious, pro-business, pro-military, nationalist etc etc.
- You don't have a right to anonymity. It is not the same as privacy, you know - privacy means that there are certain spheres of your life that outsiders don't have right to enter without your permission, such as your home, your mail and others. But if you enter the public sphere, eg by speaking in public, you are entering territory where you can expect to be recognised; thus you have no anonymity there.
I am not sure I want to allow Flash in my browser. With Adblock I am happily free from adverts, but I doubt it has any influence on what happens inside Flash - so it is an all-or-nothing situation. Do I want to watch Flash videos enough that I am willing to tolerate adverts? I don't think so.
Right, before you all start regurgitating what you have learned from Fox news about things, you should try to actually learn something about them. Ooops, too late.
Never the less, here are some articles defining the concepts - now there is no excuse for displaying your ignorance:
Marx didn't 'invent' communism - he had some ideas about why it was the right way to address the social injustice he saw around him everywhere in the world at that time. He didn't particularly lust for bloody revolution, but thought that it was likely to be the only way to remove the huge inequalities in society. Etc etc. Communism is not 'an evil ideology'; in fact, if anything it is a 'good' ideaology - it is what you have if you take the ideas of some of the great religious philosophers and remove the superstition about God. It is of course easy to see who it is, in a capitalistic society, that has most to lose if communism were introduced; and those same people are also the same who, by and large, control what you get to see in the news and what you learn in school.
As for North Korea, the Soviet Union, China and others: the problem was never communism, but the people in power. A government will always tend to be isolated from the people, and even if they are not mediocre men with too many selfishh interests, they will too easily lose the way and begin to corrupt. This is why democracy is necessary: it is supposed to keep the government in contact with the fact that they are there to SERVE the people and their interests. Unfortunately it doesn't always work, because there are strong powers that are not democratically elected: the big companies, the big newspapers, the big religious institutions, to mention a few, and particularly in the US they have far more influence over the government than the people. This is deeply wrong, in my opinion.
Ignorant comments about what communism is supposed to be aside, isn't it good, in a small way, what is happening here? Not that people in North Korea get rabbits, which I think may well be a bad idea (since rabbits are noxious vermin), but the fact that apparently somebody in their government at least tries to address one of the real problems the have. It is worth remembering that, with very few exceptions, all humans have both good and evil in them; even in a hopeless country like North Korea, the government is not evil through and through - there are people who actually want to do the right thing. We can't fight evil by being even more evil (like we do in Iraq) - it can never succceed. The only way is to help the good parts grow.
What do you think? What would it take to make a great Trek game?
Well, what was it that made Star Trek so satisfying to watch - and still does, despite the frankly awful actors of the first series? I think it is because they are not only about flying around, beating up people with funny hairdos ('aliens'); there is a huge amount of cameraderie, deep feelings, grand themes (along with a humour that makes it bearable), exploring the unknown and a lot of other 'soft' things, and I don't think it is at all easy to implement those things in a game.
You've managed to ruin any credibility you may have had by inserting an unecessary but trendy anti-American comment.
No I don't think so. I may have antagonised Americans, though I think most thoughtful Americans can see that this is an attempt at provoking denial - especially as it is followed by the question 'Or am I wrong?'
Apart from that - I think it is obvious to most that American culture and mindset, as it is projected to the rest of the world, has a clear tendency towards the heartless and utterly selfish. Again, I am well aware that many, possibly most, Americans are not in fact selfesh and heartless; but where the hell are all you good guys?
Well, perhaps it is new in the US, but here in UK you can buy them cheaply - and they turn on instantly too. I have nothing but energy saving light bulbs, and not only because they save energy - when I buy an incandescent (ie 'old fashioned') light bulb, it only lasts for a month on average, whereas the last for over a year. Tesco (a large supermarket chain in UK) sell them for about 75 pence as far as I remember (it's been that long since I looked for them).
I think what has happened is that WalMart have realised that here is suddenly a potential for making money, that's all.
1. Drug companies have to turn a profit; otherwise, they don't produce the drugs.
Do they really? Perhaps drug research should be limited by law to universities and not-for-profit organisations. The people who do the actual research are not the ones that rake in the hundreds of billions each year - that's the stockholders, who by God have enough already.
2. The more money a drug company makes off a medicine, the more valuable it is. A drug company's profits are a function of how much people value that drug -- the drug's social utility (this is basic economics).
Which is why they tend to do far more research in luxury problems (such as rejuvenation and weight loss for rich Americans) rather than trying to solve the big devastating diseases of the poor, such as malaria and other major killers. If they were not in it only for the money, they could solve those problems in just a few years - it is only a question of effort. But as I once heard a doctor friend of mine say: The medicine companies don't like medicine that cures people - once you cure a disease, you don't more money from that patient.
3. Once the drug companies patents run out, anyone can produce generic medicines cheaply.
Well, then the patents should run out far more quickly than they do now. The patent system was created in a time where communication and research happened a lot more slowly, and it made sense that you could hold a monopoly for a longish interval; but nowadays 20 years of monopoly is totally out of proportion. I'd say the expiry period should be about 2 years; or 5 max.
What's better -- not having a drug at all, or having the drug be very costly for about 14 years and then having cheap generic equivalents?
This is a question designed to deceive, my friend. You know perfectly well that these are not the only two alternatives. I have outlined a couple of others above: make the patents period shorter, require that drugs companies are not for profit etc. There are many other ways; drugs research could be entirely state owned and free of any patents. As it is now, the drug companies look dispropotionately at the problems of the richest people in the world: age related problems (like cancer that mostly affects the elderly) and cosmetic problems. For example, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_diseases for a list of very serious diseases that receive far too little attention despite the fact that they kill people by the million; but of course they are just poor people, so they don't really count - not to an American, that is. Or am I wrong?
Welcome to the land of freedom and opportunity, where might is right, where truth and fairness are something you can buy, if you are rich enough, and where opportunity means that you have a right to take and keep whatever catches your fancy, as long as you can pay enough for your lawyer.
... a company like Google that has embraced 'Don't Be Evil' as its creed
Now that you mention it, so has the Christian Church, the Muslems and in fact most of the other religions. As have such magnificent luminarias as George Bush and Tony Blair. Well, more or less.
Morale: You can't trust people that try to use that kind of 'creed' as a selling point.
Why on earth aren't hundreds of scientists speaking out and decrying such blatantly biased research?
Because in this case it is a complete non-issue. Mouse-rage? Who bloody cares? As for the other things - they are constantly being refuted and decried, as far as I know.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes
I think you are too lenient. What these people are doing is trying to obstruct any attempt at doing anything about the problems, thus endangering the lives and livelihoods of possibly hundreds of millions of people, not to mention future generations. If stealing or selling cannabis can send you to jail for an inordinate amount of time, why are these people not being put behind bars? I must say in this case I don't care whether it is technically not at crime - morally it is, and they should not only be jailed for life, but stripped of all their ill-gotten wealth.
Hmm, something happened to the formatting there - it should have been:
r -species-of-denial/#more-1038:
- I don't think it is going to be even remotely feasible to replace all our current fuel comsumption with biodiesel or similar. To quote Monbiot: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/anothe
What we need is to think of some radically new solutions. And it isn't even difficult either - we already know the technology: wind-, wave-, tidal-, solar power, just to mention a few. All that is needed is the political will to pursue this course. What would it take, technologically, to replace all the existing fossil and nuclear powerplants with eg. solar power? A lot, certainly, but far less than what most people imagine; it is certainly within our reach already now. But of course, there are businesses with far too much political power, who would lose out on doing this, so the US will certainly not be leading the world that way; not unless you guys give your political system a very major overhaul.
- I don't think it is going to be even remotely feasible to replace all our current fuel comsumption with biodiesel or similar. To quote Monbiot: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another -species-of-denial/#more-1038:
What we need is to think of some radically new solutions. And it isn't even difficult either - we already know the technology: wind-, wave-, tidal-, solar power, just to mention a few. All that is needed is the political will to pursue this course. What would it take, technologically, to replace all the existing fossil and nuclear powerplants with eg. solar power? A lot, certainly, but far less than what most people imagine; it is certainly within our reach already now. But of course, there are businesses with far too much political power, who would lose out on doing this, so the US will certainly not be leading the world that way; not unless you guys give your political system a very major overhaul.
Before we start dreaming about how this would solve all the problems in the world, it may be worth asking yourself a question or two. Like, what do you know about extracting water from air? I can only think of two methods, really: condensation and osmosis. Osmosis is something that requires chemistry, so it is probably not that. Condensation usually requires a surface to condense on as well as enough cooling to make the relative humidity ~100%. How can a windmill provide that? My gut instinct says this is bogus, but you never know.
History is a long time ago - this is like saying 'WE freed Europe from Hitler' like many Americans said a few years ago when France didn't fall for the transparent lies about Iraq; which apart from being historically incorrect is also disingenious. For one thing, it was not this present generation of Americans who went to Europe during WWII, and then only with considerable reluctance, after it was clear that it wouldn't be more opportune to support Hitler.
And don't talk to me about America giving up wealth to help freedom and democracy. The US is giving comparatively little in aid, and most of that goes to Israel in the form of weapons as far as I know. And what little actually reaches poor countries in Africa and other places is richly rewarded because it always comes with strings attached, such as 'Open your markets for American companies so they can suck you dry'.
He also changed his name to Shi Huangdi, meaning "First August God"
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Huangdi:
he created a new title, huangdi, combining the word huang from the legendary Three Huang (Three August Ones) who ruled at the dawn of Chinese history, and the word di from the legendary Five Di (Five Sovereigns) who ruled immediately after the Three Huang
His original name was Qin Shihuang, and it is a simple, but clever trick when he invents the title 'Huangdi' (~'emperor') and changes his name to Shi Huangdi, which was almost hist name before. If you want to look it up yourself, try this online dictionary: http://www.zhongwen.com/noads.htm.
Apart from that, I find you opinion absurd. The Chinese don't 'tolerate' Hu Jintao and the Communist Party because they are 'culturally conditioned' or whatever. The simply like what they see around them, in general: increased wealth, increased status in the world etc etc. They want more of it - wouldn't you? Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time. And calling the Chinese president an 'emperor' is simply childish name-calling and just goes to show that you don't have anything else to have your opinion in.
- but there's always only one cause for obesity: when you eat more than you need.
There's a number of contributing factors: sedentary lifestyle, easily available, high-calorie food etc. Sprawl makes it difficult to do anything without a car, so people get less exercise; but a possibly much greater factor is the fact that we eat more and more instant meals and other industrialised foods. This kind of food has been prepared with unnatural fats (containing eg. trans-fatty acids, which tend push you towards metabolic syndrome), cheap, but unhealthy sugars (such as fructose, which seems to be converted to fat more readily than glucose) and additives that upset your body chemistry. The general boredom that often pervades a sedentary lifestyle means that people eat too much - what else is there to do? - and the pounds just pile on.
So, the answer is - sprawl contributes towards obesity, but if you want to lose weight/avoid gaining it, avoid factory food (IOW cook your own meals) and get out much more.
- when people give power to religious extremists. What America needs more than anything else is a pragmatic leadership - one that doesn't dream up 'great principles' and religious moral, but simply relates to reality as it is. Sigh.
Spooky and sinister, or sublime and smart?
Try criminal. I don't think Google are as stupid as all that, though.
I agree in principle, but on the other hand 'climate sceptics', ID'ers and other groups who pretend to be interested in scientific discourse are stealing more and more time and other resources from serious, scientific research. This means that there's less money for things that actually matter, and just because there are groups who try to hijack science for religious or political purposes. So whose freedom do we need to protect? It is a question about spending our limited resources sensibly, not about freedom.
A few comments:
- Freedom of speech means that you have right speak your opinion without being punished for doing do. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have a right to be anonymous. In fact, freedom of speech should encourage everybody to speak openly rather than hiding behind anonymity; if you want anonymity, perhaps it is because you that what you have to say is something you should be ashamed of?
- I can't see why anybody would expect the Democratic party to be any different from the Republicans. It is only from an American viewpoint they seem to be 'leftists', to everybody else they are more or less the same: ultra-conservative, religious, pro-business, pro-military, nationalist etc etc.
- You don't have a right to anonymity. It is not the same as privacy, you know - privacy means that there are certain spheres of your life that outsiders don't have right to enter without your permission, such as your home, your mail and others. But if you enter the public sphere, eg by speaking in public, you are entering territory where you can expect to be recognised; thus you have no anonymity there.
I am not sure I want to allow Flash in my browser. With Adblock I am happily free from adverts, but I doubt it has any influence on what happens inside Flash - so it is an all-or-nothing situation. Do I want to watch Flash videos enough that I am willing to tolerate adverts? I don't think so.
Right, before you all start regurgitating what you have learned from Fox news about things, you should try to actually learn something about them. Ooops, too late.
Never the less, here are some articles defining the concepts - now there is no excuse for displaying your ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
- so there!
Marx didn't 'invent' communism - he had some ideas about why it was the right way to address the social injustice he saw around him everywhere in the world at that time. He didn't particularly lust for bloody revolution, but thought that it was likely to be the only way to remove the huge inequalities in society. Etc etc. Communism is not 'an evil ideology'; in fact, if anything it is a 'good' ideaology - it is what you have if you take the ideas of some of the great religious philosophers and remove the superstition about God. It is of course easy to see who it is, in a capitalistic society, that has most to lose if communism were introduced; and those same people are also the same who, by and large, control what you get to see in the news and what you learn in school.
As for North Korea, the Soviet Union, China and others: the problem was never communism, but the people in power. A government will always tend to be isolated from the people, and even if they are not mediocre men with too many selfishh interests, they will too easily lose the way and begin to corrupt. This is why democracy is necessary: it is supposed to keep the government in contact with the fact that they are there to SERVE the people and their interests. Unfortunately it doesn't always work, because there are strong powers that are not democratically elected: the big companies, the big newspapers, the big religious institutions, to mention a few, and particularly in the US they have far more influence over the government than the people. This is deeply wrong, in my opinion.
Ignorant comments about what communism is supposed to be aside, isn't it good, in a small way, what is happening here? Not that people in North Korea get rabbits, which I think may well be a bad idea (since rabbits are noxious vermin), but the fact that apparently somebody in their government at least tries to address one of the real problems the have. It is worth remembering that, with very few exceptions, all humans have both good and evil in them; even in a hopeless country like North Korea, the government is not evil through and through - there are people who actually want to do the right thing. We can't fight evil by being even more evil (like we do in Iraq) - it can never succceed. The only way is to help the good parts grow.
What do you think? What would it take to make a great Trek game?
Well, what was it that made Star Trek so satisfying to watch - and still does, despite the frankly awful actors of the first series? I think it is because they are not only about flying around, beating up people with funny hairdos ('aliens'); there is a huge amount of cameraderie, deep feelings, grand themes (along with a humour that makes it bearable), exploring the unknown and a lot of other 'soft' things, and I don't think it is at all easy to implement those things in a game.
You've managed to ruin any credibility you may have had by inserting an unecessary but trendy anti-American comment.
No I don't think so. I may have antagonised Americans, though I think most thoughtful Americans can see that this is an attempt at provoking denial - especially as it is followed by the question 'Or am I wrong?'
Apart from that - I think it is obvious to most that American culture and mindset, as it is projected to the rest of the world, has a clear tendency towards the heartless and utterly selfish. Again, I am well aware that many, possibly most, Americans are not in fact selfesh and heartless; but where the hell are all you good guys?
Well, perhaps it is new in the US, but here in UK you can buy them cheaply - and they turn on instantly too. I have nothing but energy saving light bulbs, and not only because they save energy - when I buy an incandescent (ie 'old fashioned') light bulb, it only lasts for a month on average, whereas the last for over a year. Tesco (a large supermarket chain in UK) sell them for about 75 pence as far as I remember (it's been that long since I looked for them).
I think what has happened is that WalMart have realised that here is suddenly a potential for making money, that's all.
1. Drug companies have to turn a profit; otherwise, they don't produce the drugs.
Do they really? Perhaps drug research should be limited by law to universities and not-for-profit organisations. The people who do the actual research are not the ones that rake in the hundreds of billions each year - that's the stockholders, who by God have enough already.
2. The more money a drug company makes off a medicine, the more valuable it is. A drug company's profits are a function of how much people value that drug -- the drug's social utility (this is basic economics).
Which is why they tend to do far more research in luxury problems (such as rejuvenation and weight loss for rich Americans) rather than trying to solve the big devastating diseases of the poor, such as malaria and other major killers. If they were not in it only for the money, they could solve those problems in just a few years - it is only a question of effort. But as I once heard a doctor friend of mine say: The medicine companies don't like medicine that cures people - once you cure a disease, you don't more money from that patient.
3. Once the drug companies patents run out, anyone can produce generic medicines cheaply.
Well, then the patents should run out far more quickly than they do now. The patent system was created in a time where communication and research happened a lot more slowly, and it made sense that you could hold a monopoly for a longish interval; but nowadays 20 years of monopoly is totally out of proportion. I'd say the expiry period should be about 2 years; or 5 max.
What's better -- not having a drug at all, or having the drug be very costly for about 14 years and then having cheap generic equivalents?
This is a question designed to deceive, my friend. You know perfectly well that these are not the only two alternatives. I have outlined a couple of others above: make the patents period shorter, require that drugs companies are not for profit etc. There are many other ways; drugs research could be entirely state owned and free of any patents. As it is now, the drug companies look dispropotionately at the problems of the richest people in the world: age related problems (like cancer that mostly affects the elderly) and cosmetic problems. For example, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_diseases for a list of very serious diseases that receive far too little attention despite the fact that they kill people by the million; but of course they are just poor people, so they don't really count - not to an American, that is. Or am I wrong?
Welcome to the land of freedom and opportunity, where might is right, where truth and fairness are something you can buy, if you are rich enough, and where opportunity means that you have a right to take and keep whatever catches your fancy, as long as you can pay enough for your lawyer.
... a company like Google that has embraced 'Don't Be Evil' as its creed
Now that you mention it, so has the Christian Church, the Muslems and in fact most of the other religions. As have such magnificent luminarias as George Bush and Tony Blair. Well, more or less.
Morale: You can't trust people that try to use that kind of 'creed' as a selling point.
Why on earth aren't hundreds of scientists speaking out and decrying such blatantly biased research?
Because in this case it is a complete non-issue. Mouse-rage? Who bloody cares? As for the other things - they are constantly being refuted and decried, as far as I know.
BTW: It's Libya, not Lybia.
... humans can follow a scent trail -- an ability that most had assumed only animals possessed.
Aren't humans animals, then?
As several authors have put it - the intelligence of a crowd equals the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of people.
There's no need to force it on people if they don't want it. And there's a lot of room for top scientists in the rest of the world.
So what he has discovered is that you can get around problems with dividing by zero if you handle it as a special case. How can this even be news?
Don't tell me that these gadgets will never be abused. Just look to the socalled tazer or taser: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_police_ taser_pregnant_driver.htm or http://www.nbc5.com/news/4179137/detail.html. An instrument that causes intense pain but doesn't leave a mark on the victim? How will we know that it won't be abused by the police when we know what they do with their other 'non-lethal' gadgets?