And your work is entirely not intended to be performed in a NoSQL DB. There are still plenty of uses for NoSQL, and it is most certainly not hype itself (although there has been lots of hype about it). It will be here for a long, long time, as it has some incredibly useful use-cases. You should accept that there are uses you are unaware of:)
The vehicles themselves ARE zero-emission as they don't emit any CO2. The power source is a different matter. It seems you are confusing zero-emissions and carbon footprints.
They don't need replacing after a "fairly short" life. They are rather expensive and quite heavy, but both of those will improve. Apart from everything you wrote, you're absolutely correct! Bravo!
No advancing of marine mammal knowledge happens in these theme parks, apart from discovering that each and every time the animals in question have poorer health (physical & mental), and die sooner.
And yes, of course many die in the wild, but by your reasoning we should keep everyone in captivity, as people die in the wild - doesn't that seem rather bizarre logic?
Seaworld exists to make money. That's it. Their scientific endeavours are of severely limited importance to the field, and while their animal rescuing attempts are honourable, they are rather hypocritical in the face of their own record regarding the treatment of their own animals.
Well, yes, actually. If a criminal knows there is a strict penalty for using a gun in a crime, and that they don't need a gun to commit a crime (as their victims are most likely unarmed) they simply won't use them. If the police are unarmed, too, then there is definitely no need to have a gun, as the penalty for having one will be insane. In 2011, German police fired 85 shots in total. Not per officer, but for the entire country. Most of those shots were warning shots, too. That's the difference. If guns aren't needed, people don't have them - whether the person in question is a law-abiding member of the public, or a drug-addled crazed criminal.
Nearly. If seatbelts caused the need for more seatbelts, you'd have a point. And if occasionally some people freaked out (as they are human) and their seatbelt could be used as a lethal weapon, and then was used in such a fashion, causing more people to want seatbelts etc. etc. etc. you'd have a point. But you don't.
The homogeneity of Austria isn't as strong as you think. If you look at the social support in place you will see that poor people don't have to resort to crime to survive. They get good medical care and are not ostracised. Your nonsense about multiple cultures being strange to them is indeed that - nonsense. Other cultures have nothing to do with this, and are very present in Austria. It seems you have constructed a notion of Austria that doesn't seem to exist, either on purpose or by accident.
You would have a point if there were not a great number of people who recover after a suicide attempt, who go on to wish they'd never attempted suicide. As those people exist, you are a monster, and incorrect at that. You also seem to claim that people don't buy guns for self-defense, as that purpose would most certainly entail using it on a person. It's as if you pick and choose which parts of reality to accept as real just to make your case. Weird.
If someone wants to kill themselves they might try. If the method they choose can kill them with the greatest of ease, they are more likely to do so. There are many studies to this - it's not some esoteric knowledge some anti-gun-nuts come up with - it's supported by reams of evidence. Also, the longer a method takes to work means the more chance of the person attempting suicide to reconsider, and stop. There is no such chance with a gun. Yes, guns on their own never kill anyone, but they make it so easy to kill people that what otherwise would simply be a burst of rage or ill-judgement ends up being a burst of rage or ill-judgement and at least one body. When it's as easy to kill someone as it is to get angry, deaths will follow, which is precisely what we see in the US, and not in other countries with more focus on health and not needing guns. But I'm sure you have some pithy response you heard someone say which you will parrot back to me now as if it somehow makes your false assumptions correct and your position make sense.
Because many people who attempt suicide are not mentally responsible enough to make that decision. When you make the barrier to suicide as low as "pull the trigger" you end up with far more successful suicides. Every inch the barrier is raised the more lives are saved - people who later go on to regret having even attempted suicide. It's obviously far easier to pick up your gun and shoot yourself than it is to go find some gas and a bag and kill yourself, or to slice your own wrists, or to eat a big bottle of pills, etc. Plus those other methods, once started, offer a chance of survival if one has second thoughts. There is no second chance with a gun. "My body, my choice" is fine, but if the person in question is mentally unbalanced, it's arguable whether it is actually their body at the time in question, and whether they have the mental acuity to formulate a reasoned choice. Suicide is a health issue, not a criminal one.
The constitution was never intended to last forever. It was supposed to be redrawn every generation, but the bizarre reverence people place in it means it became untouchable - original amendments are to stay, as some sort of testament to the brilliance of the founding fathers and the country that is America (even though the founding fathers were against such nonsense). It's strange, but it seems the figurehead of the US is the constitution - the embodiment of the country. If one were to want to, it would be rather fitting to describe the US as a constitutional monarchy, with the constitution being the monarch. Weird. Chuck out the constitution and start over, as the founding fathers intended. Keeping rules which seemed awesome in 1790 in 2014 isn't automatically a great idea. Humanity has learned a lot, and the US of those days was a lot different to the US of today. Keeping rules around simply "because" is not helping anyone. If you can't argue for something beyond "but it's in the constitution" then you're doing it wrong, and your point is probably bogus. Tradition for tradition's sake is lazy and dangerous. Tradition for the sake of tradition and nationalism/patriotism is even worse, and will guarantee corruption and suffering if given long enough.
Those examples, while tragic, do not change the stated fact - disabling shots are used frequently, and the outcomes are usually better than the 90-shots-into-some-dude approach.
Or you could work on improving your country so it doesn't sound like the wild west or something from Mad Max. Honestly - where do you live?? Just for a comparison, the police in the country I live in fired just 85 shots in total for the whole of 2011. Most of those were warning shots. Lots of people here have guns, but purely for sport. Surely something must be broken in your country if even owning a gun is some sort of necessity. Is crime really that bad where you live? Mod me down if you wish, but that won't fix anything.
Because the only weapons someone can use for self-defense are handguns?? Pepper spray works wonders, you know. Or a stun gun. You do know other weapons exist, right? You can't be that dense, surely.
Money does not change science - it can only pay for it. If you are so correct, all it would take is a single scientist to go over the peer-reviewed literature and lay the whole conspiracy open. That scientist would win the Nobel prize and be able to name their price from any research institution anywhere in the world. They would be the most famous scientist in the world, in living memory. Who benefits from scientific discoveries does not change their veracity - you do realise that, right? Just because Al Qaeda used planes on 9/11 didn't automatically make Bernoulli's and Newton's discoveries wrong.
Those NASA scientists weren't climatologists. Nice try, though. If you can find one scientist who was dismissed for publishing a peer-reviewed paper which showed AGW to be bunk, you'd have a point. But you don't. So you don't. The other side of the story is nonsensical blatherings which have been debunked dozens of times before. They are half-assed claims based from feelings which hold no water when looked at in depth. Richard Lindzen has been shown to be somewhat deluded - he has had a great career, but his claims do frequent 180s to the point you can find him arguing with himself if you compare his stances over the course of a mere few years. If he's your poster boy for respectable, decent science, you should probably give up or keep looking. Even citing his name as someone on your "side" makes you look utterly ridiculous. Utterly.
They are in school to be educated. That means they have to be taught how to think for themselves, and to catch them up on what has already been discovered. Unless you are for letting children discern mathematics or to discover Newton's laws of motion all by themselves, and hoping they don't make mistakes. The viewpoint in question is called "reality", and is shared by nearly 100% of the scientists in their field. I know you might not agree with the findings, but to deny children an education because of your personal bias and distrust of science is, well, pathetic.
1. The medieval warm period affected only the North Atlantic 2. It was colder than it is today, not hotter. We've been hotter than the MWP since ~1980. 3. They're not considered cyclical, so your ass-delving for 1950 seems bizarre.
After 3 I stop trying to correct, as it's wasting my time, and I feel it's wasting yours, as I doubt you will take any of that on board.
So how would you describe learning physics? "Physics history"? Then what's history? "History history?" Or last week's scientific discoveries? "Last-week's science history"? We have the word "science" to denote the field, the method, and the findings. They're all aspects of science. Did you suck at science or something?
Slashdot Mirror
And your work is entirely not intended to be performed in a NoSQL DB. There are still plenty of uses for NoSQL, and it is most certainly not hype itself (although there has been lots of hype about it). It will be here for a long, long time, as it has some incredibly useful use-cases. You should accept that there are uses you are unaware of :)
The vehicles themselves ARE zero-emission as they don't emit any CO2. The power source is a different matter. It seems you are confusing zero-emissions and carbon footprints.
They don't need replacing after a "fairly short" life. They are rather expensive and quite heavy, but both of those will improve. Apart from everything you wrote, you're absolutely correct! Bravo!
All the money you save by driving an EV for 50 weeks of the year covers the cost of renting a car for 1 or 2 weeks, and then some.
No advancing of marine mammal knowledge happens in these theme parks, apart from discovering that each and every time the animals in question have poorer health (physical & mental), and die sooner.
And yes, of course many die in the wild, but by your reasoning we should keep everyone in captivity, as people die in the wild - doesn't that seem rather bizarre logic?
Seaworld exists to make money. That's it. Their scientific endeavours are of severely limited importance to the field, and while their animal rescuing attempts are honourable, they are rather hypocritical in the face of their own record regarding the treatment of their own animals.
Someone get Musk on the phone and tell him to shut up shop because delt0r found an example where an electric car won't be perfect!
More nonsense. But it's stenvar, so why am I surprised?
It isn't. The purpose of terrorism, as per its definition, is to coerce a people into political change by the use or threat of force.
In 2011, 32,163 people were killed with firearms in the US, not 10,000. Just FYI.
Well, yes, actually. If a criminal knows there is a strict penalty for using a gun in a crime, and that they don't need a gun to commit a crime (as their victims are most likely unarmed) they simply won't use them. If the police are unarmed, too, then there is definitely no need to have a gun, as the penalty for having one will be insane. In 2011, German police fired 85 shots in total. Not per officer, but for the entire country. Most of those shots were warning shots, too. That's the difference. If guns aren't needed, people don't have them - whether the person in question is a law-abiding member of the public, or a drug-addled crazed criminal.
Nearly. If seatbelts caused the need for more seatbelts, you'd have a point. And if occasionally some people freaked out (as they are human) and their seatbelt could be used as a lethal weapon, and then was used in such a fashion, causing more people to want seatbelts etc. etc. etc. you'd have a point. But you don't.
The homogeneity of Austria isn't as strong as you think. If you look at the social support in place you will see that poor people don't have to resort to crime to survive. They get good medical care and are not ostracised. Your nonsense about multiple cultures being strange to them is indeed that - nonsense. Other cultures have nothing to do with this, and are very present in Austria. It seems you have constructed a notion of Austria that doesn't seem to exist, either on purpose or by accident.
You would have a point if there were not a great number of people who recover after a suicide attempt, who go on to wish they'd never attempted suicide. As those people exist, you are a monster, and incorrect at that. You also seem to claim that people don't buy guns for self-defense, as that purpose would most certainly entail using it on a person. It's as if you pick and choose which parts of reality to accept as real just to make your case. Weird.
If someone wants to kill themselves they might try. If the method they choose can kill them with the greatest of ease, they are more likely to do so. There are many studies to this - it's not some esoteric knowledge some anti-gun-nuts come up with - it's supported by reams of evidence. Also, the longer a method takes to work means the more chance of the person attempting suicide to reconsider, and stop. There is no such chance with a gun. Yes, guns on their own never kill anyone, but they make it so easy to kill people that what otherwise would simply be a burst of rage or ill-judgement ends up being a burst of rage or ill-judgement and at least one body. When it's as easy to kill someone as it is to get angry, deaths will follow, which is precisely what we see in the US, and not in other countries with more focus on health and not needing guns. But I'm sure you have some pithy response you heard someone say which you will parrot back to me now as if it somehow makes your false assumptions correct and your position make sense.
Because many people who attempt suicide are not mentally responsible enough to make that decision. When you make the barrier to suicide as low as "pull the trigger" you end up with far more successful suicides. Every inch the barrier is raised the more lives are saved - people who later go on to regret having even attempted suicide. It's obviously far easier to pick up your gun and shoot yourself than it is to go find some gas and a bag and kill yourself, or to slice your own wrists, or to eat a big bottle of pills, etc. Plus those other methods, once started, offer a chance of survival if one has second thoughts. There is no second chance with a gun. "My body, my choice" is fine, but if the person in question is mentally unbalanced, it's arguable whether it is actually their body at the time in question, and whether they have the mental acuity to formulate a reasoned choice. Suicide is a health issue, not a criminal one.
The constitution was never intended to last forever. It was supposed to be redrawn every generation, but the bizarre reverence people place in it means it became untouchable - original amendments are to stay, as some sort of testament to the brilliance of the founding fathers and the country that is America (even though the founding fathers were against such nonsense). It's strange, but it seems the figurehead of the US is the constitution - the embodiment of the country. If one were to want to, it would be rather fitting to describe the US as a constitutional monarchy, with the constitution being the monarch. Weird. Chuck out the constitution and start over, as the founding fathers intended. Keeping rules which seemed awesome in 1790 in 2014 isn't automatically a great idea. Humanity has learned a lot, and the US of those days was a lot different to the US of today. Keeping rules around simply "because" is not helping anyone. If you can't argue for something beyond "but it's in the constitution" then you're doing it wrong, and your point is probably bogus. Tradition for tradition's sake is lazy and dangerous. Tradition for the sake of tradition and nationalism/patriotism is even worse, and will guarantee corruption and suffering if given long enough.
Those examples, while tragic, do not change the stated fact - disabling shots are used frequently, and the outcomes are usually better than the 90-shots-into-some-dude approach.
Whereas I live in a country without rampant gun crime and violence, so I don't need any self defense.
Or you could work on improving your country so it doesn't sound like the wild west or something from Mad Max. Honestly - where do you live?? Just for a comparison, the police in the country I live in fired just 85 shots in total for the whole of 2011. Most of those were warning shots. Lots of people here have guns, but purely for sport. Surely something must be broken in your country if even owning a gun is some sort of necessity. Is crime really that bad where you live? Mod me down if you wish, but that won't fix anything.
Because the only weapons someone can use for self-defense are handguns?? Pepper spray works wonders, you know. Or a stun gun. You do know other weapons exist, right? You can't be that dense, surely.
Money does not change science - it can only pay for it. If you are so correct, all it would take is a single scientist to go over the peer-reviewed literature and lay the whole conspiracy open. That scientist would win the Nobel prize and be able to name their price from any research institution anywhere in the world. They would be the most famous scientist in the world, in living memory. Who benefits from scientific discoveries does not change their veracity - you do realise that, right? Just because Al Qaeda used planes on 9/11 didn't automatically make Bernoulli's and Newton's discoveries wrong.
Those NASA scientists weren't climatologists. Nice try, though. If you can find one scientist who was dismissed for publishing a peer-reviewed paper which showed AGW to be bunk, you'd have a point. But you don't. So you don't. The other side of the story is nonsensical blatherings which have been debunked dozens of times before. They are half-assed claims based from feelings which hold no water when looked at in depth. Richard Lindzen has been shown to be somewhat deluded - he has had a great career, but his claims do frequent 180s to the point you can find him arguing with himself if you compare his stances over the course of a mere few years. If he's your poster boy for respectable, decent science, you should probably give up or keep looking. Even citing his name as someone on your "side" makes you look utterly ridiculous. Utterly.
They are in school to be educated. That means they have to be taught how to think for themselves, and to catch them up on what has already been discovered. Unless you are for letting children discern mathematics or to discover Newton's laws of motion all by themselves, and hoping they don't make mistakes. The viewpoint in question is called "reality", and is shared by nearly 100% of the scientists in their field. I know you might not agree with the findings, but to deny children an education because of your personal bias and distrust of science is, well, pathetic.
1. The medieval warm period affected only the North Atlantic
2. It was colder than it is today, not hotter. We've been hotter than the MWP since ~1980.
3. They're not considered cyclical, so your ass-delving for 1950 seems bizarre.
After 3 I stop trying to correct, as it's wasting my time, and I feel it's wasting yours, as I doubt you will take any of that on board.
So how would you describe learning physics? "Physics history"? Then what's history? "History history?" Or last week's scientific discoveries? "Last-week's science history"? We have the word "science" to denote the field, the method, and the findings. They're all aspects of science. Did you suck at science or something?