Do you only count court-ordered execution? If not, a doctor was shot in the US in 2009 by anti-abortionists.
You mean are acts of violence by fundamentalist individuals, subsequently prosecuted and punished severely for the crime, count the same as religious persecution institutionalized by government fiat?
Hmmm... yea, sure. Exactly the same. DAMN you, Theocratic religious tyrannical US government!!!
The very idea of thinking you need "defenses" against [possible threats] that are far greater than every other asset you have, describes these "people" as violent paranoids. It's behavior we would be begging the police or social services to investigate if actual people were doing it.
You should absolutely call report those people. Ask for the pre-crime division when you call.
No, it's definately governments. Google it yourself, there are plenty of statistics out there. There has been plenty of suffering caused in the name of religion, although good things, too. You could say the same things about governments, too. Both institutions become tyrannical when they have too much control.
i never heard anyone dying from reduced mobility...
Actually, most people who die from starvation during drought die for exactly that reason: If they could move 100 or 200 miles, there would be food available. There are other issues, but that's the easiest one to point out. During the "dust bowl" years in the mid-west, that's what most people did to avoid food shortages - they moved west.
Long-half life radioactive elements aren't much danger since they're actually far less radioactive. It's all about the total volume of emitters present.
After 50 years, the fusion waste is far less radioactive than the fission waste, which has to be contained for another 23,950 years. No matter how you look at it, dealing with fusion radioactive waste is much easier.
Well, it turns out that when the IPCC predicted the Himalayan glaciers would be all gone in 2035, it was a simple typo. They misread the prediction that said they would be melted by 2350. So it's on track as predicted!
gun toting...gay...athiest...libertarians....who also think abolishing the epa is a good thing.......altogether i think you might have found a group of maybe 10 people worldwide?
Got to be more than that, because there are 12 in our support group, and that's just in town. Although, admittedly, our group includes bi-curious males, you don't have to be gay.
I know people who have died because they tried all sorts of "alternative medicine" treatments before getting chemo for their cancer. Being credulous can kill you, and routinely costs people money (see "snake oil"). Skepticism, particularly the way the word is currently used, is healthier. Only one is scientific, and it's not the one where you tend to believe things based on little or no evidence.
Because there is ample evidence and many, many repeated experiments that it's a simple statistical evaluation to determine which treatments will work best. And they actually have treatments that do work. There have been LOTS of people with cancer. But I also know people with Pulmonary Fibrosis that have survived and lived decent lives way after their doctors predicted they would die. That's because the doctors don't have enough data, and part of the reason for that is because there is no money to study cheap, non-patented treatments.
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Not really, it's much more the way (unless you consider people's lack of willingness to starve). Just to keep the grocery stores full of fresh food requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuel. Stop the trucks running for a week and the shelves would quickly be empty. Within three weeks there are people in the cities starving. And that's just the transportation, which would take decades to change over to anything renewable.
Consider that coal generates more the half the electricity in the US. Ending the use of fossil fuels for electricity too fast means trading lives. The cost of power climbs, as does food. More would die from temperature extremes (more from cold than heat, but plenty from both), malnutrition, and reduced mobility.
Even if you dump cash into fusion, you still end up with a nuclear waste issue. Fusion kicks out a lot of neutrons, so activated radioactivity is a real problem when you decommission reactors.
It's a much smaller problem, though. Spent fuel from nuclear fission is minimum 24,000 years, up to a couple of million years (np-237). Meanwhile, the radiation in the fusion container that is bombarded with the neutrons you're referring to has a half-life of about 12 years. Much easier to deal with, and much less of it.
The 10 dirtiest power plants are not in the United States, where all power plants are required to follow the tightest pollution controls in the world for actual toxic pollutants like sulfur and mercury.
Interesting article! I've never used TrueCrypt, but with all the comments about it on/. I was considering checking it out. After reading this analysis I probably won't. Seems to simply have too many questions regarding its origins and reliability for a tin-foil-hatter like me.
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.
I can't imagine the headache this will cause for air traffic controllers. They'll have these little blips on their radar... and if it's a small airport these things could make it less safe for local air traffic.
That's why this is part of the FAA modernization bill - they want to get rid of the commercial pilots, too. Ready to hop on a 747 piloted from the ground?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
For most people, their house represents the bulk of their wealth, and it is taxed annually at a percentage of its value. So effectively, ordinary people already pay a hefty "wealth tax".
Then exempt wealth below a certain threshold as necessary for survival. I described how to calculate such a threshold in another comment.
Brilliant! Automatically the government has a primary claim on all property, and everyone is a serf. Back to feudalism, huh?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2
they made education free for everyone (at the state level, however, not federal), because they knew that education and literacy were essential to democracy.
That's not really true. There was no idea that the Federal government should be involved in education, for one thing, and the founders supported the concept of public education, but left it to the states. Even then, education was almost exclusively privately run (or supported by philanthropy or small communities for their own children) until the mid-nineteenth century.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you only count court-ordered execution? If not, a doctor was shot in the US in 2009 by anti-abortionists.
You mean are acts of violence by fundamentalist individuals, subsequently prosecuted and punished severely for the crime, count the same as religious persecution institutionalized by government fiat?
Hmmm... yea, sure. Exactly the same. DAMN you, Theocratic religious tyrannical US government!!!
The very idea of thinking you need "defenses" against [possible threats] that are far greater than every other asset you have, describes these "people" as violent paranoids. It's behavior we would be begging the police or social services to investigate if actual people were doing it.
You should absolutely call report those people. Ask for the pre-crime division when you call.
No, it's definately governments. Google it yourself, there are plenty of statistics out there. There has been plenty of suffering caused in the name of religion, although good things, too. You could say the same things about governments, too. Both institutions become tyrannical when they have too much control.
Right. The point being that the only thing constant about earth's climate is change.
Are you really so ignorant of earth's geological history that you think today's CO2 concentration is the highest ever?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
That you are, that you are.
i never heard anyone dying from reduced mobility...
Actually, most people who die from starvation during drought die for exactly that reason: If they could move 100 or 200 miles, there would be food available. There are other issues, but that's the easiest one to point out. During the "dust bowl" years in the mid-west, that's what most people did to avoid food shortages - they moved west.
Half-life doesn't work that way.
Long-half life radioactive elements aren't much danger since they're actually far less radioactive. It's all about the total volume of emitters present.
After 50 years, the fusion waste is far less radioactive than the fission waste, which has to be contained for another 23,950 years. No matter how you look at it, dealing with fusion radioactive waste is much easier.
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
I'm skeptical that being credulous is what kept them alive.
Nope, I don't think that's it.
Well, it turns out that when the IPCC predicted the Himalayan glaciers would be all gone in 2035, it was a simple typo. They misread the prediction that said they would be melted by 2350. So it's on track as predicted!
gun toting...gay...athiest...libertarians....who also think abolishing the epa is a good thing.......altogether i think you might have found a group of maybe 10 people worldwide?
Got to be more than that, because there are 12 in our support group, and that's just in town. Although, admittedly, our group includes bi-curious males, you don't have to be gay.
I know people who have died because they tried all sorts of "alternative medicine" treatments before getting chemo for their cancer. Being credulous can kill you, and routinely costs people money (see "snake oil"). Skepticism, particularly the way the word is currently used, is healthier. Only one is scientific, and it's not the one where you tend to believe things based on little or no evidence.
Because there is ample evidence and many, many repeated experiments that it's a simple statistical evaluation to determine which treatments will work best. And they actually have treatments that do work. There have been LOTS of people with cancer. But I also know people with Pulmonary Fibrosis that have survived and lived decent lives way after their doctors predicted they would die. That's because the doctors don't have enough data, and part of the reason for that is because there is no money to study cheap, non-patented treatments.
There's a lesson in there, somewhere.
And the Oceans have risen 300 feet over the last 18,000 years.
It stops being skepticism and gets into denialism when the denier starts quoting the same old discredited arguments over and over again.
Just show them the hockey stick graph - that'll shut 'em up!
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Actually, it certainly has.
But your were mistaken with a really awesome amount of confidence, so kudos to you!
The science .. is in! It's incontrovertible.
But after the inevitable wars the problem will have taken care of itself.
Check history carefully and you'll find that it's not wars that are most effective at killing people, but peoples' own governments.
Not really, it's much more the way (unless you consider people's lack of willingness to starve). Just to keep the grocery stores full of fresh food requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuel. Stop the trucks running for a week and the shelves would quickly be empty. Within three weeks there are people in the cities starving. And that's just the transportation, which would take decades to change over to anything renewable.
Consider that coal generates more the half the electricity in the US. Ending the use of fossil fuels for electricity too fast means trading lives. The cost of power climbs, as does food. More would die from temperature extremes (more from cold than heat, but plenty from both), malnutrition, and reduced mobility.
Even if you dump cash into fusion, you still end up with a nuclear waste issue. Fusion kicks out a lot of neutrons, so activated radioactivity is a real problem when you decommission reactors.
It's a much smaller problem, though. Spent fuel from nuclear fission is minimum 24,000 years, up to a couple of million years (np-237). Meanwhile, the radiation in the fusion container that is bombarded with the neutrons you're referring to has a half-life of about 12 years. Much easier to deal with, and much less of it.
CO2 != "Dirty"
The 10 dirtiest power plants are not in the United States, where all power plants are required to follow the tightest pollution controls in the world for actual toxic pollutants like sulfur and mercury.
But they point out the problem with that: There doesn't seem to be anyone doing much analysis of the code base.
Who knows what company they are buying these refurbs from
My money is on Northrop Grumman. They are notorious for surplussing used drives with customer data intact.
Interesting article! I've never used TrueCrypt, but with all the comments about it on /. I was considering checking it out. After reading this analysis I probably won't. Seems to simply have too many questions regarding its origins and reliability for a tin-foil-hatter like me.
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.
I can't imagine the headache this will cause for air traffic controllers. They'll have these little blips on their radar ... and if it's a small airport these things could make it less safe for local air traffic.
That's why this is part of the FAA modernization bill - they want to get rid of the commercial pilots, too. Ready to hop on a 747 piloted from the ground?
For most people, their house represents the bulk of their wealth, and it is taxed annually at a percentage of its value. So effectively, ordinary people already pay a hefty "wealth tax".
Then exempt wealth below a certain threshold as necessary for survival. I described how to calculate such a threshold in another comment.
Brilliant! Automatically the government has a primary claim on all property, and everyone is a serf. Back to feudalism, huh?
they made education free for everyone (at the state level, however, not federal), because they knew that education and literacy were essential to democracy.
That's not really true. There was no idea that the Federal government should be involved in education, for one thing, and the founders supported the concept of public education, but left it to the states. Even then, education was almost exclusively privately run (or supported by philanthropy or small communities for their own children) until the mid-nineteenth century.