I don't find "we have studied the issue, and have decided we'll publish misleading and positively dangerous information that influences people to foster epidemics on our website anyway" to be as tenable and appealing a position as you clearly do.
When done right, fracking is done below a layer of impermeable rock, which means that refinery waste or whatever stays down there and isn't going to pollute anything we rely on. The process does appear to cause earthquakes, and it isn't clear how good that is. I can construct arguments that it's a good thin and that it's a bad thing, and we really don't know enough to decide between them.
Fracking done wrong is bad, but that's true of a lot of things.
So, is it States Rights to stand up to federal laws you don't like, or is it complete idiocy and those wise people in the federal government know better?
That depends on what the issue is, doesn't it? It's rather like asking whether it's better for a legislator to vote yes or no on bills. In this case, we know what the science says. It's not what the current national administration says, of course, so I don't see why you're saying we should go with the Federal government.
The optimum climate is the one we adapted to. This is a very human-centric statement, but I'm a human both biologically and socially..
If the climate changes, people will have to move in large numbers. Some food crops will fail. Some large areas will become arid. Sea level change won't matter much most of the time, but at times it will matter very much (like Sandy's storm surge). There's other changes. We don't have a precise idea of the time scale, but we know a lot of what's going to happen.
It's arguable that warming the planet up a little is a good thing in the long run, but we're not doing it in the long run. I've lived in pretty much the same place for over sixty years, and winters have changed substantially. That's the short run. We're making massive changes much faster than we can accommodate them.
As far as gun regs, Congress decided you couldn't buy a modern infantry rifle over thirty years ago. That was the end of the Second.
I'm not saying that banning the sale of post-1986 automatic weapons was inherently bad in itself, but I'm rather fond of Constitutional protections even if I don't personally agree with them.
You can ignore DMCA takedown requests. The problem with that is that, if the entity claiming infringement actually sues, you get included in the lawsuit. However, if you're sure the takedown requester isn't going to sue, there's no downside. That's why the DMCA takedown system works for the big guys but not the little guys.
Uranium and plutonium don't go boom with critical mass. They melt down. They only go boom with critical mass in tight containment, and nuclear weapons include a neutron emitter to make sure the chain reaction starts.
Not to mention that U-238, which is almost all naturally occurring uranium, doesn't have a critical mass. If it was capable of going critical, everyone in WWII would have had nukes.
Looks like your link (apparently from a romance language) is about ingesting alpha emitters, which is a Bad Idea. Keep them out of the body and they're far less dangerous.
You left out the Navy, which has carrier-based and land-based aircraft, in addition to the Marine air. The Army is by law forbidden to have fixed-wing aircraft, but it has swarms of helicopters. I'm not sure what the Coast Guard has, but it's likely the only service or quasi-service arm without a sizable air contingent.
The Coast Guard has cutters that make good minor warships, and has a lot of well-trained sailors. Merging it in with the Navy for wartime makes good sense.
The Marines are a separate force for complicated historical reasons, and by "historical" I mean the history of bureaucratic infighting, not any history involving people shooting each other. The US Marines were an outgrowth of the Navy's desire to meddle with things ashore, and the Navy pretty much won the 1947 battle that resulted in the Defense Department. (In Britain, Marines were Army soldiers assigned to ships.)
Socialism wouldn't have to forbid private roads. There were no laws against setting up your own business in the later Soviet Union (I'm not as familiar with the workings of the earlier USSR). You just couldn't hire an employee.
Of course, when everyone shoveling asphalt works for a worker-owned company without interference from the government, that's also socialism.
Ignoring the first section of that post, the main roles of the Coast Guard are to keep our waterways safe and stop smuggling, neither of which currently applies to space. It may be useful to create a United States Space Force in fifty years, but right now it's a dumb idea.
A veteran once told me that his paybook said "Army Air Corps" throughout WWII. Apparently, the Army Air Corps was the people, and the Army Air Force was the organization. In WWII, the Army Air Force operated pretty much independently from the Army Ground Forces. Patton pleaded for the Navy to send escort carriers to cover the Sicily landings, because the Navy fliers were much more cooperative.
The problem is that there isn't one definition of bad weather that applies to all travel. I might be in a vital occupation, and it may be extremely important for me to get into work. I might live paycheck to paycheck and fear being fired if I don't show up. I might have to pick up an important prescription, or see a doctor about something that needs treatment now. I might not have food in the house.
In all these situations, the human can make the call whether to go out or not. If the human has bad judgment, it will show in the human's insurance rates. A self-driving car can't decide whether the destination is worth the risk. If the self-driving car can't be told to go out in the bad weather, or if the self-driving car can't handle it, they aren't ready as general-purpose vehicles.
In the US, a Social Security number is just fine as identification. It really, really sucks as authentication. The problem is not people seeing my SSN and associating that with me, but with people assuming that anyone with my SSN is in fact me.
I can walk on a fast inclined treadmill until my heart and lungs won't support it any more. My legs get tired a lot more slowly. That doesn't apply to push-ups, where my arms will give out before I'm breathing very hard. If I want to do high energy, I'm a lot better off on the leg machines. A push-up only lifts two hundred and mumble pounds. On a leg machine, I can lift 350 at the very least, and if I get back into shape will lift 500.
And that State works differently with different people in power. Acting like there is no difference between the parties is giving up, particularly when it's combined with a desire not to try to influence one of the parties. You're never going to get anywhere near everything you want from government, but you can influence what it does.
And do that for primary elections also. The number of people who expect a process they don't even look at to produce candidates they like is appalling. For extra credit, get involved in the major party of your choice, so you have additional influence. (Minor parties are sometimes worthwhile locally, but on a national level they have no power.)
If the fees aren't worth it, your business can always refuse to accept credit and debit cards. Most merchants appear to think that the cost and hassle of accepting the cards is worth it.
As a customer, I gain from using my Amazon credit card, because I get points back that I can spend at Amazon like they were cash, and my wife and I buy enough on Amazon to make it worthwhile. I also get half-assed financial records, which are usually adequate for my budgeting. If I were to get an automatic 2-3% discount for paying cash, it might be worthwhile, but as it is the incentive is for the customer to use plastic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't find "we have studied the issue, and have decided we'll publish misleading and positively dangerous information that influences people to foster epidemics on our website anyway" to be as tenable and appealing a position as you clearly do.
Man, there's always something new and interesting coming up.
Similarly, water is absolutely vital for life, but I bet you'd complain if I dropped you in Lake Superior out of sight of land.
When done right, fracking is done below a layer of impermeable rock, which means that refinery waste or whatever stays down there and isn't going to pollute anything we rely on. The process does appear to cause earthquakes, and it isn't clear how good that is. I can construct arguments that it's a good thin and that it's a bad thing, and we really don't know enough to decide between them.
Fracking done wrong is bad, but that's true of a lot of things.
That depends on what the issue is, doesn't it? It's rather like asking whether it's better for a legislator to vote yes or no on bills. In this case, we know what the science says. It's not what the current national administration says, of course, so I don't see why you're saying we should go with the Federal government.
The optimum climate is the one we adapted to. This is a very human-centric statement, but I'm a human both biologically and socially..
If the climate changes, people will have to move in large numbers. Some food crops will fail. Some large areas will become arid. Sea level change won't matter much most of the time, but at times it will matter very much (like Sandy's storm surge). There's other changes. We don't have a precise idea of the time scale, but we know a lot of what's going to happen.
It's arguable that warming the planet up a little is a good thing in the long run, but we're not doing it in the long run. I've lived in pretty much the same place for over sixty years, and winters have changed substantially. That's the short run. We're making massive changes much faster than we can accommodate them.
Orbital mechanics. I could use a million dollars.
So scientists agree that you'll send me a million dollars?
As far as gun regs, Congress decided you couldn't buy a modern infantry rifle over thirty years ago. That was the end of the Second.
I'm not saying that banning the sale of post-1986 automatic weapons was inherently bad in itself, but I'm rather fond of Constitutional protections even if I don't personally agree with them.
You can ignore DMCA takedown requests. The problem with that is that, if the entity claiming infringement actually sues, you get included in the lawsuit. However, if you're sure the takedown requester isn't going to sue, there's no downside. That's why the DMCA takedown system works for the big guys but not the little guys.
So what profits would Youtube get out of that? That's the motivation here.
Uranium and plutonium don't go boom with critical mass. They melt down. They only go boom with critical mass in tight containment, and nuclear weapons include a neutron emitter to make sure the chain reaction starts.
Not to mention that U-238, which is almost all naturally occurring uranium, doesn't have a critical mass. If it was capable of going critical, everyone in WWII would have had nukes.
Looks like your link (apparently from a romance language) is about ingesting alpha emitters, which is a Bad Idea. Keep them out of the body and they're far less dangerous.
You left out the Navy, which has carrier-based and land-based aircraft, in addition to the Marine air. The Army is by law forbidden to have fixed-wing aircraft, but it has swarms of helicopters. I'm not sure what the Coast Guard has, but it's likely the only service or quasi-service arm without a sizable air contingent.
The Coast Guard has cutters that make good minor warships, and has a lot of well-trained sailors. Merging it in with the Navy for wartime makes good sense.
The Marines are a separate force for complicated historical reasons, and by "historical" I mean the history of bureaucratic infighting, not any history involving people shooting each other. The US Marines were an outgrowth of the Navy's desire to meddle with things ashore, and the Navy pretty much won the 1947 battle that resulted in the Defense Department. (In Britain, Marines were Army soldiers assigned to ships.)
Socialism wouldn't have to forbid private roads. There were no laws against setting up your own business in the later Soviet Union (I'm not as familiar with the workings of the earlier USSR). You just couldn't hire an employee.
Of course, when everyone shoveling asphalt works for a worker-owned company without interference from the government, that's also socialism.
Ignoring the first section of that post, the main roles of the Coast Guard are to keep our waterways safe and stop smuggling, neither of which currently applies to space. It may be useful to create a United States Space Force in fifty years, but right now it's a dumb idea.
A veteran once told me that his paybook said "Army Air Corps" throughout WWII. Apparently, the Army Air Corps was the people, and the Army Air Force was the organization. In WWII, the Army Air Force operated pretty much independently from the Army Ground Forces. Patton pleaded for the Navy to send escort carriers to cover the Sicily landings, because the Navy fliers were much more cooperative.
The problem is that there isn't one definition of bad weather that applies to all travel. I might be in a vital occupation, and it may be extremely important for me to get into work. I might live paycheck to paycheck and fear being fired if I don't show up. I might have to pick up an important prescription, or see a doctor about something that needs treatment now. I might not have food in the house.
In all these situations, the human can make the call whether to go out or not. If the human has bad judgment, it will show in the human's insurance rates. A self-driving car can't decide whether the destination is worth the risk. If the self-driving car can't be told to go out in the bad weather, or if the self-driving car can't handle it, they aren't ready as general-purpose vehicles.
In the US, a Social Security number is just fine as identification. It really, really sucks as authentication. The problem is not people seeing my SSN and associating that with me, but with people assuming that anyone with my SSN is in fact me.
I can walk on a fast inclined treadmill until my heart and lungs won't support it any more. My legs get tired a lot more slowly. That doesn't apply to push-ups, where my arms will give out before I'm breathing very hard. If I want to do high energy, I'm a lot better off on the leg machines. A push-up only lifts two hundred and mumble pounds. On a leg machine, I can lift 350 at the very least, and if I get back into shape will lift 500.
You, sir, need a lot more cynicism to function in the modern world.
And that State works differently with different people in power. Acting like there is no difference between the parties is giving up, particularly when it's combined with a desire not to try to influence one of the parties. You're never going to get anywhere near everything you want from government, but you can influence what it does.
And do that for primary elections also. The number of people who expect a process they don't even look at to produce candidates they like is appalling. For extra credit, get involved in the major party of your choice, so you have additional influence. (Minor parties are sometimes worthwhile locally, but on a national level they have no power.)
If the fees aren't worth it, your business can always refuse to accept credit and debit cards. Most merchants appear to think that the cost and hassle of accepting the cards is worth it. As a customer, I gain from using my Amazon credit card, because I get points back that I can spend at Amazon like they were cash, and my wife and I buy enough on Amazon to make it worthwhile. I also get half-assed financial records, which are usually adequate for my budgeting. If I were to get an automatic 2-3% discount for paying cash, it might be worthwhile, but as it is the incentive is for the customer to use plastic.
Continued trials with the same equipment and circumstances aren't independent. The certainty from the Breathalyzer tests was not much over 75%.