Want to attack? Ok, let's go. Let me put it this way. I live in a coastal city in Alaska. There's logging here, there used to be a pulp mill here. They've had the audacity to come here, not once, but twice. I can find pictures if you'd like. The second time, they were here last summer, and they had a nice open house. I went to it, simply because I was curious. I personally dislike Greenpeace, because I believe they're going about things the wrong way. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads aren't screwed on too tight. I, too, have been on this boat. I too, went on a tour where their captain showed us around.
When we got to the engines, he made it a point to tell us that the engines use less fuel, and make fewer emmisions than most diesel engines of that size. I then asked him how he could even condone the use of diesel engines if their whole mission was to eliminate all but the most nessesary uses of fossil fuels. I anticipated his reply which was that this use was considered nessesary by them. I then told him that there are many alternatives he could use that would even further reduce their use of fossil fuels on this boat. I used the Alcyone as an example. Because of it's sails (well, more like vertical airfoils) it uses 1/3 less fuel than it would without them. He said to me, and this is nearly verbatim, because the hypocrisy absolutely stunned me, it was burned into my memory, "Our mission is so important, we don't have the funds or the time to retrofit our ships with mechanisms such as that." Basically, he was saying, as I said above, "We're more important than you, so you should quit using so much fossil fuel. But we'll use it all up if that's what's nessesary to complete our mission."
So screw you. I don't comment unless I know what I'm talking about, and I heard this straight from the horses mouth. But hey, go do something useful like hug a tree, because you can't see the hypocrisy of this organization that you defend. In other words, to quote an unwise man, "Don't assume so much, you look like a jack ass."
Non-violence? Tell that to a buddy I work with. He used to be a logger in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Greenpeace showed up once and told them to stop logging. They did stupid things like lock themselves to trees, and things like that. Non-violent so far. These loggers then took the bolt cutters to these chains. According to my friend, and I trust what he said, the greenies all lept up and pepper sprayed the loggers who were cutting the chains. What the loggers were doing wasn't illegal. What Greenpeace did was assault. Greenpeace is one of the most hypocritical organizations in the world.
Besides, how logging is done now doesn't even effect the environment hardly. Selective cutting, and re-planting mean the forests stay forever. Also, what do you think greenies wipe their asses with? I'll give you a hint, it comes from a tree!
And this is why you suck at reading comprehension. If they were so into alternative sources of energy, then why would they be using decades old diesel engines on board their ship? There's plenty of alternatives available to them, they just choose to ignore them. Jacques Cousteau's Alcyone, for example, is a hybrid wind power/diesel powered ship. How come these enviro-freaks haven't thought of that? How come these enviro-freaks still use decades old diesel technology? It's because they're hypocrits, with an elitist attitude. Good enough for them, but not for everyone else. But hey, it's ok for them to use it, I mean, they have the right attitude! Not to mention, they're the largest domestic terrorist organization in the US. But that's neither here nor there.
Do you know how many false positives are generated using the current system? It's obvious you don't. There isn't a green/yellow/red flagging system with CAPPS1 as there will be with CAPPS2, however, there is a system that decides whether a passenger will not fly, will fly with additional screening, and will fly with normal screening. As it is now, about 1 in 1000 passengers will be flagged "no fly." And practically all of these are false positives. So, about 0.001%...much greater than your extremely high estimate of 0.0004% of the population being terrorists. Not only this, but about 10% of passengers are flagged to fly with additional screening. The system that's in place right now, truely does not work. It selects people who aren't terrorists, and lets terrorists fly. (This is the same system that let the 9/11 suicide bombers...ALL of them...fly.) If this new system does work, sure, it'll generate false positives, but I can almost guarentee that the number of false positives will be significantly less than the current system. Not only that, but more importantly, it should pick out a larger portion of terrorists than the current system.
So yeah, let's scrap this plan because it'll generate false positives, even though it'll be less than the current system...
Slashdot Mirror
When we got to the engines, he made it a point to tell us that the engines use less fuel, and make fewer emmisions than most diesel engines of that size. I then asked him how he could even condone the use of diesel engines if their whole mission was to eliminate all but the most nessesary uses of fossil fuels. I anticipated his reply which was that this use was considered nessesary by them. I then told him that there are many alternatives he could use that would even further reduce their use of fossil fuels on this boat. I used the Alcyone as an example. Because of it's sails (well, more like vertical airfoils) it uses 1/3 less fuel than it would without them. He said to me, and this is nearly verbatim, because the hypocrisy absolutely stunned me, it was burned into my memory, "Our mission is so important, we don't have the funds or the time to retrofit our ships with mechanisms such as that." Basically, he was saying, as I said above, "We're more important than you, so you should quit using so much fossil fuel. But we'll use it all up if that's what's nessesary to complete our mission."
So screw you. I don't comment unless I know what I'm talking about, and I heard this straight from the horses mouth. But hey, go do something useful like hug a tree, because you can't see the hypocrisy of this organization that you defend. In other words, to quote an unwise man, "Don't assume so much, you look like a jack ass."
Non-violence? Tell that to a buddy I work with. He used to be a logger in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Greenpeace showed up once and told them to stop logging. They did stupid things like lock themselves to trees, and things like that. Non-violent so far. These loggers then took the bolt cutters to these chains. According to my friend, and I trust what he said, the greenies all lept up and pepper sprayed the loggers who were cutting the chains. What the loggers were doing wasn't illegal. What Greenpeace did was assault. Greenpeace is one of the most hypocritical organizations in the world. Besides, how logging is done now doesn't even effect the environment hardly. Selective cutting, and re-planting mean the forests stay forever. Also, what do you think greenies wipe their asses with? I'll give you a hint, it comes from a tree!
And this is why you suck at reading comprehension. If they were so into alternative sources of energy, then why would they be using decades old diesel engines on board their ship? There's plenty of alternatives available to them, they just choose to ignore them. Jacques Cousteau's Alcyone, for example, is a hybrid wind power/diesel powered ship. How come these enviro-freaks haven't thought of that? How come these enviro-freaks still use decades old diesel technology? It's because they're hypocrits, with an elitist attitude. Good enough for them, but not for everyone else. But hey, it's ok for them to use it, I mean, they have the right attitude! Not to mention, they're the largest domestic terrorist organization in the US. But that's neither here nor there.
Do you know how many false positives are generated using the current system? It's obvious you don't. There isn't a green/yellow/red flagging system with CAPPS1 as there will be with CAPPS2, however, there is a system that decides whether a passenger will not fly, will fly with additional screening, and will fly with normal screening. As it is now, about 1 in 1000 passengers will be flagged "no fly." And practically all of these are false positives. So, about 0.001%...much greater than your extremely high estimate of 0.0004% of the population being terrorists. Not only this, but about 10% of passengers are flagged to fly with additional screening. The system that's in place right now, truely does not work. It selects people who aren't terrorists, and lets terrorists fly. (This is the same system that let the 9/11 suicide bombers...ALL of them...fly.) If this new system does work, sure, it'll generate false positives, but I can almost guarentee that the number of false positives will be significantly less than the current system. Not only that, but more importantly, it should pick out a larger portion of terrorists than the current system. So yeah, let's scrap this plan because it'll generate false positives, even though it'll be less than the current system...