Just because the odd token CEO goes to prison to placate the masses doesn't mean justice is even, look at what HSBC just got away with doing.
No one said anything about justice, I said the myth that a corporation shields anyone from prosecution or personal liability is not true.
Every company should have an individual identified as having responsibility for all actions. If you cant identify who is responsible for an action then the person with general responsibility is held accountable.
That is the dumbest idea ever spouted off-- especially since you rambled about justice. Imagine if the law decided that because you were the oldest of your siblings that you are responsible for all the acts of your brothers and sisters. Then one day your brother gets drunk and steals a car, crashes it into on coming traffic killing someone, then leaves the scene and they can't prove it was him but they have evidence someone from your family was involved. You are hit for something you did not do. Why should anyone affiliated with a corporation be subject to this same problem? Only the people who participated in the act should be accountable for the act. The company is vicariously accountable and often it is easier to prove the company was involved when you cannot prove a specific employee or person was connected which is why the company gets charged or is liable when people are not. Either way, it is a serious injustice to charge someone with crimes or hold them liable when they are merely associated with those who committed the act. Is it justice if the cops lock you up because your best friend robbed a gas station.....
Network goes down costing someones life? CTO goes to jail. Pension fund fails due to neglect? Financial officer goes to jail. That would at least go some way towards justifying their absurd salaries.
I'm sensing that you are not concerned with justice, you are concerned with retribution. This is no different in the mechanics then a witch hunt where innocent people are killed because of events you do not understand and attribute to evil sorcery. You should spend a bit of time thinking about this more.
I'm not going to argue this with you. If you start a business and incorporate it, go out and you break the law or do something that makes you liable for damages, your personal financials are not shielded. Its the same for any corporation, those who break the law or do something that makes them liable, they are/can be liable personally too.
All you have to do is pay attention to detail and you would know this is true. The management of worldcom, tyco, and a few other big name mismanaged companies ended up getting criminal charges and some of them got sued for losses.
Wrong-- this is a misnomer that needs to stop. a corporation will not shield any personal liability for your own actions. It will only shield for liability due to not causes of yours-. In other words, if you fuck up, a corporation will not shield you from any liability but if your employee fucks up, it limits the liability to the corporate assets. The only personal assets that are shielded are the ones owned by owners and employees who did not participate in the act.
You will find no law saying "a corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*" or even resembling it. What you will find is a legal doctrine "Respondeat superior" that allows the employer to be liable for the acts of employees. Most companies are sued in stead of the employee or officer of the company because the likelihood of collecting a judgement is way better. In some instances, you will see the employee sued as well as the company through vicarious liability but generally they attempt to not sue the employee so that it becomes easier to gain information from then to help in the suit.
read the rest of what was written. the reason you think that is because there isn't evidence connecting people with the actions. Its not because they aren't held accountable. And BTW, they are. search for CEO goes to prison.
First, its civil so no charges being filed, just lawsuits for liability. Second, this happens all the time. A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action. There is no precedent here other then you knowing about it. Most of the suits will likely be tossed because there won't be enough evidence to show they took any specific actions regarding the claims giving the appearance that no one in a corp gets busted when the corp does.
This is really a form of harassment and there will likely by some serious judicial blow back once it starts. That is if it is more then a bluff attempting to get party members to pressure the party to drop the proxy. There might even be some blow back if it's a bluff too.
I suspect you mean a semi-automatic.223 cal riffle. Few people have an automatic.223 cal riffle and I'm not aware of any ever being used to kill anyone outside of a war situation.
That was also private parties participating in civil matters. Traffic citations are criminal even if minor in offense and are issues by public officials (government). There is a big difference there and it's so much more worse then the foreclosure thing.
Yeah right what? I didn't say things would never happen, hell even with regulation today, they still happen. I said we won't all die without regulation as the parent claimed. Your link is proof of that as people survived and are suing over it.
Wow, you are a complete idiot. The state of affairs we know today could very well exist with or without the military. Same with drugs and the current justice system. I can understand you are ideologically linked to big government because you have never known anything else, but for fucks sake, lets stay in reality..
There was enough to suit the needs of the public who used them. They were also dirt and wood and remained so after the government got involved with city roads until a group of concrete salesmen started paving sections of the Lincoln highway in an effort to generate sales.
I don't disagree that government doing it is better or can be better, but the entire concept that we would have none without government is bullshit.
Mostly metal dust was in that dirt. It is still present in steel mills all around the US too. The "dirt" is vaporized metals from the electric arc furnaces used in the mills and foundries.
There are filter system in place to catch most of it now, but that is recent technology that wasn't always available or practical until the mid 90's or so..
The federal regulation didn't stop BP either. One act or one company is not representative of all life in the world. I think it might be you who are deluded.
How about the reality that state and local services are paid for by state and local revenue- not federal taxes.
But nice troll there. Must be hard for you to look so fucking ignorant about such an elementary subject. I especially like how you threw your bigotry in there as if you were trying to be funny.
In terms of risk a lightning strike to the building is not going to be an issue on a diesel tank. Not to mention the way lighting strikes diesel is in a closed tank. The tank will liven up temporarily and hell any electronics inside like an integrated diesel pump will even survive just fine even in a direct strike. Similar principle to a faraday cage.
I was talking a direct strike and the original comment was on the roof, not on a floor inside the building. I've seen lightening rip a 10 inch seam in 1 inch steel plate. Of course you can check this yourself, just get a plasma cutter and go to town on a metal gas can with diesel in it. If a plasma cutter is too expensive, get a welder and start welding but turn the setting up as high as you can first. Better yet, don't do it and look at these.
My gawd, did they kick you out of the dram club for making everyone else look incompetent or something so you came here?
How in the world did everyone survive before 1970 when the EPA started regulating things? I mean it's completely impossible for private enterprise to regulate itself right, and we had no real environmental regulations until after we caught that river in Ohio on fire. 200 year of the US and everyone was dead. Oh wait, what's that? Those businesses found out that if they didn't shit all over the place, The workers wouldn't die and they could keep the company open and make money instead of having no one willing to work for them? Say it aint so.
Here is a hint. The vast majority of business does not want to pollute, they just don't realize how badly they are doing it. Most of the Superfund sites I helped clean up wasn't created because some evil company was dumping toxic chemicals illegally, they were created because burying drums of crap was an accepted and proper way of disposing of things when it was done. When rivers started catching on fire companies were the first to react and assess ways of disposing of their wastes before any laws required it. Turned out there was a secondary market for most of it which other chemicals could be made from.
I seriously couldn't get through half of what you posted before reality was kicking my head in and yelling what the fuck is this guy thinking. Keep your Captain planet drama in the cartoons.
You do understand that you picked state and local services as a counter argument to not wanting to pay federal taxes right? It's a bit like comparing apples in your one hand, to a note someone scribbled about an orange that was phoned in sometime during the night by some unknown person in your other hand. I mean you don't even have a round fruit in that other hand.
That's an unimpressive argument. Before the government declared they needed to do it, private people and corporations created all the roads that weren't post roads. Post roads is the one thing the constitution actually empowers the federal government to do and they implemented the entire concept without an income tax by charging a postage fee to deliver mail.
Anyways, we have different levels of government and most people who have issues with taxes don't have as much issue with the local taxes that provide services they actually do use or want to have in reserve in case they need to use. So we aren't even sure how much of his gripe is aimed where.
It's possible to get diesel to ignite with a big enough open flame, but you have to get it hot, it's not enough to bring a flame near it. Diesel is not the same as kerosene, which is significantly more volatile. Try putting kerosene in your diesel and see what happens.
Diesel is the same as kerosene with impurities for all intents and purposes. Obviously there is a different else they would have the same name. However, I have used on road and off road diesel in kerosene heaters- both the wick and forced air kind, I've used diesel in my kerosene camp stove, and they make all sorts of devices designed by the manufacturer to run off both without changing a thing. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Here is something to wrap you head around. The flashpoint of diesel is between 100 and 130 degrees F. The flashpoint of Kerosene is between 100 and 162 degrees F. Vegetable oil has a flashpoint around 600 degrees F depending on the type. And that range all depends on the different grades of refinement of the two types of fuels and oil.
Kerosene as well as diesel are classified as flammable liquids pursuant to the federal hazardous material regulation and require class 3 flammable liquid placarding when transported in bulk. Vegetable oil is not regulated and doesn't need placarded in any quantities. The only time vegetable oil will appear on the table classifications is when it is in combination with something else that generally makes it a regulated substance. From the quick search I did, it appears all instances containing vegetable oils are flammable solids.
You may understand gravity but you fundamentally fail at understanding risk. Diesel is not some highly explosive mixture that will give off deadly vapours and ignite at the drop of a dime. If lighting strikes a diesel tank what you end up with is... a diesel tank. nothing more. It won't catch fire. Throw a match into it it won't catch fire. Electrical faults and it won't catch fire.
Um.. you are assuming to much. The lightning doesn't need to ignite the diesel fuel, it can ignite something else. The lightning will not magically disappear once the fuel tank is hit. And yes, diesel will ignite with an open flame, it's the same as kerosene. It's true it is safer then gas and doesn't have explosive vapors, but a lightning strike can cause the pressure inside the tank to build faster then the venting can handle. If this causes an increase to a certain point, the diesel fumes do become combustible - it's how a diesel engine works.
Oh, and BTW, Diesel is classed as a hazardous material. I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. In sufficient quantities, you are required to placard the tanks and if transporting, you need a hazardous material endorsement and could need to placard the vehicle. In fact,it only takes like 200 gallons (400 lbs) before some of those hazardous material shipping rules kick in.
And that was all that was needed to show that you know nothing at all about science. No, outside of maths, scientists do not prove things. They can invalidate, but they do not prove. Heck, I expect you do not even know what a theory is.
Prove their work is not proving things. It's providing enough information to repeat the experiments and results. Now please stop pretending you know about science, I'm talking about the level above your high school credits.
Creation isn't even wrong. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is "in conflict" with science in the same way that astrology and reading tea leaves is "in conflict" with science. Creation is just childish superstition, it doesn't overlap with science in any manner. For creation to be even remotely interesting someone has to come up with a theory, so far nobody has.
Gee, how unscientific of you. Or should I say anti-science of you. You have no idea if creation is real or superstition and here you are rejecting the scientific method and making declarative statements. Why are you anti-science? The point of bringing that up was because of you showing your bigotry and to show how creation is not anti-science.
Actually they are. The prevalent scientific theory is that there is no co-variance (even) between vaccines and autism and currently there is no data to show that this theory is wrong. So, if you think there is a causation, you are arguing against the current scientific theory. You can prove current scientific theory wrong by showing that causation is plausible, heck even co-variance would be interesting. Such has yet to be done. Until it is done, saying there is causation is in direct opposition to science.
They are no more antiscience then someone who checked to find there is no connection between the two. The difference is that do not accept the claim yet. So anyways, please point me to the work that says in the history of vaccines, no one has ever gotten ill because of the vaccine and no one has ever had adverse reactions because of them. Oh, that's right, we are only talking about Autism and all these people using their built in mental processes that have normal healthy children who all the sudden develop or start displaying signs of autism shortly after a round of vaccines. I mean nature has built in mechanisms that allow a person who touches something hot to associate the outcome with not wanting to touch that thing again. It's a key for evolution and survival. There aren't too many people left who run towards the tiger in the jungle after seeing it kill their buddy they were walking with.
So my original request is a little snide on purpose. But seriously, how about where the research is that shows every single instance of claims of autism from vaccines had properly prepared vaccines that were not contaminated with anything at all, that were transported correctly and store correctly and administered correctly- each and every time. And please, don't say the system automatically takes care of that. It doesn't, and even recently there were recalls on vaccines that were made wrong and making people sick.
Science doesn't deal with "claims" so there is nothing to reject. What they consider "important" is of utter irrelevance since importance has nothing to do with science. Science deals with theories and data, and I assume you know nothing about either.
Oh, science most certainly does have claims. They are the interpreted results of the science. You are a fool if you think otherwise. And the importance, wasn't on the science, it was on the person choosing whether to subject themselves or their children to risks real or perceived.
I can tell from your response that you must have a reading comprehension issue. You have skipped the points of a statements and conflated the subjects of others. You should really work on that. We probably would be settled by now if you could just listen properly.
I'm sorry that you are not paying attention, but Obama himself made this claim when talking about the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute set up in the Obamacare. Of course he attempted to make it sound like the government doing it would be better but it's the same claim.
And you can claim it's a private entity, but it's funded by government, staffed by government appointees, and makes binding rules to be interpreted as law. For all intents and purposes, it is government.
The problems with fuel taken away from 9/11 wasn't that planes will fly into the roof. It's that fuel is a liquid and it is subject to gravity which means anything puncturing the tanks will cause it to leak down the building whether it is on fire or not. So imagine a lightning strike happens and years the side of the tank out. It caught fire and is now seeping down the stair well and over the sides of the building and through the crack in the roof that got there by the initial explosion caused by the lightning. This can quickly engulf a building and make escape routes impassable.
Lightning, contractor errors, equipment malfunctions, sabotage, all happen more then floods.
What I don't understand though would be the supposed trash talking on internet forums afterwards. If it was someone who was separated from the install, I don't see why they would have an investment in it enough to trash talk the project.
On the other hand, I was trying to get the mapi call list for a legal suit so it would in work with a communications app other then Outlook, and I ended up with lawyers showing up demanding I cease trashing them. All I said was that the consultant they recommended refuses or is not capable of helping us integrate it into anything other then outlook and exchange and was looking for a published list of the calls it used to adapt our existing application for use instead. So what people consider trash talk might not exactly be that.
No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.
Says the bigot who labels they people he doesn't like.
Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific.
Ok, and has anyone ever done this and made a mistake or been wrong? There are an awful lot of scientific articles that fail peer review, are the authors of those anti-science too? Are anyone who doesn't believe the articles or the results published that later turn out to be wrong anti-science? Have you always verified everything known in science and validated everything you know to be true with the scientific method? If not, doesn't that make you anti-science by the same standards?
There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example, outside of a very specific part of science, scientists never prove anything. That is not part of scientific methodology (with the exception of Maths).
Actually, they prove the results of their work. The results of their work are opinions on the facts and would be re-creatable or reproducible.
This methodology is science. Rejecting it out of hand is anti-scientific.
Nobody is rejecting it out of hand. That's the part that blows my mind. The people, even you, do not have access to the original works, most and probably you, do not have the ability or knowledge to reproduce or validate the work. We rely on people to tell us about it. Some people are more convincing then others. In the case of your bigotry, creation is in no way in conflict with science because if the world as we know it was created, it could have been created in the ways we seem to interpret things as part of the creation. In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science, they are saying there are risks that they think outweighs the vaccines benefits.
Here is a more practical example. And because it si slashdot, I get bonus points for inserting cars into the mix. A couple of years ago, on some cars, the acceleration electronics opened wide open causing the car to floor itself which the breaks couldn't override. All the sensors and all the science pointed to it wasn't happening but to the 4 or 5 people it happened to, it was very real. Toyota went ahead and replaced the units, adjusted the car computer software to kill the engine to an idle if the breaking was applied beyond a certain amount, and made corrections to floor mats and everything else possible to avoid the situation again. It doesn't make them anti science, it doesn't mean they were rejecting science out of hand because they took those extra steps that the science all pointed to as not being needed.
The summarily and utterly reject everything about scientific methodology. They have varying reasons for rejecting it, but they reject it fully.
No they do not. They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important. The people you mention accept and use the products of science in so many other areas it isn't funny. It's like you're not able to look at this objectively or something. That's not very scientific of the bigot now is it?
I generally skip sites that do that. Perhaps having the download goto a page that allows them to select the paid and free versions with an explanation between the two then into the shopping cart? This is what most "free" antivirus venders to. They have a check mark column of the benefits for the paid version and a column with what is included in the free versions.
Slashdot Mirror
No one said anything about justice, I said the myth that a corporation shields anyone from prosecution or personal liability is not true.
That is the dumbest idea ever spouted off-- especially since you rambled about justice. Imagine if the law decided that because you were the oldest of your siblings that you are responsible for all the acts of your brothers and sisters. Then one day your brother gets drunk and steals a car, crashes it into on coming traffic killing someone, then leaves the scene and they can't prove it was him but they have evidence someone from your family was involved. You are hit for something you did not do. Why should anyone affiliated with a corporation be subject to this same problem? Only the people who participated in the act should be accountable for the act. The company is vicariously accountable and often it is easier to prove the company was involved when you cannot prove a specific employee or person was connected which is why the company gets charged or is liable when people are not. Either way, it is a serious injustice to charge someone with crimes or hold them liable when they are merely associated with those who committed the act. Is it justice if the cops lock you up because your best friend robbed a gas station.....
I'm sensing that you are not concerned with justice, you are concerned with retribution. This is no different in the mechanics then a witch hunt where innocent people are killed because of events you do not understand and attribute to evil sorcery. You should spend a bit of time thinking about this more.
I'm not going to argue this with you. If you start a business and incorporate it, go out and you break the law or do something that makes you liable for damages, your personal financials are not shielded. Its the same for any corporation, those who break the law or do something that makes them liable, they are/can be liable personally too.
All you have to do is pay attention to detail and you would know this is true. The management of worldcom, tyco, and a few other big name mismanaged companies ended up getting criminal charges and some of them got sued for losses.
Wrong-- this is a misnomer that needs to stop. a corporation will not shield any personal liability for your own actions. It will only shield for liability due to not causes of yours-. In other words, if you fuck up, a corporation will not shield you from any liability but if your employee fucks up, it limits the liability to the corporate assets. The only personal assets that are shielded are the ones owned by owners and employees who did not participate in the act.
You will find no law saying "a corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*" or even resembling it. What you will find is a legal doctrine "Respondeat superior" that allows the employer to be liable for the acts of employees. Most companies are sued in stead of the employee or officer of the company because the likelihood of collecting a judgement is way better. In some instances, you will see the employee sued as well as the company through vicarious liability but generally they attempt to not sue the employee so that it becomes easier to gain information from then to help in the suit.
read the rest of what was written. the reason you think that is because there isn't evidence connecting people with the actions. Its not because they aren't held accountable. And BTW, they are. search for CEO goes to prison.
First, its civil so no charges being filed, just lawsuits for liability. Second, this happens all the time. A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action. There is no precedent here other then you knowing about it. Most of the suits will likely be tossed because there won't be enough evidence to show they took any specific actions regarding the claims giving the appearance that no one in a corp gets busted when the corp does.
This is really a form of harassment and there will likely by some serious judicial blow back once it starts. That is if it is more then a bluff attempting to get party members to pressure the party to drop the proxy. There might even be some blow back if it's a bluff too.
I suspect you mean a semi-automatic .223 cal riffle. Few people have an automatic .223 cal riffle and I'm not aware of any ever being used to kill anyone outside of a war situation.
I think your perspective is lost.
That was also private parties participating in civil matters. Traffic citations are criminal even if minor in offense and are issues by public officials (government). There is a big difference there and it's so much more worse then the foreclosure thing.
Yeah right what? I didn't say things would never happen, hell even with regulation today, they still happen. I said we won't all die without regulation as the parent claimed. Your link is proof of that as people survived and are suing over it.
Wow, you are a complete idiot. The state of affairs we know today could very well exist with or without the military. Same with drugs and the current justice system. I can understand you are ideologically linked to big government because you have never known anything else, but for fucks sake, lets stay in reality..
There was enough to suit the needs of the public who used them. They were also dirt and wood and remained so after the government got involved with city roads until a group of concrete salesmen started paving sections of the Lincoln highway in an effort to generate sales.
I don't disagree that government doing it is better or can be better, but the entire concept that we would have none without government is bullshit.
Mostly metal dust was in that dirt. It is still present in steel mills all around the US too. The "dirt" is vaporized metals from the electric arc furnaces used in the mills and foundries.
There are filter system in place to catch most of it now, but that is recent technology that wasn't always available or practical until the mid 90's or so..
The federal regulation didn't stop BP either. One act or one company is not representative of all life in the world. I think it might be you who are deluded.
How about the reality that state and local services are paid for by state and local revenue- not federal taxes.
But nice troll there. Must be hard for you to look so fucking ignorant about such an elementary subject. I especially like how you threw your bigotry in there as if you were trying to be funny.
I was talking a direct strike and the original comment was on the roof, not on a floor inside the building. I've seen lightening rip a 10 inch seam in 1 inch steel plate. Of course you can check this yourself, just get a plasma cutter and go to town on a metal gas can with diesel in it. If a plasma cutter is too expensive, get a welder and start welding but turn the setting up as high as you can first. Better yet, don't do it and look at these.
http://www.ccohs.ca/otherhsinfo/alerts/alert107.txt
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/ca/07ca006.html
Now please don't tell me that a welder or plasma cutter has more power then a lightning bolt.
I so hope this is not true. You have demonstrated to me at least that you have no clue.
My gawd, did they kick you out of the dram club for making everyone else look incompetent or something so you came here?
How in the world did everyone survive before 1970 when the EPA started regulating things? I mean it's completely impossible for private enterprise to regulate itself right, and we had no real environmental regulations until after we caught that river in Ohio on fire. 200 year of the US and everyone was dead. Oh wait, what's that? Those businesses found out that if they didn't shit all over the place, The workers wouldn't die and they could keep the company open and make money instead of having no one willing to work for them? Say it aint so.
Here is a hint. The vast majority of business does not want to pollute, they just don't realize how badly they are doing it. Most of the Superfund sites I helped clean up wasn't created because some evil company was dumping toxic chemicals illegally, they were created because burying drums of crap was an accepted and proper way of disposing of things when it was done. When rivers started catching on fire companies were the first to react and assess ways of disposing of their wastes before any laws required it. Turned out there was a secondary market for most of it which other chemicals could be made from.
I seriously couldn't get through half of what you posted before reality was kicking my head in and yelling what the fuck is this guy thinking. Keep your Captain planet drama in the cartoons.
You do understand that you picked state and local services as a counter argument to not wanting to pay federal taxes right? It's a bit like comparing apples in your one hand, to a note someone scribbled about an orange that was phoned in sometime during the night by some unknown person in your other hand. I mean you don't even have a round fruit in that other hand.
That's an unimpressive argument. Before the government declared they needed to do it, private people and corporations created all the roads that weren't post roads. Post roads is the one thing the constitution actually empowers the federal government to do and they implemented the entire concept without an income tax by charging a postage fee to deliver mail.
Anyways, we have different levels of government and most people who have issues with taxes don't have as much issue with the local taxes that provide services they actually do use or want to have in reserve in case they need to use. So we aren't even sure how much of his gripe is aimed where.
Diesel is the same as kerosene with impurities for all intents and purposes. Obviously there is a different else they would have the same name. However, I have used on road and off road diesel in kerosene heaters- both the wick and forced air kind, I've used diesel in my kerosene camp stove, and they make all sorts of devices designed by the manufacturer to run off both without changing a thing. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Here is something to wrap you head around. The flashpoint of diesel is between 100 and 130 degrees F. The flashpoint of Kerosene is between 100 and 162 degrees F. Vegetable oil has a flashpoint around 600 degrees F depending on the type. And that range all depends on the different grades of refinement of the two types of fuels and oil.
Kerosene as well as diesel are classified as flammable liquids pursuant to the federal hazardous material regulation and require class 3 flammable liquid placarding when transported in bulk. Vegetable oil is not regulated and doesn't need placarded in any quantities. The only time vegetable oil will appear on the table classifications is when it is in combination with something else that generally makes it a regulated substance. From the quick search I did, it appears all instances containing vegetable oils are flammable solids.
You may understand gravity but you fundamentally fail at understanding risk. Diesel is not some highly explosive mixture that will give off deadly vapours and ignite at the drop of a dime. If lighting strikes a diesel tank what you end up with is ... a diesel tank. nothing more. It won't catch fire. Throw a match into it it won't catch fire. Electrical faults and it won't catch fire.
Um.. you are assuming to much. The lightning doesn't need to ignite the diesel fuel, it can ignite something else. The lightning will not magically disappear once the fuel tank is hit. And yes, diesel will ignite with an open flame, it's the same as kerosene. It's true it is safer then gas and doesn't have explosive vapors, but a lightning strike can cause the pressure inside the tank to build faster then the venting can handle. If this causes an increase to a certain point, the diesel fumes do become combustible - it's how a diesel engine works.
Oh, and BTW, Diesel is classed as a hazardous material. I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. In sufficient quantities, you are required to placard the tanks and if transporting, you need a hazardous material endorsement and could need to placard the vehicle. In fact,it only takes like 200 gallons (400 lbs) before some of those hazardous material shipping rules kick in.
Prove their work is not proving things. It's providing enough information to repeat the experiments and results. Now please stop pretending you know about science, I'm talking about the level above your high school credits.
Gee, how unscientific of you. Or should I say anti-science of you. You have no idea if creation is real or superstition and here you are rejecting the scientific method and making declarative statements. Why are you anti-science? The point of bringing that up was because of you showing your bigotry and to show how creation is not anti-science.
They are no more antiscience then someone who checked to find there is no connection between the two. The difference is that do not accept the claim yet. So anyways, please point me to the work that says in the history of vaccines, no one has ever gotten ill because of the vaccine and no one has ever had adverse reactions because of them. Oh, that's right, we are only talking about Autism and all these people using their built in mental processes that have normal healthy children who all the sudden develop or start displaying signs of autism shortly after a round of vaccines. I mean nature has built in mechanisms that allow a person who touches something hot to associate the outcome with not wanting to touch that thing again. It's a key for evolution and survival. There aren't too many people left who run towards the tiger in the jungle after seeing it kill their buddy they were walking with.
So my original request is a little snide on purpose. But seriously, how about where the research is that shows every single instance of claims of autism from vaccines had properly prepared vaccines that were not contaminated with anything at all, that were transported correctly and store correctly and administered correctly- each and every time. And please, don't say the system automatically takes care of that. It doesn't, and even recently there were recalls on vaccines that were made wrong and making people sick.
Oh, science most certainly does have claims. They are the interpreted results of the science. You are a fool if you think otherwise. And the importance, wasn't on the science, it was on the person choosing whether to subject themselves or their children to risks real or perceived.
I can tell from your response that you must have a reading comprehension issue. You have skipped the points of a statements and conflated the subjects of others. You should really work on that. We probably would be settled by now if you could just listen properly.
I'm sorry that you are not paying attention, but Obama himself made this claim when talking about the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute set up in the Obamacare. Of course he attempted to make it sound like the government doing it would be better but it's the same claim.
And you can claim it's a private entity, but it's funded by government, staffed by government appointees, and makes binding rules to be interpreted as law. For all intents and purposes, it is government.
Well, if gravity....
Never mind. I doubt you will understand.
The problems with fuel taken away from 9/11 wasn't that planes will fly into the roof. It's that fuel is a liquid and it is subject to gravity which means anything puncturing the tanks will cause it to leak down the building whether it is on fire or not. So imagine a lightning strike happens and years the side of the tank out. It caught fire and is now seeping down the stair well and over the sides of the building and through the crack in the roof that got there by the initial explosion caused by the lightning. This can quickly engulf a building and make escape routes impassable.
Lightning, contractor errors, equipment malfunctions, sabotage, all happen more then floods.
IT may be a combination or either.
What I don't understand though would be the supposed trash talking on internet forums afterwards. If it was someone who was separated from the install, I don't see why they would have an investment in it enough to trash talk the project.
On the other hand, I was trying to get the mapi call list for a legal suit so it would in work with a communications app other then Outlook, and I ended up with lawyers showing up demanding I cease trashing them. All I said was that the consultant they recommended refuses or is not capable of helping us integrate it into anything other then outlook and exchange and was looking for a published list of the calls it used to adapt our existing application for use instead. So what people consider trash talk might not exactly be that.
Says the bigot who labels they people he doesn't like.
Ok, and has anyone ever done this and made a mistake or been wrong? There are an awful lot of scientific articles that fail peer review, are the authors of those anti-science too? Are anyone who doesn't believe the articles or the results published that later turn out to be wrong anti-science? Have you always verified everything known in science and validated everything you know to be true with the scientific method? If not, doesn't that make you anti-science by the same standards?
Actually, they prove the results of their work. The results of their work are opinions on the facts and would be re-creatable or reproducible.
Nobody is rejecting it out of hand. That's the part that blows my mind. The people, even you, do not have access to the original works, most and probably you, do not have the ability or knowledge to reproduce or validate the work. We rely on people to tell us about it. Some people are more convincing then others. In the case of your bigotry, creation is in no way in conflict with science because if the world as we know it was created, it could have been created in the ways we seem to interpret things as part of the creation. In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science, they are saying there are risks that they think outweighs the vaccines benefits.
Here is a more practical example. And because it si slashdot, I get bonus points for inserting cars into the mix. A couple of years ago, on some cars, the acceleration electronics opened wide open causing the car to floor itself which the breaks couldn't override. All the sensors and all the science pointed to it wasn't happening but to the 4 or 5 people it happened to, it was very real. Toyota went ahead and replaced the units, adjusted the car computer software to kill the engine to an idle if the breaking was applied beyond a certain amount, and made corrections to floor mats and everything else possible to avoid the situation again. It doesn't make them anti science, it doesn't mean they were rejecting science out of hand because they took those extra steps that the science all pointed to as not being needed.
No they do not. They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important. The people you mention accept and use the products of science in so many other areas it isn't funny. It's like you're not able to look at this objectively or something. That's not very scientific of the bigot now is it?
I generally skip sites that do that. Perhaps having the download goto a page that allows them to select the paid and free versions with an explanation between the two then into the shopping cart? This is what most "free" antivirus venders to. They have a check mark column of the benefits for the paid version and a column with what is included in the free versions.