Because many people are in prison for non-violent offences. The companies which make money from prisons, and the unions along side them, put pressure on the police to ensure people are sent there, as it is in their financial interests. Hell, the police like doing it because it makes them seem "tough on crime", without having to explain the difference between someone having some weed or stabbing a nun in the face - "crime" is "crime", and the tougher they are on it the better for them.
If the people in prison were there for good reason, then you'd have a point. As it is a sizeable portion are there for absolutely no good reason, and the system actively encourages that.
A huge black mark on science? Weird. You really have no idea, and seem to be proud of that fact. The only black mark is on the societies and cultures which raise people who think the way you do - selectively eschewing the scientific method when its findings make you feel bad. The science is sound, your understanding of it is not.
Your logic is, well, fucked. The pope can say whatever he wants - it doesn't change the evidence. Your clearly need to do some reading, as your knowledge of this field is severely lacking.
We need to preserve the diversity of life to survive. This is well understood by biologists. It has nothing to do with rights, but simple pragmatism. The more species we can rely on for our sustenance the better, as should a problem occur with one (a pest, overutilisation, etc.) we have more species to fall back on while we fix the problem. We saw what happened to Ireland when their food diversity dwindled - famines leading to millions dying and being displaced.
Your understanding of this field is flawed, it seems. The "mild warming" you are talking about does not improve agriculture. The crops humans rely on are heavily suited to their environment. Our staple grains are usually less nutritional with increased CO2, so we'd need to grow more to sustain the current population. The land suitable for agriculture will move towards the poles, into areas with sub-par soil (in the case of areas previously scoured by glacial activity) and no infrastructure to farm it (as the farmers live where they currently farm, and moving them, their machinery, and the associated industry support continually towards the poles for generations to come). So not only are your grains less nutritional, you need to grow more of them with fewer resources in poorer soil.
People do care and they have called out the charlatans. You seem to believe the charlatans, though, which would explain why you are claiming things the evidence simply does not suggest. I'd suggest reading the IPCC reports, but I don't think that'd help you.
You completely misunderstood dskoll's point. Entirely, 100% missed it. You thinking it has something to do with gay people says a lot about you, though...
You have that entirely backwards. High-density living is the most carbon efficient. Public transport is more efficient than cars, centralised heating/cooling is more efficient, and energy loss through transmission is lowered. The reason air quality in cities frequently sucks is due to cars - with proper public transport even that doesn't have to be the case.
This is why you are called a denialist. All data is incomplete (as we can not measure everything in the universe, or every atom in the planet), some models are doing very well (see here, for example), and "hidden consequences" doesn't mean anything as if they are hidden you don't know about them, meaning you can't use them in your argument. If you'd said "consequences", you'd have to tell us what they are. You are clearly intelligent - how you can selectively ignore the scientific method is beyond me, especially when your entire life is predicated on it being effective.
And then realise you have to install a VM because you can't get your required apps to work, and WINE doesn't support them. Then you have the worst of both worlds! Nice!
Cars are actively discouraged. This is obvious through things like bus lanes taking priority, the congestion charge, and so on. Even if you can pay the congestion charge, you'll still find your progress impeded by the other forms of transport on the road which have priority. People can use the masses of public transport (underground trains, overground trains, buses, boats on the river, etc.), which is good for poor people as these services are cheaper than taking a car into the centre.
After the great fire the roads were largely rebuilt where they were before. Christopher Wren's grand scheme for flattening and redesigning the city centre with continental-European avenues and boulevards never came to fruition, even though he did submit them to Charles II.
Because regardless of whether it's the immigrants or native-born French people who are poor, poverty is the problem. If you want to fix the problem, fix poverty, as that fixes the perceived problem with immigration and that of poor French people, all without trampling France's history of welcoming immigrants and its egalitarian nature into the dirt through fear-based reactionary politics.
Errr APK - you are stalking me right now. I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense, in a vain attempt to try to get you to stop. You are following me through my posting history and adding these strange multiple-personality-disorder-esque attacks on me while pretending to be someone else. It's worrying behaviour. Seriously. Get some help.
That's the thing, though. Plenty of mad gunmen have been law-abiding gun owners right up to the point where they straight-up murder a bunch of people. The insanely-frequent mass shootings the US sees are very rarely gang related.
You are describing London:) Cars are actively discouraged from the city centre, the roads were created following the terrain (mainly), and public transport is everywhere, and as close to fantastic as can be expected in an old, sprawling city. The guy in question lives right out in the boonies, and yet still has great public transport links to the city centre, no car required.
You just admitted it yourself - they are poor. It doesn't matter if they were born in Paris, Lyon, Mars, Germany, wherever - if you take a poor person and put them in that situation, the outcome is the same. It's not about political correctness, it's about correctness. Getting hung up on an accidental quality isn't going to help the situation. If you somehow got rid of all the immigrants, and made every Parisian just as poor as the immigrants were, it would be a much worse situation.
So no - immigration is not the problem, but poverty. You said it yourself in your post, a couple of times, actually. Fix poverty, then it you don't have to stop people from moving about. You're not an immigrant hater or a racist, you're just not being very logical:) You can remove every reference to immigration and immigrants in your post, and your argument will make just as much sense, and be entirely accurate to boot.
No, I was just pointing out that your arrogance doesn't shape the universe. People usually figure this out in their childhood, but I guess you skipped a few steps.
Slashdot Mirror
Because many people are in prison for non-violent offences. The companies which make money from prisons, and the unions along side them, put pressure on the police to ensure people are sent there, as it is in their financial interests. Hell, the police like doing it because it makes them seem "tough on crime", without having to explain the difference between someone having some weed or stabbing a nun in the face - "crime" is "crime", and the tougher they are on it the better for them.
If the people in prison were there for good reason, then you'd have a point. As it is a sizeable portion are there for absolutely no good reason, and the system actively encourages that.
A huge black mark on science? Weird. You really have no idea, and seem to be proud of that fact. The only black mark is on the societies and cultures which raise people who think the way you do - selectively eschewing the scientific method when its findings make you feel bad. The science is sound, your understanding of it is not.
Your logic is, well, fucked. The pope can say whatever he wants - it doesn't change the evidence. Your clearly need to do some reading, as your knowledge of this field is severely lacking.
We need to preserve the diversity of life to survive. This is well understood by biologists. It has nothing to do with rights, but simple pragmatism. The more species we can rely on for our sustenance the better, as should a problem occur with one (a pest, overutilisation, etc.) we have more species to fall back on while we fix the problem. We saw what happened to Ireland when their food diversity dwindled - famines leading to millions dying and being displaced.
That is not how populations work. If it were, the highest birth rates would be in the developed, not developing, worlds.
Your understanding of this field is flawed, it seems. The "mild warming" you are talking about does not improve agriculture. The crops humans rely on are heavily suited to their environment. Our staple grains are usually less nutritional with increased CO2, so we'd need to grow more to sustain the current population. The land suitable for agriculture will move towards the poles, into areas with sub-par soil (in the case of areas previously scoured by glacial activity) and no infrastructure to farm it (as the farmers live where they currently farm, and moving them, their machinery, and the associated industry support continually towards the poles for generations to come). So not only are your grains less nutritional, you need to grow more of them with fewer resources in poorer soil.
People do care and they have called out the charlatans. You seem to believe the charlatans, though, which would explain why you are claiming things the evidence simply does not suggest. I'd suggest reading the IPCC reports, but I don't think that'd help you.
You completely misunderstood dskoll's point. Entirely, 100% missed it. You thinking it has something to do with gay people says a lot about you, though...
You can feign indignance or you can read the IPCC report. Your choice.
You have that entirely backwards. High-density living is the most carbon efficient. Public transport is more efficient than cars, centralised heating/cooling is more efficient, and energy loss through transmission is lowered. The reason air quality in cities frequently sucks is due to cars - with proper public transport even that doesn't have to be the case.
This is why you are called a denialist. All data is incomplete (as we can not measure everything in the universe, or every atom in the planet), some models are doing very well (see here, for example), and "hidden consequences" doesn't mean anything as if they are hidden you don't know about them, meaning you can't use them in your argument. If you'd said "consequences", you'd have to tell us what they are. You are clearly intelligent - how you can selectively ignore the scientific method is beyond me, especially when your entire life is predicated on it being effective.
And the actual scientists have even more evidence that your understanding of climate change is inherently flawed.
They also flat-out denied it would be a subscription model, so I guess that trumps your hints :)
And then realise you have to install a VM because you can't get your required apps to work, and WINE doesn't support them. Then you have the worst of both worlds! Nice!
Surely if it has a detectable active ingredient it's decidedly not homeopathic...
Cars are actively discouraged. This is obvious through things like bus lanes taking priority, the congestion charge, and so on. Even if you can pay the congestion charge, you'll still find your progress impeded by the other forms of transport on the road which have priority. People can use the masses of public transport (underground trains, overground trains, buses, boats on the river, etc.), which is good for poor people as these services are cheaper than taking a car into the centre.
After the great fire the roads were largely rebuilt where they were before. Christopher Wren's grand scheme for flattening and redesigning the city centre with continental-European avenues and boulevards never came to fruition, even though he did submit them to Charles II.
Because regardless of whether it's the immigrants or native-born French people who are poor, poverty is the problem. If you want to fix the problem, fix poverty, as that fixes the perceived problem with immigration and that of poor French people, all without trampling France's history of welcoming immigrants and its egalitarian nature into the dirt through fear-based reactionary politics.
Errr APK - you are stalking me right now. I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense, in a vain attempt to try to get you to stop. You are following me through my posting history and adding these strange multiple-personality-disorder-esque attacks on me while pretending to be someone else. It's worrying behaviour. Seriously. Get some help.
Population density has very little to do with it.
That's the thing, though. Plenty of mad gunmen have been law-abiding gun owners right up to the point where they straight-up murder a bunch of people. The insanely-frequent mass shootings the US sees are very rarely gang related.
You are describing London :) Cars are actively discouraged from the city centre, the roads were created following the terrain (mainly), and public transport is everywhere, and as close to fantastic as can be expected in an old, sprawling city. The guy in question lives right out in the boonies, and yet still has great public transport links to the city centre, no car required.
You really have no idea. Your ignorance of politics and geography is astounding.
Easy, Hitler. Grown-ups are talking.
You just admitted it yourself - they are poor. It doesn't matter if they were born in Paris, Lyon, Mars, Germany, wherever - if you take a poor person and put them in that situation, the outcome is the same. It's not about political correctness, it's about correctness. Getting hung up on an accidental quality isn't going to help the situation. If you somehow got rid of all the immigrants, and made every Parisian just as poor as the immigrants were, it would be a much worse situation.
So no - immigration is not the problem, but poverty. You said it yourself in your post, a couple of times, actually. Fix poverty, then it you don't have to stop people from moving about. You're not an immigrant hater or a racist, you're just not being very logical :) You can remove every reference to immigration and immigrants in your post, and your argument will make just as much sense, and be entirely accurate to boot.
You noted but didn't bother to post any evidence supporting your claims. We can wait.
No, I was just pointing out that your arrogance doesn't shape the universe. People usually figure this out in their childhood, but I guess you skipped a few steps.