Are you referring to the Tessum Hill Marshall study? That was discussing particulates and ozone, not CO2. Burning coal for electricity is a terrible idea, but as electric vehicles are not tied to a particular power source, they won't force us to use fossil fuels for generations.
You don't realise this, but instead of attacking the UN, your post merely said "Jacob Zimmermann doesn't know how diplomacy works". That's it. That's all you said. The UN elects these people to these panels/commissions in order to engage them in areas they need to improve on. By directly talking to people (instead of calling them pussies and shooting drones at them), improvements can be, and frequently are, made.
It would help you to not assume you know how these things work before publicly condemning them, unless you want to show everyone how blinded by hubris and woefully ignorant you are.
Less crime, higher quality of life, longer life expectancy. Yeah - sounds terrible! Americans should care about facts, instead of warm fuzzy feelings of nationalism. Then maybe they'd get their shit together and stop throwing poor people under the bus so rich folks can have even more money.
So you openly admit that innocents get found guilty, and yet think the death penalty is somehow a good idea. You are either terrible at logic or a horrific person. Your choice.
Or you could try to figure out why you have so many more of them, and work on that, instead of throwing your hands in the air and calling for innocents to be caught up in your deadly rampage. Or simply house your guilty like a sane country.
Seeing as you can never be sure that the accused actually committed the crime, even with a confession, you are either not for the death penalty, or are for killing innocents. Pick one.
So you're fine with the idea of a perfectly-innocent person being shut in a box for a few hours with a heart monitor, while he is left to die. Good to know. You are a lovely person.
But the legal system is not perfect, and so the right-wingers are calling for innocent people to die, as one can not separate the innocents from the guilty every single time. So no, they don't view every life as extremely valuable - they view having the appearance of considering lives as extremely valuable as being extremely valuable. There is a disgusting difference.
You do realise that you are spending your time concocting devices which, if put into practice, would be used to kill innocent people, right? People just as deserving of death as you or your loved ones are. These are the people who will spend their last moments in one of your desired killing machines. Yes, most of the people through it will be guilty, but some won't.
The lessons are "humans simply can't do this well; every country with an active death penalty is attempting to stop innocent people from being killed by killing innocent people". Also I like how you just slipped "properly" in there at the end, as if everyone agrees. The innocence project has already shown us that the "proper" punishment is incarceration, as that keeps everyone just as safe, costs less, and can be corrected at a later date, should new evidence come to light.
The latter costs less, and lets the accused fight to clear their name while they have breath in their body. The former assumes people never make mistakes, which is clearly not true, and will ensure innocent people are killed on purpose.
The failings catching him had nothing to do with the justice system. The only way you could possibly be right is if you think Norway has some sort of pre-crime division. So, to sum up: Either you are correct, or Norway doesn't have a pre-crime division. Hmm... I wonder which is accurate. On the other hand, your post did serve a purpose - it shows how people's gut reactions often lead them to believe abject nonsense. When the gut reactions are dealing with whether people live or die, you can hopefully see how short-sighted your logical laziness is, and how it ultimately would lead to many deaths.
You should take a look at Norway's crime statistics compared to those in the US.
Nice unfounded, stab-in-the-dark racism. You were right with wealth, but ethnicity and culture have nothing to do with this problem. Your ignorance, on the other hand, certainly isn't helping.
That would make sense if the judicial process was without flaw. As we know that trials and hearings are often misconducted, you are essentially saying "fuck it - we're too lazy - just kill them after we've pretended to respect the notion of due process".
So you think due process is a bad idea, and that trials and hearings can never go wrong. The most dangerous thing here is your logic, or rather your distinct lack of it.
You are assuming the convicted is actually guilty. As we know that's not always the case, you should prefix your case with "For most cases..." and suffix it with ", but I'm fine with the occasional innocent paying for my shoddy logic with their life". This strikes me as rather perverse, as you are saying it's fine to kill innocent people. The only difference between that stance and that of a murderer is you are too cowardly to do it yourself. You sound really screwed up.
You are arguing against due process. Guilt is never beyond question. How quickly you condemn strangers to death for an ill-thought-out sense of safety. The really pathetic thing is you seem to think you've actually thought this through and are not being a colossal, selfish person in the process.
There is a difference between trusting some talking head or newspaper article on a subject, and believing what the entire field of climatology has produced. If that's the only argument you have, you really are pathetic. Utterly pathetic. "Danger to future generations" pathetic.
Then I should read the bible and come to the conclusion that all Christians are slave-owning monsters killing people to sate the desires of a perverted God who loves to force people into horrific situations for his own vanity? See how that works?
Slashdot Mirror
Can HOSTS files block your spamming? In-browser blocking can...
Teslas can charge in minutes at a super-charger, don't forget. Clearly not as quickly as a liquid-fuelled car, but it's still not hours.
And as someone else pointed out - 700 miles? Pull the other one.
Are you referring to the Tessum Hill Marshall study? That was discussing particulates and ozone, not CO2. Burning coal for electricity is a terrible idea, but as electric vehicles are not tied to a particular power source, they won't force us to use fossil fuels for generations.
You don't realise this, but instead of attacking the UN, your post merely said "Jacob Zimmermann doesn't know how diplomacy works". That's it. That's all you said. The UN elects these people to these panels/commissions in order to engage them in areas they need to improve on. By directly talking to people (instead of calling them pussies and shooting drones at them), improvements can be, and frequently are, made.
It would help you to not assume you know how these things work before publicly condemning them, unless you want to show everyone how blinded by hubris and woefully ignorant you are.
It's even uglier when the person is innocent.
Less crime, higher quality of life, longer life expectancy. Yeah - sounds terrible! Americans should care about facts, instead of warm fuzzy feelings of nationalism. Then maybe they'd get their shit together and stop throwing poor people under the bus so rich folks can have even more money.
So you openly admit that innocents get found guilty, and yet think the death penalty is somehow a good idea. You are either terrible at logic or a horrific person. Your choice.
And what if that person has an undiagnosed mental illness, or is taking the blame for the real killer who has threatened their family?
However you dress this up, if people can be executed, innocents will die.
Or you could try to figure out why you have so many more of them, and work on that, instead of throwing your hands in the air and calling for innocents to be caught up in your deadly rampage. Or simply house your guilty like a sane country.
Seeing as you can never be sure that the accused actually committed the crime, even with a confession, you are either not for the death penalty, or are for killing innocents. Pick one.
So you're fine with the idea of a perfectly-innocent person being shut in a box for a few hours with a heart monitor, while he is left to die. Good to know. You are a lovely person.
But the legal system is not perfect, and so the right-wingers are calling for innocent people to die, as one can not separate the innocents from the guilty every single time. So no, they don't view every life as extremely valuable - they view having the appearance of considering lives as extremely valuable as being extremely valuable. There is a disgusting difference.
You do realise that you are spending your time concocting devices which, if put into practice, would be used to kill innocent people, right? People just as deserving of death as you or your loved ones are. These are the people who will spend their last moments in one of your desired killing machines. Yes, most of the people through it will be guilty, but some won't.
The lessons are "humans simply can't do this well; every country with an active death penalty is attempting to stop innocent people from being killed by killing innocent people". Also I like how you just slipped "properly" in there at the end, as if everyone agrees. The innocence project has already shown us that the "proper" punishment is incarceration, as that keeps everyone just as safe, costs less, and can be corrected at a later date, should new evidence come to light.
The latter costs less, and lets the accused fight to clear their name while they have breath in their body. The former assumes people never make mistakes, which is clearly not true, and will ensure innocent people are killed on purpose.
The failings catching him had nothing to do with the justice system. The only way you could possibly be right is if you think Norway has some sort of pre-crime division. So, to sum up: Either you are correct, or Norway doesn't have a pre-crime division. Hmm... I wonder which is accurate. On the other hand, your post did serve a purpose - it shows how people's gut reactions often lead them to believe abject nonsense. When the gut reactions are dealing with whether people live or die, you can hopefully see how short-sighted your logical laziness is, and how it ultimately would lead to many deaths.
You should take a look at Norway's crime statistics compared to those in the US.
Nice unfounded, stab-in-the-dark racism. You were right with wealth, but ethnicity and culture have nothing to do with this problem. Your ignorance, on the other hand, certainly isn't helping.
That would make sense if the judicial process was without flaw. As we know that trials and hearings are often misconducted, you are essentially saying "fuck it - we're too lazy - just kill them after we've pretended to respect the notion of due process".
So you think due process is a bad idea, and that trials and hearings can never go wrong. The most dangerous thing here is your logic, or rather your distinct lack of it.
You are assuming the convicted is actually guilty. As we know that's not always the case, you should prefix your case with "For most cases..." and suffix it with ", but I'm fine with the occasional innocent paying for my shoddy logic with their life". This strikes me as rather perverse, as you are saying it's fine to kill innocent people. The only difference between that stance and that of a murderer is you are too cowardly to do it yourself. You sound really screwed up.
You are arguing against due process. Guilt is never beyond question. How quickly you condemn strangers to death for an ill-thought-out sense of safety. The really pathetic thing is you seem to think you've actually thought this through and are not being a colossal, selfish person in the process.
Apart from all that not leading, you are entirely correct.
There is a difference between trusting some talking head or newspaper article on a subject, and believing what the entire field of climatology has produced. If that's the only argument you have, you really are pathetic. Utterly pathetic. "Danger to future generations" pathetic.
Panels can be recycled. Uranium, not so much.
Then I should read the bible and come to the conclusion that all Christians are slave-owning monsters killing people to sate the desires of a perverted God who loves to force people into horrific situations for his own vanity? See how that works?
You are pathetic.