It wasn't about human lives per se, it was about the heavy toll on the environment. DDT was the nuclear option of pesticides, it killed everything good and bad. Now for people who want to use it again they need to realize that even back then insects like mosquitoes were already developing genetic resistance to it because it was overused. Plus there are alternatives to DDT now that are superior and more selective.
We've also become much more aware of the effects of chronic low-level exposure to toxins. It may not kill you outright but over decades could be causing genetic damage, neurological damage, etc. Most people want to live long and healthy lives I assume.
I started off with a cassette based apple-ii. You had to play the tape until you heard the synch tone. Stop it. Plug in the player into the computer. Play it. Hope for the best. If it loaded you had to RUN it or BRUN the correct memory address to play it. Memories of the very crude Flight Simulator.
If they are going to charge me more then they had damn well better provide seating that is designed for people my height (over 6 feet) so I don't spend the whole flight with my knees jammed into the seat in front of me until I'm crippled.
True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.
This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).
The real catch isn't if it is possible but if it is economically feasible. Just like tar sands if the cost and energy required to extract it is too high then it might as well not exist.
Good guess but I heard it will consist of a slot machine. You earn slot tokens by moving a cursor around the screen for 1 hr per token. Each token has a tiny chance of increasing your power rating by 1 point. You can then walk around the game with your rating flashing over your head.
You can do group tasks where you all work together to move the cursor for 2 tokens per hour but then they scream "retard!!!" at you while you do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought phones controlled people's brains?
They'll find a way to make it out of lead or cadmium I'm sure.
Because China has such a stellar environmental record.
Oh, AVOID incest. I got confused too.
I don't know, what does the the Superbowl have to do with this either?
Insightful reply. Might as well shoot yourself in the head then because you're going to die anyway, right?
It wasn't about human lives per se, it was about the heavy toll on the environment. DDT was the nuclear option of pesticides, it killed everything good and bad. Now for people who want to use it again they need to realize that even back then insects like mosquitoes were already developing genetic resistance to it because it was overused. Plus there are alternatives to DDT now that are superior and more selective.
We've also become much more aware of the effects of chronic low-level exposure to toxins. It may not kill you outright but over decades could be causing genetic damage, neurological damage, etc. Most people want to live long and healthy lives I assume.
Because the world is humanities's toilet now.
It could be worse. What if they started flying remote controlled drones around the world killing people with impunity?
I felt a disturbance in the force. As if thousands of Korean Starcraft characters all cried out at once then were deleted.
Might as well use fission based energy then.
I started off with a cassette based apple-ii. You had to play the tape until you heard the synch tone. Stop it. Plug in the player into the computer. Play it. Hope for the best. If it loaded you had to RUN it or BRUN the correct memory address to play it. Memories of the very crude Flight Simulator.
If they are going to charge me more then they had damn well better provide seating that is designed for people my height (over 6 feet) so I don't spend the whole flight with my knees jammed into the seat in front of me until I'm crippled.
But trains are for commie pinkos! Unless you are talking about the old west in which case trains were all American and built this nation.
Thanks for the tip. I'll click my magic shoes together and make a large scale high-speed rail system appear in the US.
I noticed they will not be using it to find ways to conserve energy.
True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.
This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).
But my speaking freely doesn't end your ability to speak freely. Your shooting someone however ends their rights forever.
No, that would be too honest.
The real catch isn't if it is possible but if it is economically feasible. Just like tar sands if the cost and energy required to extract it is too high then it might as well not exist.
Problem is after inserting them you have a craving for cheese.
Yup, they just measured a little of one and a lot of the other. Still falls under the h.u.p.
I would support this tax only if Rep Orcutt and his ilk all stopped producing any CO2 themselves.
Database will be stolen in 5...4...3...
Good guess but I heard it will consist of a slot machine. You earn slot tokens by moving a cursor around the screen for 1 hr per token. Each token has a tiny chance of increasing your power rating by 1 point. You can then walk around the game with your rating flashing over your head.
You can do group tasks where you all work together to move the cursor for 2 tokens per hour but then they scream "retard!!!" at you while you do it.