then that scheme is not even needed. All they have to do is fail to deliver the services they sold already.
but wait, they aren't doing that because it is likely illegal almost everywhere. What would be different under that scenario other then you want to be right?
What unprovoked war of aggression? Iraq was far from unprovoked and it wouldn't even qualify as a war of aggression seeing how the main charge for entering into the war was the failure to meet the terms of the armistice that ended hostilities when Iraq invade Kuwait in a war of aggression.
No they do not. Up to will only be up to the speeds they limit it to. If they sell you up to 20 unicorns but only have 5 unicorns, they are defrauding you. It's the same with data, if they say up to 20 meg and limit you to 10 meg, they are not delivering what they advertised and sold you.
Customers on lower tiers get their service disrupted routinely, and their support respond to speed complaints with "Everything looks fine on our end" followed by an upsell pitch.
Maybe it's time they started complaining to their state utility commission and consumer protection offices. Laws already on the books do cover this kind defective and unfit for service thing as well as the deceptive advertising and other types of fraud. They may vary from state to state but almost all of them have something.
If you as a service provider can afford to pay, you will. If you're a new service trying to get a foothold, now you have to meet those costs too if you want to play. Those costs aren't fixed and behind general transit/interconnect/infrastructure fees, they're behind whatever-the-telco-decides-is-a-good-match.
But absent that payment, those consumers with slower connections are out of the picture regardless. The only difference in what I mentioned is that you can now reach a group of people you formerly couldn't.
Australia went through this. We have and had phone plans that have/had free access to certain services and not others. Guess what? It sucked. It may be great if you upload lots of photos to facebook, but it means you can't at all start a new service that competes without having to get individual agreements with individual telcos and service providers. You'd have to negotiate those deals individually and your business will only exist as long as they don't alter the deal. They can then alter the deal just to you but not to their favourites.
I do not think you are paying attention to what is being said. You would only have to negotiate with companies if you are trying to reach customers you already cannot service because their internet is to slow. For everyone else, it would be normal.
IS your reading comprehension so bad that you are purposely ignoring what was said or is your knee jerk reaction to anything not toting the line that ingrained.
There is absolutely no reason at all why Netflix or anyone cannot pay for someone's internet access to be faster than why they purchased in order to ensure their services work properly.
No they completely do not- unless you are going to limit your statement to not looking like they came from Iraq. Bush never imprisoned people and killed them because of their Race or Religion in attempts to cleanse the earth of them. Bush never invaded countries and forced their populations into labor camps to further the war efforts. Bush never Euthanized people deemed not worthy. Bush never forced sterilized people who were borderline not worthy. Bush never killed his political enemies.
About the only things they had in common was that they were both white and leaders of a country. If that is what makes you think they are similar, from any perspective, the vast majority of the developed world looks like Hitler and Nazi Germany. A completely dishonest and fabricated statement from any perspective you wish to push out. That is why there is Godwin's law.
If the ISP is throttling certain services to speeds lower than what the customer is paying for, that is fraud and should already be covered by existing consumer protection laws.
But I see no reason why I cannot pay to have Aunt Marry's connection faster when she connects to my services. The difference could be making the effective cost of my services from Aunt Marry's perspective double or even triple my advertised rates. If my streaming service is $20 a month and the costs of a broadband package fast enough to use it is $20 more a month than she is already paying, it will cost her $40 a month to use my service. If I can get my services to her for $2 or $3 a month on the speed side, it is only $20- just like with everyone else.
Net Neutrality means that the traffic comes through unimpeded, not everyone gets the same. If Aunt Marry doesn't want Netflix then she can keep 1.5MBit, if she wants to use Netflix she'll have to buy 4 to 5Mbit minimum service to use it. Netflix doesn't force bandwidth on people, nor would they pay to get it to Marry.
And why exactly can't netflix or anyone for that matter pay to have their services delivered at 5mbit when Aunt Marry only pays for 1.5?
This is what is stupid about the net Neutrality debate. Something that would clearly benefit both the end user of a service as well as the service provider is shot down for no good reason other than arbitrary ideological BS reasons.
This law exists mainly so conditions could be placed on service providers that forced them to serve areas that would not be profitable for them. It started with phone, electric, and TV services but the phone and Cable TV operators found ways to expand their business by offering data communications over the same lines they already had access to.
This meant they could effectively use their privilege of serving an entire population center and the already installed infrastructure to deliver something that would cost other significantly more to otherwise do. The bonus was that while they could dual use the lines (say voice and data like with DSL or Cable TV and Data like Comcast) their competitors could only deliver data communications because a condition for them servicing the unprofitable portions of an area was exclusive access to the profitable portions for a period of time. In many places, that period of time is still in effect.
REAL proponents of free market capitalism should have no problem with that idea. Those who do are those who either (A) don't understand that currently we have an oligopoly not a free market, or (B) want to protect their privileged position.
Or (C) think they should be able to sell faster access to some and or priority services to some.
The whole problem with net neutrality is that it wants everyone to be the same even though everyone doesn't want to be the same. Suppose your Aunt Marry only checks email and recipes on the internet so she decided to get the cheapest version of braodband she could. Now suppose netflix says I want to service her but she only has a 1.5 meg connection and needs a 4 meg connection to use our service effectively. So they pay to have her services increased for the packets that stream from their services so they do not have to convince Aunt Marry to not only pay the monthly rate to them, but to pay their provider more for faster service.
So now Aunt Marry can keep her slow service that she likes and still have netflix for those nights when the cats and cable TV just isn't enough. But Net Neutrality proponents say they don't want that. Aunt Marry will have to pony up all the money herself.
He likely already has straw accounts following it anyways. It's an easy way to keep tabs on opposition and it doesn't require abuses of government power.
It would be wise to argue against what was actually said and not what you wanted to be said. It doesn't have the appearance of you setting up straw-men to knock down.
The smell tests on papers is equivalent to it sounds good. All you are going to go is reject obvious bullshit you do not agree with. If you are not actually reviewing and repeating the science, you are taking on faith that what they say it correct and not fiction created for whatever reason.
And no, no mass conspiracy connection needs to be made at all. Garbage in and garbage out is a saying for a reason. If the inputs which are largely shared among all researchers are contaminated, even legit papers can be incorrect while technically being scientifically correct. As a published, practicing scientist, you should be well aware of that. Unless you have validated all the inputs, you need to have faith that others did and did it competently enough for their work to not be erroneous.
But even if you did all that and were 100% sure, you are not the vast majority or people who cannot, does not have the time, or access to do it. My point still stands.
That is standard denialist fearmongering and propaganda, this thinking that the only cure is lots of sacrifice. It's not true. It's the opposite. It will employ an awful lot of people to do much of the work we can do to address Climate Change. That's a lot of jobs.
At a cost to who? This is where idiots parading the religion fail severely. So energy costs increase, jobs are created, and all is rosy. The reality that gets glossed over is simple economics. energy costs increasing means people who use energy pay more, products that require energy to make cost more, and the jobs created do not replace the jobs lost. Furthermore, the jobs created will be filled by the expanding labor pool as populations increase or a cost of retraining will be placed on the displaced workers. and this all gets ignored because you only want to think about your utopia you have created in your minds.
Lots of those things will also make our personal lives better. In general, it's called efficiency. Now flat screens are in nearly every way better than CRTs. Refrigerators became much more efficient in 1996.
You cannot just will something to be more efficient. Either advances in technology have to happen or tradeoffs that increase costs- otherwise the efficiencies would already be present because it allows for the most profits. Case in point, According to the federal government, the latest fuel economy mandate will increase the price of a car by almost $3,000 which the NADA claims (pfd warning) will price nearly 7 million drivers out of the market for a car. But that's ok, those 7 million people don't need to drive anyways because they are poor and imaginary or something.
People should get over their predujices about what makes cars pretty, and embrace better aerodynamics.
Yep, you just made an interesting point. People do not need to be free, they must think and support what you do. All this climate change cure talks inevitably leads to someone trying to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives or money and you think the warnings are just denialist fearmongering and propaganda even when you commit the very acts being decried yourself.
One example is the Aerocivic. As noted on that site, there were bonuses with the improved aerodynamics: the car is quieter, stays cleaner, and is steadier, which makes it safer. Trucks can use vortex generators. One guy I know objected to vortex generators on the grounds that they were ugly. I asked him why was it important whether an already butt ugly truck trailer not have these? Surely not for the sake of beauty?
And here we are again. You seem to be upset that people do not want to do something you want them to do. Why does their freedom upset you so much? I mean some trucks already have the VGs- they do not decrease wind resistance enough to justify their costs through fuel savings. Perhaps when they are installed at the factory. But that one guy you know is free to not want them no matter how much you think he should.
Then there are roads. Who could possibly object to smarter traffic lights? Everyone who has ever driven much has had the experience of being stuck at a red light for nothing, because currently the devices are not capable of sensing traffic soon enough to be proactive. They are essentially mindless with no ability to learn traffic patterns and adjust their timing.
Finally, something where there is a legitimate reason for government control. Now I could object to smarter traffic lights when the costs outweigh the benefits but where they typically are being installed there are problems being corrected. But spending millions of dollars for extra lanes or smart lights in towns with a population
The point was not whether the secret bunker was real or used for weapons research or not, it is that the common logic about how hard it would be to keep a secret on a scale so large would be limited by factors not present in modern days.
Of course it might be most likely self promotion- even if it turns out to be a real nuclear test facility. But the idea that many people would know about and talk about it given enough time is severely limited to dead people and people wishing to avoid prison terms with a few exceptions who likely did talk about it which is why there are rumors to that effect. I'm also sure there is something wrong with that run on sentence but cannot put my finger on it.. sorry for the eyes bleeding when trying to read it.
If you really do not know the difference you need to keep your mouth shut and just listen to people who do for a long while. Even if you are stupid enough to try to equate the two (which is intelectual dishonesty at best), the differences would be real and huge.
This is a funny thing about secret facilities. Often, their locations are kept secret from even the people working in them. Of course those building it would have a clue but slave labor was often killed so a lot of those builders could have been dead before the end of the war.
Now we do know that some people did talk about it. They just couldn't point to the location which makes sense if it was secret. So a handful of people at the end of the war probably knew the location and it is possible that they were killed during the end of the war or put on civilian clothing to pretend to be a foot soldier and not imprisoned or executed. Of course those people are not going to officially talk because we still go after Nazis for qar crimes. What we end up with is rumors like what was there for years.
I can see it happening. But only because most the people involced died and people though it was nornal to happen.
There's a huge difference between rationally discussing the solution to a problem and ignoring the existence of a problem. Both result in a solution, one by abdicating the ability to affect the outcome.
Not really as one of the solutions to the problem is to let it ride and deal with the problems as they surface.
Of course all the solutions so far have been about income redistribution, control and power. Otherwise, concerned countries would actually do research on both the most effective ways to mitigate it and ways to generate and consume energy without releasing carbon.
The sooner the world starts having serious political and social debates about what (if anything) should be done we'll be better off. Until then we're stuck with a lot of finger in ear lalalalalalalalalalalalalala'ing the issues.
Finger in the ear is probably the best place to be right now. This is because the political solutions, the alarm itself, is agenda oriented and the agenda is political not about climate change. Hell, even the Kyoto protocol was originally created with this in mind. We recently saw environmental groups declare capitalism has to be done away with and several of the latest climate rallies had an actual communist party sign up tables as well as all sorts of protesters and signs touting communism. But if you really watch the debates on the political cures for Climate Change, you will start seeing a trend where it devolves from the climate to the freedoms people and companies should or should not have.
Like I said before, if they were concerned with it, we would have international teams working on viable alternatives and processes for energy creation and consumption with less and even no carbon emissions. But instead, it's all about what would make them powerful, rich and famous among other things non climate related.
Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief implies taking something on faith, even in the absence of facts. The facts supporting the theory of MMGW are quite clear. Reason, not faith, dictates that this theory be given greater weight that those being put forth by those who benefit from ignoring the problem.
Are you a practicing climate scientist who has personally checked all those facts? Not many people who would agree with you are. But they are looking at something written down that they- perhaps even you can never check or verify other then asking someone else if it is correct. But it's your version, it's real and factual, just like the faith Jews or Christians, or Muslims have.
For the vast majority of people who accept global warming, it's not different of a mental process than faith in any respect.
I suspect that the Pope's message will be that, as the Xtian god has charged humanity with being stewards of their world, a carefully reasoned course of action is called for.
What exactly is the scientific cure? Here is the problem I have, it seems the only cure offered is to either severely restrict our lifestyles or increase the costs of everything so that it has that same effect. So what is half of NYC is under water in 200 years, its the 1% that will lose their property. The people would have moved on long before that. So the climate shifts the food production areas, that has already happened naturally and artificially several times before, what makes it so special that is cannot happen again?
You see, what I'm getting at is we can just deal with it as it comes. When alternatives are developed and become viable as current means of energy, we just switch over and be done with it.
Don't you read the bible? He just speaks things into existence and alters things with his will alone. No magic wand needed. Jesus sometimes had to touch people.
On the other hand, have you ever thought that global warming is the will of God and the hypothetical wand waving has already happened?
They chose to be impaired, so YES they used up their choice.
not always. There are some people who have no choice in the matter, they simply cannot control themselves when alcohol is near them. And then there are people who are inexperienced who did not understand that it takes 20 minutes or longer before you start feeling the effects of alcohol so those 4 shots of some 80 proof candy flavored girly drink they just did because someone egged them on at the company Christmas party sneaks up on them. Of course there is also the fact that they are impaired and might not even notice themselves getting drunk. Quite a few people who have been drunk can tell you that there was at least one time they felt fine while drinking then when they stood up, it all rushed in without warning.
Victims of drunks had no choice.
Sure they have a choice. They can stay off the streets when drunks are likely to be around. They can purchase extremely large and heavy cars and reinforce them to withstand the happenstance of drunk drivers. They can even pay attention and maneuver around the drunks. What you likely mean is that they should not have to make that choice and I would agree with that. You should not have to worry that the car coming within feet of you is being piloted by a drunk driver when you go near a road. And those people doing that should be punished strongly enough that they do not do it any more.
So drunks should have no choice in being killed for killing.
Absolutely the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Every single accident that ends up killing someone has someone at fault. They either driving too fast for conditions, not paying attention, paying attention to something else, tailgating, sleeping whatever. But guess what, it is called an accident because they did not intend to wreck and kill someone. How in the hell can you argue that someone who is impaired which is why it is illegal for them to drive in that condition- somehow intended to harm someone? So here you are, a mother of three slows for a stop sign and something rolls off the seat, she grabs for it (as it is somewhat natural to do) and failed to stop before entering the intersection- t-boning a minivan traveling at speed- killing all the occupants. Does she deserve to be killed? She had just as much choice to grab whatever was falling off the seat as some people are capable of making when drinking.
After I stopped and thought about it a bit, it still sounds too nice without torturing the drunk for days before you tire of him and end his worthless life.
Sounds to me like you have a hard time with reality. Maybe someone you know was killed by a drunk driver, I don't know. But you sound like someone who was robbed by a black person once and now thinks all blacks are criminals. I know, it makes sense in your mind, but fails on many levels when you look at it void of emotional baggage.
I wasn't criticizing anyone. Again, i asked what the difference was when the results were the same. To date, that question has almost entirely been ignored because there is no difference. Its the situation, not the people involved.
In my area, there is no public defender kept on staff. Every lawyer who practices criminal law places their name on a list and it rotates- spreading the case load among them. They get a flat fee and typically burn through half that asking the court for money to have tests or experts review evidence. I would bet most of them do not dven keep any of the funds if the case is the slightest bit complicated. Its not any better and you do have the good lawyers.
Until they do damage or violate a traffic code warranting getting pulled over. The legal limits in most places are so low that people who feel completely uneffected by the alcohol can be legally drunk.
Here is a scenario for you. Suppose you weigh about 150lbs. About one and a half drinks will put you over the legal limit. You are at home and drink a bottle of wine with your wife over dinner. Lets say it comes out to 5 glasses for you and 3 glasses for here. You stop drinking around 9pm and go to bed by 10p.. when you wake and drive to work at 6am thr following morning, you feel ill but not drunk but chances are you are legallly drunk. This is because you absorb alcohol slower in the stomach than intestines. Because you ate, it takes two to four hours for your stomach to allow the food and alcohol to pass into the intestines (this is also why there are time limits on collecting testing results in most states). Because you went to sleep durring this process, it is slowed. So your effective last drink even though you stopped drinking at 8pm is more like midnight or 1am. But because you are sleeping, your metabolism is also slowed so instead of processing one drink per hour which is common with normal metabolism, you are oy processing half a drink per hour. It now takes about 8 - 9 hours instead of five to process five drinks and because you ate, you absorbed the majority of the alcohol around midnight leaving 1-2 drinks in your system until 8 or 9 am. You get up at 6am and drive to work at 6:30 while legally drunk.
And while i probable butcher'd that ass i have bern drinking myself and trying to type on a phone, that exact scenario was presented to us in a volunteer class while waiting for jury duty. You can probably find references online about it too.
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to get through another day.
You might find you don't need to try and insult people to feel better about yourself is you spent more time in reality. I never even came close to calling public defenders washouts. I specifically said there was no difference between a dunce giving poir legal effort and the most brillient person in the world who does not have the time to give good legal effort. The defendant suffers poor lawyering just the same. Hand waving or not, that is all i said, the rest you completely imagined.
Do you seriously think the bar is the inly place someone can get drunk?
I'm willing to bet that more drunk driving convictions and accidents happen from people who have a couple drinks with dinner or who find themselves in situations where they never intended to get drunk in the first place than there are from people leaving bars. A good majority of convictions happen with people who had a DD, left the bar and slept the night, but where still legally drunk the next morning even though the didn't feel buzzed or affected by the alcohol when they chose to drive.
Slashdot Mirror
then that scheme is not even needed. All they have to do is fail to deliver the services they sold already.
but wait, they aren't doing that because it is likely illegal almost everywhere. What would be different under that scenario other then you want to be right?
What unprovoked war of aggression? Iraq was far from unprovoked and it wouldn't even qualify as a war of aggression seeing how the main charge for entering into the war was the failure to meet the terms of the armistice that ended hostilities when Iraq invade Kuwait in a war of aggression.
Please, lets not ignore reality here.
No they do not. Up to will only be up to the speeds they limit it to. If they sell you up to 20 unicorns but only have 5 unicorns, they are defrauding you. It's the same with data, if they say up to 20 meg and limit you to 10 meg, they are not delivering what they advertised and sold you.
Maybe it's time they started complaining to their state utility commission and consumer protection offices. Laws already on the books do cover this kind defective and unfit for service thing as well as the deceptive advertising and other types of fraud. They may vary from state to state but almost all of them have something.
But absent that payment, those consumers with slower connections are out of the picture regardless. The only difference in what I mentioned is that you can now reach a group of people you formerly couldn't.
I do not think you are paying attention to what is being said. You would only have to negotiate with companies if you are trying to reach customers you already cannot service because their internet is to slow. For everyone else, it would be normal.
IS your reading comprehension so bad that you are purposely ignoring what was said or is your knee jerk reaction to anything not toting the line that ingrained.
There is absolutely no reason at all why Netflix or anyone cannot pay for someone's internet access to be faster than why they purchased in order to ensure their services work properly.
No they completely do not- unless you are going to limit your statement to not looking like they came from Iraq. Bush never imprisoned people and killed them because of their Race or Religion in attempts to cleanse the earth of them. Bush never invaded countries and forced their populations into labor camps to further the war efforts. Bush never Euthanized people deemed not worthy. Bush never forced sterilized people who were borderline not worthy. Bush never killed his political enemies.
About the only things they had in common was that they were both white and leaders of a country. If that is what makes you think they are similar, from any perspective, the vast majority of the developed world looks like Hitler and Nazi Germany. A completely dishonest and fabricated statement from any perspective you wish to push out. That is why there is Godwin's law.
If the ISP is throttling certain services to speeds lower than what the customer is paying for, that is fraud and should already be covered by existing consumer protection laws.
But I see no reason why I cannot pay to have Aunt Marry's connection faster when she connects to my services. The difference could be making the effective cost of my services from Aunt Marry's perspective double or even triple my advertised rates. If my streaming service is $20 a month and the costs of a broadband package fast enough to use it is $20 more a month than she is already paying, it will cost her $40 a month to use my service. If I can get my services to her for $2 or $3 a month on the speed side, it is only $20- just like with everyone else.
And why exactly can't netflix or anyone for that matter pay to have their services delivered at 5mbit when Aunt Marry only pays for 1.5?
This is what is stupid about the net Neutrality debate. Something that would clearly benefit both the end user of a service as well as the service provider is shot down for no good reason other than arbitrary ideological BS reasons.
This law exists mainly so conditions could be placed on service providers that forced them to serve areas that would not be profitable for them. It started with phone, electric, and TV services but the phone and Cable TV operators found ways to expand their business by offering data communications over the same lines they already had access to.
This meant they could effectively use their privilege of serving an entire population center and the already installed infrastructure to deliver something that would cost other significantly more to otherwise do. The bonus was that while they could dual use the lines (say voice and data like with DSL or Cable TV and Data like Comcast) their competitors could only deliver data communications because a condition for them servicing the unprofitable portions of an area was exclusive access to the profitable portions for a period of time. In many places, that period of time is still in effect.
Or (C) think they should be able to sell faster access to some and or priority services to some.
The whole problem with net neutrality is that it wants everyone to be the same even though everyone doesn't want to be the same. Suppose your Aunt Marry only checks email and recipes on the internet so she decided to get the cheapest version of braodband she could. Now suppose netflix says I want to service her but she only has a 1.5 meg connection and needs a 4 meg connection to use our service effectively. So they pay to have her services increased for the packets that stream from their services so they do not have to convince Aunt Marry to not only pay the monthly rate to them, but to pay their provider more for faster service.
So now Aunt Marry can keep her slow service that she likes and still have netflix for those nights when the cats and cable TV just isn't enough. But Net Neutrality proponents say they don't want that. Aunt Marry will have to pony up all the money herself.
He likely already has straw accounts following it anyways. It's an easy way to keep tabs on opposition and it doesn't require abuses of government power.
It would be wise to argue against what was actually said and not what you wanted to be said. It doesn't have the appearance of you setting up straw-men to knock down.
The smell tests on papers is equivalent to it sounds good. All you are going to go is reject obvious bullshit you do not agree with. If you are not actually reviewing and repeating the science, you are taking on faith that what they say it correct and not fiction created for whatever reason.
And no, no mass conspiracy connection needs to be made at all. Garbage in and garbage out is a saying for a reason. If the inputs which are largely shared among all researchers are contaminated, even legit papers can be incorrect while technically being scientifically correct. As a published, practicing scientist, you should be well aware of that. Unless you have validated all the inputs, you need to have faith that others did and did it competently enough for their work to not be erroneous.
But even if you did all that and were 100% sure, you are not the vast majority or people who cannot, does not have the time, or access to do it. My point still stands.
At a cost to who? This is where idiots parading the religion fail severely. So energy costs increase, jobs are created, and all is rosy. The reality that gets glossed over is simple economics. energy costs increasing means people who use energy pay more, products that require energy to make cost more, and the jobs created do not replace the jobs lost. Furthermore, the jobs created will be filled by the expanding labor pool as populations increase or a cost of retraining will be placed on the displaced workers. and this all gets ignored because you only want to think about your utopia you have created in your minds.
You cannot just will something to be more efficient. Either advances in technology have to happen or tradeoffs that increase costs- otherwise the efficiencies would already be present because it allows for the most profits. Case in point, According to the federal government, the latest fuel economy mandate will increase the price of a car by almost $3,000 which the NADA claims (pfd warning) will price nearly 7 million drivers out of the market for a car. But that's ok, those 7 million people don't need to drive anyways because they are poor and imaginary or something.
Yep, you just made an interesting point. People do not need to be free, they must think and support what you do. All this climate change cure talks inevitably leads to someone trying to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives or money and you think the warnings are just denialist fearmongering and propaganda even when you commit the very acts being decried yourself.
And here we are again. You seem to be upset that people do not want to do something you want them to do. Why does their freedom upset you so much? I mean some trucks already have the VGs- they do not decrease wind resistance enough to justify their costs through fuel savings. Perhaps when they are installed at the factory. But that one guy you know is free to not want them no matter how much you think he should.
Finally, something where there is a legitimate reason for government control. Now I could object to smarter traffic lights when the costs outweigh the benefits but where they typically are being installed there are problems being corrected. But spending millions of dollars for extra lanes or smart lights in towns with a population
The point was not whether the secret bunker was real or used for weapons research or not, it is that the common logic about how hard it would be to keep a secret on a scale so large would be limited by factors not present in modern days.
Of course it might be most likely self promotion- even if it turns out to be a real nuclear test facility. But the idea that many people would know about and talk about it given enough time is severely limited to dead people and people wishing to avoid prison terms with a few exceptions who likely did talk about it which is why there are rumors to that effect. I'm also sure there is something wrong with that run on sentence but cannot put my finger on it.. sorry for the eyes bleeding when trying to read it.
If you really do not know the difference you need to keep your mouth shut and just listen to people who do for a long while. Even if you are stupid enough to try to equate the two (which is intelectual dishonesty at best), the differences would be real and huge.
This is a funny thing about secret facilities. Often, their locations are kept secret from even the people working in them. Of course those building it would have a clue but slave labor was often killed so a lot of those builders could have been dead before the end of the war.
Now we do know that some people did talk about it. They just couldn't point to the location which makes sense if it was secret. So a handful of people at the end of the war probably knew the location and it is possible that they were killed during the end of the war or put on civilian clothing to pretend to be a foot soldier and not imprisoned or executed. Of course those people are not going to officially talk because we still go after Nazis for qar crimes. What we end up with is rumors like what was there for years.
I can see it happening. But only because most the people involced died and people though it was nornal to happen.
Not really as one of the solutions to the problem is to let it ride and deal with the problems as they surface.
Of course all the solutions so far have been about income redistribution, control and power. Otherwise, concerned countries would actually do research on both the most effective ways to mitigate it and ways to generate and consume energy without releasing carbon.
Finger in the ear is probably the best place to be right now. This is because the political solutions, the alarm itself, is agenda oriented and the agenda is political not about climate change. Hell, even the Kyoto protocol was originally created with this in mind. We recently saw environmental groups declare capitalism has to be done away with and several of the latest climate rallies had an actual communist party sign up tables as well as all sorts of protesters and signs touting communism. But if you really watch the debates on the political cures for Climate Change, you will start seeing a trend where it devolves from the climate to the freedoms people and companies should or should not have.
Like I said before, if they were concerned with it, we would have international teams working on viable alternatives and processes for energy creation and consumption with less and even no carbon emissions. But instead, it's all about what would make them powerful, rich and famous among other things non climate related.
Are you a practicing climate scientist who has personally checked all those facts? Not many people who would agree with you are. But they are looking at something written down that they- perhaps even you can never check or verify other then asking someone else if it is correct. But it's your version, it's real and factual, just like the faith Jews or Christians, or Muslims have.
For the vast majority of people who accept global warming, it's not different of a mental process than faith in any respect.
What exactly is the scientific cure? Here is the problem I have, it seems the only cure offered is to either severely restrict our lifestyles or increase the costs of everything so that it has that same effect. So what is half of NYC is under water in 200 years, its the 1% that will lose their property. The people would have moved on long before that. So the climate shifts the food production areas, that has already happened naturally and artificially several times before, what makes it so special that is cannot happen again?
You see, what I'm getting at is we can just deal with it as it comes. When alternatives are developed and become viable as current means of energy, we just switch over and be done with it.
Don't you read the bible? He just speaks things into existence and alters things with his will alone. No magic wand needed. Jesus sometimes had to touch people.
On the other hand, have you ever thought that global warming is the will of God and the hypothetical wand waving has already happened?
lol.. You really think so?
not always. There are some people who have no choice in the matter, they simply cannot control themselves when alcohol is near them. And then there are people who are inexperienced who did not understand that it takes 20 minutes or longer before you start feeling the effects of alcohol so those 4 shots of some 80 proof candy flavored girly drink they just did because someone egged them on at the company Christmas party sneaks up on them. Of course there is also the fact that they are impaired and might not even notice themselves getting drunk. Quite a few people who have been drunk can tell you that there was at least one time they felt fine while drinking then when they stood up, it all rushed in without warning.
Sure they have a choice. They can stay off the streets when drunks are likely to be around. They can purchase extremely large and heavy cars and reinforce them to withstand the happenstance of drunk drivers. They can even pay attention and maneuver around the drunks. What you likely mean is that they should not have to make that choice and I would agree with that. You should not have to worry that the car coming within feet of you is being piloted by a drunk driver when you go near a road. And those people doing that should be punished strongly enough that they do not do it any more.
Absolutely the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Every single accident that ends up killing someone has someone at fault. They either driving too fast for conditions, not paying attention, paying attention to something else, tailgating, sleeping whatever. But guess what, it is called an accident because they did not intend to wreck and kill someone. How in the hell can you argue that someone who is impaired which is why it is illegal for them to drive in that condition- somehow intended to harm someone? So here you are, a mother of three slows for a stop sign and something rolls off the seat, she grabs for it (as it is somewhat natural to do) and failed to stop before entering the intersection- t-boning a minivan traveling at speed- killing all the occupants. Does she deserve to be killed? She had just as much choice to grab whatever was falling off the seat as some people are capable of making when drinking.
Sounds to me like you have a hard time with reality. Maybe someone you know was killed by a drunk driver, I don't know. But you sound like someone who was robbed by a black person once and now thinks all blacks are criminals. I know, it makes sense in your mind, but fails on many levels when you look at it void of emotional baggage.
I wasn't criticizing anyone. Again, i asked what the difference was when the results were the same. To date, that question has almost entirely been ignored because there is no difference. Its the situation, not the people involved.
In my area, there is no public defender kept on staff. Every lawyer who practices criminal law places their name on a list and it rotates- spreading the case load among them. They get a flat fee and typically burn through half that asking the court for money to have tests or experts review evidence. I would bet most of them do not dven keep any of the funds if the case is the slightest bit complicated. Its not any better and you do have the good lawyers.
Until they do damage or violate a traffic code warranting getting pulled over. The legal limits in most places are so low that people who feel completely uneffected by the alcohol can be legally drunk.
Here is a scenario for you. Suppose you weigh about 150lbs. About one and a half drinks will put you over the legal limit. You are at home and drink a bottle of wine with your wife over dinner. Lets say it comes out to 5 glasses for you and 3 glasses for here. You stop drinking around 9pm and go to bed by 10p.. when you wake and drive to work at 6am thr following morning, you feel ill but not drunk but chances are you are legallly drunk. This is because you absorb alcohol slower in the stomach than intestines. Because you ate, it takes two to four hours for your stomach to allow the food and alcohol to pass into the intestines (this is also why there are time limits on collecting testing results in most states). Because you went to sleep durring this process, it is slowed. So your effective last drink even though you stopped drinking at 8pm is more like midnight or 1am. But because you are sleeping, your metabolism is also slowed so instead of processing one drink per hour which is common with normal metabolism, you are oy processing half a drink per hour. It now takes about 8 - 9 hours instead of five to process five drinks and because you ate, you absorbed the majority of the alcohol around midnight leaving 1-2 drinks in your system until 8 or 9 am. You get up at 6am and drive to work at 6:30 while legally drunk.
And while i probable butcher'd that ass i have bern drinking myself and trying to type on a phone, that exact scenario was presented to us in a volunteer class while waiting for jury duty. You can probably find references online about it too.
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to get through another day.
You might find you don't need to try and insult people to feel better about yourself is you spent more time in reality. I never even came close to calling public defenders washouts. I specifically said there was no difference between a dunce giving poir legal effort and the most brillient person in the world who does not have the time to give good legal effort. The defendant suffers poor lawyering just the same. Hand waving or not, that is all i said, the rest you completely imagined.
Do you seriously think the bar is the inly place someone can get drunk?
I'm willing to bet that more drunk driving convictions and accidents happen from people who have a couple drinks with dinner or who find themselves in situations where they never intended to get drunk in the first place than there are from people leaving bars. A good majority of convictions happen with people who had a DD, left the bar and slept the night, but where still legally drunk the next morning even though the didn't feel buzzed or affected by the alcohol when they chose to drive.