Well, which side of the gun control debate is usually trying to CUT help for the needy? And which side is usually blamed for trying to help too many people?
Did you notice the scale of that spill? Not even 2 miles long. Not fun, but living beneath a dam of any kind and is certainly a planned activity. Evacuating 100 sq miles is not.
Again, 'operational' issues are one thing (and yes failure of the system holding the waste is an operational issue since it's a planned byproduct). But as you point out, it's one more type of 'pollution' that coal doesn't pay for and so is subsidized far greater than renewables.
Failure scenarios are a different issue entirely. Nuclear has it's own 'waste' issues that are decidedly non-trivial and a bit more than 'slightly' radioactive.
Renewables are far and away cheaper than coal. Once you prevent coal from emitting millions of years worth of CO2 for free, it becomes prohibitively expensive.
Hydro doesn't work at scale because there simply aren't enough suitable places to put a damn. It works where it does and large numbers of those places are already doing so. There isn't any 'growth' in gravity based hydro.
Natural gas is at best a stop gap due to the CO2 emissions. It will have to go away too unless you can cheaply sequester the CO2.
Renewables aren't the solution of and by themselves. They also need energy storage mechanisms invented/improved. They aren't every 100% reliable because dark/clouds/still days etc. Wave power/ocean current turbines might be more reliable but not a lot of that in Okla either;-)
renewables are literally FREE FUEL. When the vast bulk of any power plant's cost is the 'fuel', you simply can't beat them on price when other factors are equal.
nuclear accidents are actually rather non-life-threatening.
Until they aren't. Their POTENTIAL deaths is massively higher than anything else.
The difference is operational issues which is what coal has (pollution, acid rain, etc) vs failure issues which is what nuclear has. When it goes bad, it can go very very very bad. When a coal plant blows up? Extremely localized damage and you can safely walk the site immediately after any fires etc.
We *could* make coal safe from a chemical standpoint and filter the emissions but choose not to because of the cost. Nuclear you can't 'choose' to not have a failure. They simply will happen.
The windows button finally has purpose. You can hit that button, start typing an app name and then space/enter to launch. I find I'm mousing less actually.
if you're going to blame the tools used by murderers, then the point stands.
You're the one claiming box cutters killed 3000 people. You avoided explaining flight 93. Please do so.
the *key* ingredient was people committed enough to mass violence to pull it off
Certainly the start of the process involved this. But what mass killing tragedy doesn't? The point is that the people on the plane assumed they were being hijacked and if they played nice they would eventually be let go. You don't understand this? The change is that now, when hijacked, the hijackers might just kill you as part of the plan...hence you fight back to the death. That renders another 9/11 completely moot. Again, flight 93, please explain how this isn't a clear example of the new way hijackings are dealt with?
The murderer was unable to get a legal weapon
This is my entire point. He doesn't have to get a legal weapon when there are 200 million weapons literally lying about in HIS OWN HOME. Whether in a gun safe or not, it's simply not credible to believe you can prevent crazies from getting weapons when they are so abundant.
Guns are dangerous, they're not toys
And you want to put them in places where there are hundreds of kids. What. Could. Possibly. Go. Wrong.
But psychopathic murderers who aren't institutionalized
So you can tell who among us are simply depressed and who are pyschopathic murderers? AHEAD of time? If so, you sir, have the blood of those kids on your hands. The point is you can't tell the difference AHEAD of time, ever; unless you believe Minority Report is somehow reality. And if you can't tell, then you're gonna have these situations.
Laws didn't stop this maniac from doing what he did, but laws did prevent any of the staff at the school from having any legal chance at self defense.
So you're saying that a few kids dead is acceptable? Because how do you know what he's going to do? Or are you shooting first and asking questions later?
I'm proposing perhaps we shouldn't have millions and millions of guns in this country. Nothing will change without removing the overwhelming number of guns from the situation.
Yet because of the 2nd Amendment its apparently sacrosanct to even discuss limiting guns. Maybe, just maybe, the founding fathers needed to raise and army and the best way was to allow everyone to have a gun and so the 2nd Amendment was created as part of our founding documents? Maybe they only considered single shot muskets? maybe they would have a slightly different take on 25 clip Uzi's on every street corner?
We have to remove the guns, or this will keep happening. Do you disagree with that? If so, how would you suggest we prevent this from happening in the future?
indeed it's an issue.Should we allow uzi's simply because we can print pea shooters? yes that's just today and the printers get better etc. We have a clear and present danger NOW that we should be doing something about.
What was suggested after Colorado? How about Tuscon? Mostly I heard 'Its too soon to talk about it; don't politicize it". Those people have the blood of 20 children on their hands...not that it seems to matter to them.
Missed your 3D printer point. Indeed these present game changing factors that have yet to be much thought of let alone addressed if its even possible.
Since 3D printed weapons are good for about six shots currently that's still an improvement over 25 round clips for now, no?
The point here is we just had 20 innocent kids gunned down. Gun rights proponents have yet to come up with *any* solution that will work to stop this. If you believe it's an acceptable loss, please say so, I would strongly disagree.
You claim that banning guns won't solve the problem. It will, quite clearly, improve the situation since we have actual examples in multiple other countries that show a markedly lower death rate than we have. Hell even Switzerland with their quite abundant guns is half our rate.
So it's either the guns or its that Americans simply can't handle them...and shouldn't be allowed to have them without massive control over them.
As for 3000 dead, that wasn't box cutters. That was a change in the unwritten rules of hijackings that won't be repeated twice - Flight 93 proves that point. Reinforced cockpit doors make sure as well.
you know what? Switzerland has the HIGHEST gun death per capita of most civilized countries, 2nd only to us. That doesn't exactly help your argument.
If you'd rather face a gun wielding attacker than a lead pipe wielding attacker, you are an idiot.
The problem isn't lunatics having access to firearms. The problem is lunatics themselves. No other Western country has so many people going nuts wanting to kill other people, by whatever means available. That's what should be fixed.
Or maybe they do but they don't have access to the problems and so get their ass beat after stabbing a person or two. Australia has a pretty high knife crime rate...and a shitload less people die. That's sorta the point isn't it? less dying?
Lets see, what other purpose could 'box cutters' possibly have?
How about guns? Anything, Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
You can't kill 25 people in under a minute with a single box cutter. And I have a damned good chance of stopping you one on one after you take down the first couple. With guns? not so much. In Tuscon they had to wait till he ran out of bullets before they could get to him. And there WERE people on scene with guns and they still couldn't get to him fast enough. More impressive, the guy with the gun almost shot the lady holding the killers gun...because he came running gun drawn ready to 'help'.
The problem is when a system is so successful that the beneficiaries no longer see the downsides that they get lax about making sure the system isn't watered down.
Are some unions impractical and obstructionist? Sure. Same goes for corporations. Why aren't we calling for the abolishment of corporations too?
They did for decades, why not again? Sure there's more media coverage these days, but when you're hiring someone to pretend to be someone else while doing your dirty work, you've already abstracted the 'coverage' aspect out.
The point is reducing the ability of such people to do bad things. Guns provide a uniquely concealable, portable way to kill a lot of people over a large area in a very short time.
Bombs aren't generally very portable and usually we don't have suicide bombers in the US.
Even if you take your arguments as valid, look at the numbers and tell me that guns aren't a much much bigger problem.
Again, the existence of guns in such wide availability in the US denotes that criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what the laws are.
Making guns patently illegal is simply the only option that works.
Will it be done in my lifetime? Fair guess is no, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the 'problem' is and what would effectively solve it to manageable levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, which side of the gun control debate is usually trying to CUT help for the needy? And which side is usually blamed for trying to help too many people?
It would almost be funny if not so tragic.
Did you notice the scale of that spill? Not even 2 miles long. Not fun, but living beneath a dam of any kind and is certainly a planned activity. Evacuating 100 sq miles is not.
Again, 'operational' issues are one thing (and yes failure of the system holding the waste is an operational issue since it's a planned byproduct). But as you point out, it's one more type of 'pollution' that coal doesn't pay for and so is subsidized far greater than renewables.
Failure scenarios are a different issue entirely. Nuclear has it's own 'waste' issues that are decidedly non-trivial and a bit more than 'slightly' radioactive.
Renewables are far and away cheaper than coal. Once you prevent coal from emitting millions of years worth of CO2 for free, it becomes prohibitively expensive.
;-)
Hydro doesn't work at scale because there simply aren't enough suitable places to put a damn. It works where it does and large numbers of those places are already doing so. There isn't any 'growth' in gravity based hydro.
Natural gas is at best a stop gap due to the CO2 emissions. It will have to go away too unless you can cheaply sequester the CO2.
Renewables aren't the solution of and by themselves. They also need energy storage mechanisms invented/improved. They aren't every 100% reliable because dark/clouds/still days etc. Wave power/ocean current turbines might be more reliable but not a lot of that in Okla either
renewables are literally FREE FUEL. When the vast bulk of any power plant's cost is the 'fuel', you simply can't beat them on price when other factors are equal.
nuclear accidents are actually rather non-life-threatening.
Until they aren't. Their POTENTIAL deaths is massively higher than anything else.
The difference is operational issues which is what coal has (pollution, acid rain, etc) vs failure issues which is what nuclear has. When it goes bad, it can go very very very bad. When a coal plant blows up? Extremely localized damage and you can safely walk the site immediately after any fires etc.
We *could* make coal safe from a chemical standpoint and filter the emissions but choose not to because of the cost. Nuclear you can't 'choose' to not have a failure. They simply will happen.
Remember, Verizon will charge you $10/GB over 2GB...they will roll this out yesterday.
That would be why I missed it then ;-)
Under what circumstances, exactly, would someone who works for Microsoft ever say anything contrary to that?
Depends, what's Ballmer drinking these days? ;-) Though I suppose it's an open question on whether he works 'for' MS or against them...
The windows button finally has purpose. You can hit that button, start typing an app name and then space/enter to launch. I find I'm mousing less actually.
This is Windows 7 functionality isn't it?
Uh, pretty quickly you won't be *able* to choose not to buy it. The only way currently is stock left in the pipeline isn't it?
if you're going to blame the tools used by murderers, then the point stands.
You're the one claiming box cutters killed 3000 people. You avoided explaining flight 93. Please do so.
the *key* ingredient was people committed enough to mass violence to pull it off
Certainly the start of the process involved this. But what mass killing tragedy doesn't? The point is that the people on the plane assumed they were being hijacked and if they played nice they would eventually be let go. You don't understand this? The change is that now, when hijacked, the hijackers might just kill you as part of the plan...hence you fight back to the death. That renders another 9/11 completely moot. Again, flight 93, please explain how this isn't a clear example of the new way hijackings are dealt with?
The murderer was unable to get a legal weapon
This is my entire point. He doesn't have to get a legal weapon when there are 200 million weapons literally lying about in HIS OWN HOME. Whether in a gun safe or not, it's simply not credible to believe you can prevent crazies from getting weapons when they are so abundant.
Guns are dangerous, they're not toys
And you want to put them in places where there are hundreds of kids. What. Could. Possibly. Go. Wrong.
But psychopathic murderers who aren't institutionalized
So you can tell who among us are simply depressed and who are pyschopathic murderers? AHEAD of time? If so, you sir, have the blood of those kids on your hands. The point is you can't tell the difference AHEAD of time, ever; unless you believe Minority Report is somehow reality. And if you can't tell, then you're gonna have these situations.
Laws didn't stop this maniac from doing what he did, but laws did prevent any of the staff at the school from having any legal chance at self defense.
So you're saying that a few kids dead is acceptable? Because how do you know what he's going to do? Or are you shooting first and asking questions later?
I'm proposing perhaps we shouldn't have millions and millions of guns in this country. Nothing will change without removing the overwhelming number of guns from the situation.
Yet because of the 2nd Amendment its apparently sacrosanct to even discuss limiting guns. Maybe, just maybe, the founding fathers needed to raise and army and the best way was to allow everyone to have a gun and so the 2nd Amendment was created as part of our founding documents? Maybe they only considered single shot muskets? maybe they would have a slightly different take on 25 clip Uzi's on every street corner?
We have to remove the guns, or this will keep happening. Do you disagree with that? If so, how would you suggest we prevent this from happening in the future?
indeed it's an issue.Should we allow uzi's simply because we can print pea shooters? yes that's just today and the printers get better etc. We have a clear and present danger NOW that we should be doing something about.
What was suggested after Colorado? How about Tuscon? Mostly I heard 'Its too soon to talk about it; don't politicize it". Those people have the blood of 20 children on their hands...not that it seems to matter to them.
Missed your 3D printer point. Indeed these present game changing factors that have yet to be much thought of let alone addressed if its even possible.
Since 3D printed weapons are good for about six shots currently that's still an improvement over 25 round clips for now, no?
The point here is we just had 20 innocent kids gunned down. Gun rights proponents have yet to come up with *any* solution that will work to stop this. If you believe it's an acceptable loss, please say so, I would strongly disagree.
You claim that banning guns won't solve the problem. It will, quite clearly, improve the situation since we have actual examples in multiple other countries that show a markedly lower death rate than we have. Hell even Switzerland with their quite abundant guns is half our rate.
So it's either the guns or its that Americans simply can't handle them...and shouldn't be allowed to have them without massive control over them.
As for 3000 dead, that wasn't box cutters. That was a change in the unwritten rules of hijackings that won't be repeated twice - Flight 93 proves that point. Reinforced cockpit doors make sure as well.
yes because cars aren't only good at mass killing people. Guns have no other purpose than to quickly discharge projectiles at lethal velocity.
Facts are stubborn things. You're gun is many times more likely to kill or injure you or your family than save them.
Uh I said the wide availability of guns if you care to read. If you don't remove the guns, then laws aren't going to make any difference.
If there weren't 200 MILLION guns in this country you think gun violence would be the same level? Other countries show us this isn't true.
If you'd rather face a gun wielding attacker than a lead pipe wielding attacker, you are an idiot.
The problem isn't lunatics having access to firearms. The problem is lunatics themselves. No other Western country has so many people going nuts wanting to kill other people, by whatever means available. That's what should be fixed.
Or maybe they do but they don't have access to the problems and so get their ass beat after stabbing a person or two. Australia has a pretty high knife crime rate...and a shitload less people die. That's sorta the point isn't it? less dying?
Lets see, what other purpose could 'box cutters' possibly have?
How about guns? Anything, Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
You can't kill 25 people in under a minute with a single box cutter. And I have a damned good chance of stopping you one on one after you take down the first couple. With guns? not so much. In Tuscon they had to wait till he ran out of bullets before they could get to him. And there WERE people on scene with guns and they still couldn't get to him fast enough. More impressive, the guy with the gun almost shot the lady holding the killers gun...because he came running gun drawn ready to 'help'.
MORE guns is NOT the answer.
The problem is when a system is so successful that the beneficiaries no longer see the downsides that they get lax about making sure the system isn't watered down.
Are some unions impractical and obstructionist? Sure. Same goes for corporations. Why aren't we calling for the abolishment of corporations too?
They did for decades, why not again? Sure there's more media coverage these days, but when you're hiring someone to pretend to be someone else while doing your dirty work, you've already abstracted the 'coverage' aspect out.
Speed of killing with a gun vs a knife.
Physics aren't on your side.
So lets talk about 18 children dead and how many would still be alive.
Who would you rather face? A gun wielding attacker or a knife wielding attacker?
I thought so.
The point is reducing the ability of such people to do bad things. Guns provide a uniquely concealable, portable way to kill a lot of people over a large area in a very short time.
Bombs aren't generally very portable and usually we don't have suicide bombers in the US.
Even if you take your arguments as valid, look at the numbers and tell me that guns aren't a much much bigger problem.
Again, the existence of guns in such wide availability in the US denotes that criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what the laws are.
Making guns patently illegal is simply the only option that works.
Will it be done in my lifetime? Fair guess is no, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the 'problem' is and what would effectively solve it to manageable levels.
How many bombs are detonated every year vs how many shootings?
You're dead fucking wrong.