I'm not exactly sure if this can be explained in any simpler terms but i will give it one last shot beford declaring you too incompetant to overcome your ignorance.
Lets focus on the fallacy within your argument. Take any history book and it will basically say this is how thing were. Now when you look at real life and notice the north is no longer at war with the south or that we are no longer under rule of the king of england, you do not assume the history book was in error. No, you assume something has changed. So why cannot a history book that talks about the US across colonial days, the civil war, and today be correct even though it says things that are no longer followed today?
Now i know you are trolling and to simpke minded folk like you, you might even make sense. Your argument ignores fundemental facts of religion that have been present as long as we have known sbout that religion. You absolutely can claim the bible is inerrant and only the things under the current covenant apply. The problem with your thinking relies completely on your ignorance on the subject and inability or unwillingness to correct that. The stories in the old testament are the telling of the various covenants . The new testament contains the current covenant and evidence of it being created by the fulfilment of prophecy. The jews and muslims dont believe the fulfilment happened and the muslins think Jesus was only a prophit. That only happens with the concepts of covenants.
Sigh... You just don't get it. You probably never will get it. You are the one who demanded I defend Ollie North, I never brought him up.
No, supplying arms to terrorists who killed US marines is not treason if it is in our national interest just like selling arms to Germany and Japan after they killed crap loads more American military personnel is not treason- because it was in our national interest. Absent an act of congress declaring war, the president is constitutionally charged with determining who is or is not our enemy. But I never said anything about Treason, I said traitor and you should spend some time looking the definitions of the two up and comparing them. In the US, Treason is specifically defined by the Constitution. Here is a hint, one can be the other but one doesn't have to be the other.
And here I figured you would have known that with all the king verses constitution you keep throwing around. Perhaps your doc should adjust your meds a bit.
NO a news paper is not a foreign nation. It is a tool, a form of conveyance of communication that allows information to flow into the foreign nations. Please stop playing stupid.
It's sad that you pretend to be making fun when it is clear that you do not have a clue.
The concept of covenants is riddled all through the bible, Torah, and Qur'an and is explained quite well. It's why Christianity is not just Jews on steroids and why the christian faith was/is so controversial to Judaism and Islam- it established a unique set of rules on what to do/how to behave and worship. It supplants the covenant in place when Christ was on earth and completes prophecy bringing in the new covenant.
All your little jest is doing is clearly demonstrating how utterly clueless you are.
I'm still not sure why he would be a traitor and you failed to present anything substantial on that the last time you attempted to pose this same question.
I'll bet it's an amusing little bit that skates around some view that Snowden was betraying a King for his country
Snowden betrayed his country, not his king. He stole secretes that went past anything about domestic spying and gave them to foreign nations, some of which are hostile at this moment.
and North betraying his country in the way he served his King.
No, what North did was split legal hairs like Clinton did except you don't agree with his politics so he is evil and everyone else is your hero.
I really don't get why people like you want to spit in the face of George Washington and go back to King George.
And I really don't get why you think something that exists only in your head is real. But those are the breaks, I don't understand your fantasy and you don't understand it is just your fantasy.
I'm not really in disagreement with anything, just stating that different people have different opinions about it and the one you seem to be relying on is an underling of the people with the power to actually decide what is and what isn't an act of war against the US. This means they can say a lot of things and it doesn't make it so.
Pentagon officials are US officials.
Yes, and they are under higher up officials who make those decisions. They also administrate the military so you could say they might have been posturing to justify budgetary wants. Either way, they do not have the power to decide what is or isn't an act of war unless the entire civilian government is taken out first.
I did not say that an act of war isn't subject to interpretation, although I fail to see how you reached that conclusion, given your prior propositions.
I never said you did say it. I said that an entity without the power to make the claim made it and until you hear it from those who can make the determination, it is all opinion. We have government entities and employees on bother the pro and denial side of global warming, some of which state certain things have to happen. But we don't take their comments as the official position of the US because the US often ignores their recommendations or does the opposite. So taking the wording of a department without clear authority doesn't seem as set in stone as you pretend it is.
But I am asking what is it that was an "act of war" about Chinese hacking of US that wasn't the same about US hacking of Chinese. That it was that China did it, vs. US did it? Is that what you are referring to as "subject to interpretation".
The difference is that the claim of an act of war was made by an underling organization within the US government that doesn't have the power to establish what is or is not an act of war. When you hear congress passing a resolution declaring it an act of war or the president who has constitutional authority creating an executive order declaring it then going to congress, it can be clearly understood as an act of war. Until then, its a department completely incapable of making the determination as a matter of policy that made a statement.
In other words, no one with the authority to declare so has declared hacking as an act of war nor has any established treaty. Your question and reasoning doesn't stand scrutiny when examined in the light of facts. The entire concept of it being an act of war was only the subject of someone's interpretation or opinion about hacking that was going on.
The guy said it hurts to be spied; you are the one implying war and spying are unrelated, not him... which is a way to sidestep the problem. And then you say...
No, the guy said we are not at war with China implying that was was necessary for spying. You are damn straight that I made the point they are unrelated because they are no dependent on each other.
o if someone does the same to the USA and doesn't tell anyone, is it ok? If you don't want it done to your country, do not do it to others.
lol.. what? Of course I don't want others to know what my country is doing. I won't be upset to find out they are doing their best to determine what we are doing or that they succeeded, However, I want to know what other countries are doing and do expect my country to find that out. For all the problems my country has, I trust it enough. All the other countries, I do not.
Like I said, it hurts the whole country only because it is exposed. Retaliation in the forms of lost business, trade agreements and so on can happen because it was exposed not to mention step being taken to separate us from our abilities to gather intelligence on other countries.
You know what, I'm beginning to think Mr. Snowden just got fed up with the kind of hypocrisy you are displaying.
I really don't care why he decided to become a traitor. I'm not sure why you should either. He is a traitor BTW and deserves a traitors end.
Actually, it was the Pentagon who claimed hacking was an act of war. I can't seem to find any law maker, presidential statement, or law making it so.
Granted, the Pentagon is a government agency, but they cannot act lawfully without the civilian government giving them permission. So obviously, an act of war is subject to interpretation.
Rationalize what? I mean the stories are little more than history and they are delivered in yhe context of covenants- each chonollogically new covenant replacing the older ones.
What you likely are experiencing is people who have no idea how to deal with someone too ignorant about the subject to comprehend the meaning of including the old testament with the new testament.
By the way, it doesn't apply now is the correct answer. Its because of the covenants if you missed it. You really should take a bit of time and try to understand the concepts you are criticizing before spouting of about it.
You must have issues with your reading comprehension or something if you think the bible says it is all fine. Do you look at a history book snd think slavery or the holocuast are fine brcause it talks of those events to?
The bible is little more then a history book in this sense. It talks about events that happened and some of those events were specifically at the instructions of god but any morals or code of conduct in it contradict those things like the ten commandments and Jesus' teachings. This is somewhat of an important distinction. Another important distinction is the concept of covenants and how they supplant each other.
Its interesting that no one claimed someone else planted the emails there. If they are accessing accounts then i'm not sure how they can claim no one else (including them at another time) accessedthe accounrs and sent that message in order to escape being discovered. I mean they went behind their backs so why wouldn't they go behind their backs.
I see we have another liberal scholar. It's probably good you posted AC too, I wouldn't want that drivel associated with any online personality either.
I'm so sick of that BS. If I injure myself, my insurance will kick in and society will not foot any bills. And before you claim insurance is society paying, it is not as the actuaries already charged me a rate for expected claims coverage.
Non free countries force riders to wear helmets. I happen to live in a somewhat free country. You can keep your non free country that tells you what you can and cannot do based around someone's irrational fear of having to provide some medical coverage or whatever. When are those civilized country going to force you to wear protect during casual sex because it might cost society money with maternity leave and delivery fees. That entire line is BS and should never be spouted by anyone intelligent who isn't a greedy bastard more concerned with what they might have to share the cost of then people's freedoms and rights..
In that regard, the analogy fits. But what good is that? If that's the best you can do for an analogy, you may as well give up.
Give up on what? Copyright is only a legal construct too. Like it or not, it's valid and the premise is valid.
Look, if you can't think up a proper analogy for copying bits, don't bother. Analogies are usually garbage and unnecessary, anyway. How about just arguing your damn points without bringing up unrelated junk?
I don't need an analogy for copying bits. I gave a good and accurate analogy concerning the act of conversion which is theft by law. I do not care if you download something, take a CD or DVD from the store or whatever, you are taking it without the legal right to do so and those who would have received compensation normally are entitled to that compensation when you do.
Like I said, your hand waiving is intellectually lazy. I will add that you are doing a poor job at both rebuttal and forwarding any counter points.
Sorry, you missed the sarcasm. My overly subtle point was that this solar crap cooker isn't designed for disaster relief (pun intended) because one of it's major selling points, biochar is close to irrelevant in that context. In other words, you don't sell disease prevention by selling long term fertiliser benefits. Another point being that disaster relief doesn't reliably coincide with near constant sunshine.
You are right, I missed your sarcasm but as I said before, long term fertilizer benefits is nothing more then safe handling of the byproduct. If you compost, you have raw sewage to deal with and disease. With this, you end up with something that can be stored and used or sold to aid in the relief.
On motorcycle protection: Given the trauma causes in 2&3 wheel vehicle accidents, wearing a helmet is the most intelligent thing you can do. I'd personally feel more naked without a helmet & track style protective gear than with a helmet and not a stitch. Wearing one turned a minor accident into something that I walked away from instead of a fatality.
Most people will go their entire life without a single accident on a 2or3 wheeler (3wheelers are actually outlawed here unless you had one from before they were outlawed). A large percentage of those who will, will be little more then dropping the bike at slow speeds. That being said, I agree that a helmet will save lives and mitigate trauma damage, it is just that I was raised not needing to wear one and I'm simply not comfortable wearing one. I ride in jeans, every once in a while a leather jacket, and generally no helmet. Done it for over 30 years, even on the trails as a kid. I like the wind in my hair while cruising. I know the dangers, I just view it like when I skydived, an acceptable risk to get the expected enjoyment.
The guys I ride with don't really have a sign off, but V+
This happened about 2004 or so and my friend was the one who purchased and monitored everything as it was his kid. I don't remember it being 11 inches long but I think it was from the same company as the domain looks awfully familiar.
The net effect is exactly the same, no noticeable loss to you or anyone outside of a legal privilege to collect fees. The analogy fits quite well as your private property only remains yours because of a legal construct. Otherwise I could simply claim it as mine and there would be nothing you could do other than take it from me if you can.
You simply cannot show one so the analogy is adequate to illustrate a concept. BTW, waiving your hands in the air screaming the analogy is bad doesn't address any real implications brought up by it, it's just attempting to dismiss something out of convenience and not because of any sound logic or anything. I can see why you posted AC.
Guideline: when your strongest argument is nitpicking an analogy instead of the concepts presented by it, you are intellectually lazy and you failed.
So, it is your position that BillG & co came up with this system for quick deployment in disaster zones and not as a long term solution? That explains why they push biochar as such a major benefit.
I believe this is one of the reasons or uses behind it. I'm sure it would also be put into use in areas that electricity or power of some sort is difficult and expensive to come by. Remote villages might be one, lands on or near certain habitats that need protection for whatever reasons might be another.
After all, everyone needs biochar right after a major disaster, right?
why would they need biochar after a disaster? What they need is a way to deal with sanitation that isn't going to require a year or more before it can be safely handled by humans without needing specialized equipment or knowledge in order to do it safely. I know what you are thinking, compost is safe, well that's if the organic components are in a compatible proportion and the compost is allowed to properly cultivate, otherwise, it will be a breading ground for illnesses.
Note that I recognise the sanitary advantages, but just doubt that unless they make is smell less than I fear, it will not be widely deployed.
I don't see it being a community center like they are wishing for. And I do think it will smell quite horrid. I shirk at the thought of a bathroom being a public hang out anyways, let alone something like this. But if put out of the way, it would be useful.
People know that riding a motorcycle or a scooter without a helmet/gloves/jacket/adapted footwear is a major health hasard. Yet every year I see the idiots in short sleeves & flip flops tooling around.
Well, I ride without a helmet all the time. It's only a hazard if have an accident and a helmet can introduce it's own set of hazards too. That being said, I specifically choose to not wear a helmet and if I wreck, I am endangering only my life. It's a bit different if you do something and endanger or harm someone else. So going without good sanitation is a bit more like driving drunk where if you screw up, you can involve more then yourself. Others don't like that concept unless they are impaired or drunk themselves so they will tend to mitigate those risks if it is available and expect others to also. That's why almost every country and political subdivision in the world has laws against driving drunk where some have and some do not have laws about riding motorcycles without a helmet.
I am hoping so badly ( hoping, mind you, not really anticipating ) that our lawmakers in Congress will see and craft tax law to encourage the kind of stuff Gates is doing and closing all of these tax advantages of simply rent-seeking and financial churning.
Gates is already using tax law that lawmakers in congress put to work years and years ago specifically for this type of thing.
It's called a foundation and it is a non profit that people can funnel portions of their income into specifically for these purposes. Better yet, it isolates or shelters some of their wealth from threats they personally suffer or could suffer similar to how corporations isolate share holders except the wealth can no longer be used to their personal benefit. And as a registered nonprofit, the income and donations do not get taxed or taxed at reduced rates (see commercial non profits which is a commercial enterprise designed to sustain and benefit a charity) plus the advantage of certain contributions having tax benefits.
Cholera, typhoid, shigellosis, Ecoli, are just a few of the major medical problems you can get from poor sanitary conditions and if untreated which may be difficult in times of a disaster, you could die from it.
I'm not aware of how that might be absurd.. Unless I misunderstood the meaning of your post.
Why would you used a complex system like this? Because you are not at your summer house and instead in Haiti right after the earth quake where they can bring a bunch of these things in easily and have a more sanitary situation then waiting a year for it to decompose properly. Now exchange Haiti with any other city and any other disaster and you won't have to worry about your kids picking berries and foraging for food from the bush your neighbor shits under.
Well, I guess it will make it easier to display the at the stores. You know, when a kid gets potty trained and you are at the hardware store looking for something to fix your leaky faucet and turn to find Junior is looking for the TP and asking you to help wipe. Now all they need to do is stick it outside for a couple hours.
My question is, how will this smell. I've had the misfortune of having to pour diesel fuel on a pile of shit and burning it before and it wasn't a good experience. And that outhouse was chemically treated to keep the smell down too. I cannot imagine many people wanting to purposely hang out around them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not exactly sure if this can be explained in any simpler terms but i will give it one last shot beford declaring you too incompetant to overcome your ignorance.
Lets focus on the fallacy within your argument. Take any history book and it will basically say this is how thing were. Now when you look at real life and notice the north is no longer at war with the south or that we are no longer under rule of the king of england, you do not assume the history book was in error. No, you assume something has changed. So why cannot a history book that talks about the US across colonial days, the civil war, and today be correct even though it says things that are no longer followed today?
Now i know you are trolling and to simpke minded folk like you, you might even make sense. Your argument ignores fundemental facts of religion that have been present as long as we have known sbout that religion. You absolutely can claim the bible is inerrant and only the things under the current covenant apply. The problem with your thinking relies completely on your ignorance on the subject and inability or unwillingness to correct that. The stories in the old testament are the telling of the various covenants . The new testament contains the current covenant and evidence of it being created by the fulfilment of prophecy. The jews and muslims dont believe the fulfilment happened and the muslins think Jesus was only a prophit. That only happens with the concepts of covenants.
Sigh... You just don't get it. You probably never will get it. You are the one who demanded I defend Ollie North, I never brought him up.
No, supplying arms to terrorists who killed US marines is not treason if it is in our national interest just like selling arms to Germany and Japan after they killed crap loads more American military personnel is not treason- because it was in our national interest. Absent an act of congress declaring war, the president is constitutionally charged with determining who is or is not our enemy. But I never said anything about Treason, I said traitor and you should spend some time looking the definitions of the two up and comparing them. In the US, Treason is specifically defined by the Constitution. Here is a hint, one can be the other but one doesn't have to be the other.
And here I figured you would have known that with all the king verses constitution you keep throwing around. Perhaps your doc should adjust your meds a bit.
NO a news paper is not a foreign nation. It is a tool, a form of conveyance of communication that allows information to flow into the foreign nations. Please stop playing stupid.
Like I said, all in your mind. Now please go take your meds and call your shrink before posting any more.
It's sad that you pretend to be making fun when it is clear that you do not have a clue.
The concept of covenants is riddled all through the bible, Torah, and Qur'an and is explained quite well. It's why Christianity is not just Jews on steroids and why the christian faith was/is so controversial to Judaism and Islam- it established a unique set of rules on what to do/how to behave and worship. It supplants the covenant in place when Christ was on earth and completes prophecy bringing in the new covenant.
All your little jest is doing is clearly demonstrating how utterly clueless you are.
lol.. You mean Colonel Oliver North?
I'm still not sure why he would be a traitor and you failed to present anything substantial on that the last time you attempted to pose this same question.
Snowden betrayed his country, not his king. He stole secretes that went past anything about domestic spying and gave them to foreign nations, some of which are hostile at this moment.
No, what North did was split legal hairs like Clinton did except you don't agree with his politics so he is evil and everyone else is your hero.
And I really don't get why you think something that exists only in your head is real. But those are the breaks, I don't understand your fantasy and you don't understand it is just your fantasy.
I'm not really in disagreement with anything, just stating that different people have different opinions about it and the one you seem to be relying on is an underling of the people with the power to actually decide what is and what isn't an act of war against the US. This means they can say a lot of things and it doesn't make it so.
Yes, and they are under higher up officials who make those decisions. They also administrate the military so you could say they might have been posturing to justify budgetary wants. Either way, they do not have the power to decide what is or isn't an act of war unless the entire civilian government is taken out first.
I never said you did say it. I said that an entity without the power to make the claim made it and until you hear it from those who can make the determination, it is all opinion. We have government entities and employees on bother the pro and denial side of global warming, some of which state certain things have to happen. But we don't take their comments as the official position of the US because the US often ignores their recommendations or does the opposite. So taking the wording of a department without clear authority doesn't seem as set in stone as you pretend it is.
The difference is that the claim of an act of war was made by an underling organization within the US government that doesn't have the power to establish what is or is not an act of war. When you hear congress passing a resolution declaring it an act of war or the president who has constitutional authority creating an executive order declaring it then going to congress, it can be clearly understood as an act of war. Until then, its a department completely incapable of making the determination as a matter of policy that made a statement.
In other words, no one with the authority to declare so has declared hacking as an act of war nor has any established treaty. Your question and reasoning doesn't stand scrutiny when examined in the light of facts. The entire concept of it being an act of war was only the subject of someone's interpretation or opinion about hacking that was going on.
No, the guy said we are not at war with China implying that was was necessary for spying. You are damn straight that I made the point they are unrelated because they are no dependent on each other.
lol.. what? Of course I don't want others to know what my country is doing. I won't be upset to find out they are doing their best to determine what we are doing or that they succeeded, However, I want to know what other countries are doing and do expect my country to find that out. For all the problems my country has, I trust it enough. All the other countries, I do not.
Like I said, it hurts the whole country only because it is exposed. Retaliation in the forms of lost business, trade agreements and so on can happen because it was exposed not to mention step being taken to separate us from our abilities to gather intelligence on other countries.
I really don't care why he decided to become a traitor. I'm not sure why you should either. He is a traitor BTW and deserves a traitors end.
Actually, it was the Pentagon who claimed hacking was an act of war. I can't seem to find any law maker, presidential statement, or law making it so.
Granted, the Pentagon is a government agency, but they cannot act lawfully without the civilian government giving them permission. So obviously, an act of war is subject to interpretation.
You don't need to be at war with another nation in order to spy on them or their companies.
I agree that it hurts the whole country but not because it happened, because it was disclosed that it happened.
How is lowering taxes connected to lowering worker pay?
I think maybe someone has either fed you some bullshit or you are grasping for anything and looking foolish in the process.
Rationalize what? I mean the stories are little more than history and they are delivered in yhe context of covenants- each chonollogically new covenant replacing the older ones.
What you likely are experiencing is people who have no idea how to deal with someone too ignorant about the subject to comprehend the meaning of including the old testament with the new testament.
By the way, it doesn't apply now is the correct answer. Its because of the covenants if you missed it. You really should take a bit of time and try to understand the concepts you are criticizing before spouting of about it.
You must have issues with your reading comprehension or something if you think the bible says it is all fine. Do you look at a history book snd think slavery or the holocuast are fine brcause it talks of those events to?
The bible is little more then a history book in this sense. It talks about events that happened and some of those events were specifically at the instructions of god but any morals or code of conduct in it contradict those things like the ten commandments and Jesus' teachings. This is somewhat of an important distinction. Another important distinction is the concept of covenants and how they supplant each other.
Its interesting that no one claimed someone else planted the emails there. If they are accessing accounts then i'm not sure how they can claim no one else (including them at another time) accessedthe accounrs and sent that message in order to escape being discovered. I mean they went behind their backs so why wouldn't they go behind their backs.
I see we have another liberal scholar. It's probably good you posted AC too, I wouldn't want that drivel associated with any online personality either.
I'm so sick of that BS. If I injure myself, my insurance will kick in and society will not foot any bills. And before you claim insurance is society paying, it is not as the actuaries already charged me a rate for expected claims coverage.
Non free countries force riders to wear helmets. I happen to live in a somewhat free country. You can keep your non free country that tells you what you can and cannot do based around someone's irrational fear of having to provide some medical coverage or whatever. When are those civilized country going to force you to wear protect during casual sex because it might cost society money with maternity leave and delivery fees. That entire line is BS and should never be spouted by anyone intelligent who isn't a greedy bastard more concerned with what they might have to share the cost of then people's freedoms and rights..
Give up on what? Copyright is only a legal construct too. Like it or not, it's valid and the premise is valid.
I don't need an analogy for copying bits. I gave a good and accurate analogy concerning the act of conversion which is theft by law. I do not care if you download something, take a CD or DVD from the store or whatever, you are taking it without the legal right to do so and those who would have received compensation normally are entitled to that compensation when you do.
Like I said, your hand waiving is intellectually lazy. I will add that you are doing a poor job at both rebuttal and forwarding any counter points.
You are right, I missed your sarcasm but as I said before, long term fertilizer benefits is nothing more then safe handling of the byproduct. If you compost, you have raw sewage to deal with and disease. With this, you end up with something that can be stored and used or sold to aid in the relief.
Most people will go their entire life without a single accident on a 2or3 wheeler (3wheelers are actually outlawed here unless you had one from before they were outlawed). A large percentage of those who will, will be little more then dropping the bike at slow speeds. That being said, I agree that a helmet will save lives and mitigate trauma damage, it is just that I was raised not needing to wear one and I'm simply not comfortable wearing one. I ride in jeans, every once in a while a leather jacket, and generally no helmet. Done it for over 30 years, even on the trails as a kid. I like the wind in my hair while cruising. I know the dangers, I just view it like when I skydived, an acceptable risk to get the expected enjoyment.
The guys I ride with don't really have a sign off, but V+
I don't have a link to the actual device used but it is similar to this except the enclosure was optional and therefore a bit smaller.
http://iqgistics.com/gps-solut...
More here
http://www.globalstar.com/shop...
This happened about 2004 or so and my friend was the one who purchased and monitored everything as it was his kid. I don't remember it being 11 inches long but I think it was from the same company as the domain looks awfully familiar.
The net effect is exactly the same, no noticeable loss to you or anyone outside of a legal privilege to collect fees. The analogy fits quite well as your private property only remains yours because of a legal construct. Otherwise I could simply claim it as mine and there would be nothing you could do other than take it from me if you can.
You simply cannot show one so the analogy is adequate to illustrate a concept. BTW, waiving your hands in the air screaming the analogy is bad doesn't address any real implications brought up by it, it's just attempting to dismiss something out of convenience and not because of any sound logic or anything. I can see why you posted AC.
Guideline: when your strongest argument is nitpicking an analogy instead of the concepts presented by it, you are intellectually lazy and you failed.
I believe this is one of the reasons or uses behind it. I'm sure it would also be put into use in areas that electricity or power of some sort is difficult and expensive to come by. Remote villages might be one, lands on or near certain habitats that need protection for whatever reasons might be another.
why would they need biochar after a disaster? What they need is a way to deal with sanitation that isn't going to require a year or more before it can be safely handled by humans without needing specialized equipment or knowledge in order to do it safely. I know what you are thinking, compost is safe, well that's if the organic components are in a compatible proportion and the compost is allowed to properly cultivate, otherwise, it will be a breading ground for illnesses.
I don't see it being a community center like they are wishing for. And I do think it will smell quite horrid. I shirk at the thought of a bathroom being a public hang out anyways, let alone something like this. But if put out of the way, it would be useful.
Well, I ride without a helmet all the time. It's only a hazard if have an accident and a helmet can introduce it's own set of hazards too. That being said, I specifically choose to not wear a helmet and if I wreck, I am endangering only my life. It's a bit different if you do something and endanger or harm someone else. So going without good sanitation is a bit more like driving drunk where if you screw up, you can involve more then yourself. Others don't like that concept unless they are impaired or drunk themselves so they will tend to mitigate those risks if it is available and expect others to also. That's why almost every country and political subdivision in the world has laws against driving drunk where some have and some do not have laws about riding motorcycles without a helmet.
Gates is already using tax law that lawmakers in congress put to work years and years ago specifically for this type of thing.
It's called a foundation and it is a non profit that people can funnel portions of their income into specifically for these purposes. Better yet, it isolates or shelters some of their wealth from threats they personally suffer or could suffer similar to how corporations isolate share holders except the wealth can no longer be used to their personal benefit. And as a registered nonprofit, the income and donations do not get taxed or taxed at reduced rates (see commercial non profits which is a commercial enterprise designed to sustain and benefit a charity) plus the advantage of certain contributions having tax benefits.
Yes they worry about it, and for good reason.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
Cholera, typhoid, shigellosis, Ecoli, are just a few of the major medical problems you can get from poor sanitary conditions and if untreated which may be difficult in times of a disaster, you could die from it.
I'm not aware of how that might be absurd.. Unless I misunderstood the meaning of your post.
Why would you used a complex system like this? Because you are not at your summer house and instead in Haiti right after the earth quake where they can bring a bunch of these things in easily and have a more sanitary situation then waiting a year for it to decompose properly. Now exchange Haiti with any other city and any other disaster and you won't have to worry about your kids picking berries and foraging for food from the bush your neighbor shits under.
Well, I guess it will make it easier to display the at the stores. You know, when a kid gets potty trained and you are at the hardware store looking for something to fix your leaky faucet and turn to find Junior is looking for the TP and asking you to help wipe. Now all they need to do is stick it outside for a couple hours.
My question is, how will this smell. I've had the misfortune of having to pour diesel fuel on a pile of shit and burning it before and it wasn't a good experience. And that outhouse was chemically treated to keep the smell down too. I cannot imagine many people wanting to purposely hang out around them.