My friend, radioactive waste will always be dangerous.
Yes, but with current technology, we have the halflife down to 10 years. I think we can handle the waste for 10 years until it becomes safe.
Solar and wind are still underexploited resources in this country. Combine them with better use of the energy we currently make and we will be energy independent and cleaner.
Maybe... but its not like they don't have problems of their own. Also, where we put solar and wind matters... and for some places it really isn't practical. Remember, power is a fairly local thing, since we don't have great ways to store it. You also ignore population growth, with will continually push up demand for energy. I doubt conservation will be enough to counteract population growth.
Installation of residential solar generation is ideal. It places the generation at the place of its consumption. And the use of geothermal heat-exchange heating and cooling should be mandatory.
No, its not really ideal.. especially here in VT, where our winter will be starting in about two weeks and lasting until April. Not to mention the summer we just had, where for three months we had rain every day except for a total of 10 days. Not until the last few weeks have we had consistent days of sun and warm weather... and at night its almost getting cold enough to turn on the heat again. Yes, this may be a fluke year... but what would solar do for anyone in these conditions?
Also, I live in the city, with 0.1 aches. Where exactly would you like me to install geothermal heating and cooling? What about the people in NYC... where exactly would they build that?
The fact is, nuclear is the best option we're going to have for a LONG time, and its only gotten better and safer since the 60s.
What about option three? People stop designing cars, watches, etc, because once they sell one, anyone with the "replicator" can get theirs without the original designer being paid?
They are also great for lots of other things, but "self defense" should not be one of them. A dog is not unduly bothered by the things we call "conscience", and it is by human standards retarded and hopelessly emotionally dependent (upon its owner). Its natural weapon will hurt you in much the same way a pair of rusty, dirty scissors would do. What would people say if you hired a human bodyguard like that?
I'd be perfectly happy with such a bodyguard. Lets stop pretending I should have any respect for the rights of someone breaking into my house, or even regard for their life.
But they scare people because they are willing and eager to harm people in nasty ways.
You're sadly misinformed. Like all dogs, they have a strong desire to please their owner and be useful. Its not a problem of breed, its a problem of owners. There's no reason a pitbull, raised like any other dog, would be more agressive than any other dog.
I don't mind a ban of dogs like these. IMO, if you want to intimidate and harm people, you should do it yourself.
Not possible; as you said, the dog is an animal without rational thought. People are not.
But since even police use dogs to escape the emotional impact of performing violence themselves, I don't hold out much hope for change.
Moron. Police use dogs because they have a great sense of smell, intelligent, an willing to please their owner. The same reason we bred them to hunt rats, get water fowl, track a fox, or herd sheep.
Police mainly use dogs to sniff out drugs & bombs. Even when they are trained to chase down a suspect, they are trained NOT to kill the suspect.
Who said god was a good guy anyway? Love him or burn in hell? Do what he says or he'll inflict pain and suffering on you? That might be what a wife beater considers love, but that's not what I consider love.
You can't have PhD's in every single area of your life.
You don't need a PhD to get cell phone service or a mortgage, or any of the other examples listed. You can also aquire quite a bit of knowledge on your own as well, if you choose to do so. Not enough to make you anywhere near an expert, but enough to know what you're talking about buy making a purchase decision.
And please don't bring up financial services when even the knowledgeable (those who do this for a living) ran head forward into the the wall.
Huh? Plenty of people (and banks and credit unions) didn't take the stupid bet when buying or selling mortgages. My CU for example never offered the kinds of mortgages that took down the market, they were never in crisis, never in danger of collapse. Nor was my mortgage, because I could actually afford it. Of course I thank those morons that did.. I was able to lower my interest rate over 2% (4% for my small home equity loan), get enough money back to do some major projects on the house, keep my payment within $20 of where it was, AND didn't extend the date at which my house will be fully mine. Saved me quite a bit of money and was able to improve my house at the same time.
And how do you negotiate with a multi-billion dollar company? They'll just tell you to go away.
You answered your own question. And if everyone actualy did just that, went without if you had a choice of only being screwed by A or B, A & B would change to offer better terms. But this constant "I have to have it" attitude only screws yourself. Sure, I worry more now about the employment market even though I'm employed.. but at the same time, there have been great deals out there, and companies have been bending over backwards to get my business. And if they don't, they can go screw, because right now, someone else WILL want my business.
Sorry, you're wrong. Read more of what the founders wrote, and you'll see its not merely freedom from arrest (and case law doesn't support what you say either, otherwise the FCC could flat out tell broadcasters what they can't broadcast).
Of course, you don't even need to do that.. here's the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where do you see in that text that it ONLY applies to not being arrested? It clearly says "make no law."
This is not a problem with free speech. This is a problem with people trying to use their rights to usurp the rights of others, and this phenomion shows up in other areas as well, not just the right to free speech.
The right to free speech ends when you use it to try and take away another persons right to free speech. In a similar vien, your right to own property ends at MY property.
No, not really.. because booing the guy with the microphone prevents OTHERS that may want to hear what he has to say from being able to listen. Free speech is meant to engage in civil debates... but making noise destorys the debate.
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
If it is not a direct threat to you (ie:I'm gonna kill your honkey ass with this knife right now asshole)
Even then, it might not be a threat. A reasonable person would have to believe the person saying that phrase is actually about to do it. How many times have people said "I'm going to be the shit out of you" but not followed through? Probably more than have actually followed through..
Well, my Vaio i ordered at the end of aug had Chrome on it, and it was set as the default browser. It was the first thing I uninstalled... between IE and FF, I feel I have enough choice, and lately I've been prefering IE over FF 3.5 (which seems to have gotten uglier, somehow).
They are also "nice" enough to install the google toolbar for IE, which I ALSO didn't want (I hate any of those toolbars). Took me an hour to uninstall the crap.
I've seen this happen (legally) in every company I've worked for over the last 10 years.
If its legally done, then there should be some law giving an employer a right to keep your property and give it to you later, when convient to them. Please explain why you think it was legal.
I threatened to call the local police, but it had no effect to change their minds.
You should have followed through, because they have NO RIGHT to your personal property.. not even to scan it. If they are afraid you'll take data with you, they need to have a policy that says "no personal property."
Well, a similar analogy is the phone companies. They are used for illegal activity all the time, providing a number to a paying customer who is breaking the law (for example, these debt collectors that are threatening or harrasing people). I'm sure that at least one time they were "made aware" of a customer who was using their purchased number to break the law, but they have immunity.. as they should. If you want to stop selling counterfit handbags, the hosting companies shouldn't be involved (except to give information in response to a subpoena), go after the person actually selling the bags.
Yes, and that cost is HIGHER than if the merchant didn't take cards at all. All other things being equal, the same item would cost you LESS in a store that didn't take cards than one that does.
Having a license in Europe proves you know the rudiments of driving, ie "how to drive". In the UK you have to take a lesson encompassing driving on all types of roads (except motorways but including a fast dual carriageway), you have to demonstrate knowledge of the basic mechanics of a car including what parts need regular servicing, show recognition of a wide range of road signs and signals from police/traffic wardens, know about driving in varied weather conditions and perform basic manoeuvres like reverse parking, 3-point turn (they don't call it that), etc.. If you pass you usually lack experience but to say passing doesn't prove you know how to drive would be wrong.
This is a flawed analogy by the way. There are many examples of where you can pass some kind of test, but STILL don't know what you're talking about. All it means was that you answered the questions the way you were expected to answer them. So no, passing a drivers test doesn't mean you know how to drive, it means you remembered enough basic things to pass.
Anyway, on the parenting point I'm a young parent - becoming a parent blows you away. My friend tried to explain to me as he had his first child a little before we had ours, he just said you won't understand until you have your own. He was so right. Imagine loving a baby and feeling you'd do anything, even give up your life for that child - can you imagine it? It's not at all like loving your parents, or loving a s.o..
Please explain how so... because I would give up my life to save my SO, or my parents. I hear this alot; I think its some self delusion, a "I'm part of a club" kind of thing. A reaction to the responsiblity one now bears and the sacrifices one must make. I feel I do understand what it would be like to have kids... which is why I don't want any.
Parenting is hard, some parents find it a lot easier (I speak with probably a dozen parents a week of children of all ages from lots of backgrounds) some a _lot_ harder - but it's definitely hard. There is a proviso to that, if you think parenting involves sitting a child in front of TV all day or simply putting it out and forgetting it exists, and think that providing a good meal means macdonalds every night and that discipline is not worth the hassle, then you probably find "parenting" isn't so hard but I wouldn't call that parenting.
I think you confuse "hard" with "a lot of work." It seems fairly obvious how to raise a child. The easy thing to do is feed them McDonalds every night and not discipline them. It takes effort to do otherwise though. Of course part of my point is that simply HAVING kids doesn't qualify you for anything... if it did, how would you explain the kids in the hood that ARE fed McDs everynight, and put buying a PS3 over paying the mortgage? I mean, they hav kids, so surely they know what they are doing now, right? So I have no right to criticize? Because I clearly can't figure out that bad food is bad food, or that beating your kid is wrong?
If you're not legally allowed to drive then don't tell me how to drive.
What does being allowed to do something have to do with KNOWING how to do something? Oh ya, nothing.
If you've never done a thing, don't try to tell someone who's done it how to do it. You'll only show your ignorance.
Ahh, so because i don't have kids, I can't tell a parent that they should feed their kids healthy food instead of McDonalds every night. Yup, that's me showing my ignorance. Because I have to knock a girl up to really know that.
Sorry, you're an ass. Having kids has nothing to do with knowing how to raise them. Any dumbfuck can knock up a girl, or get knocked up. Having a kid doesn't raise your IQ, it doesn't make you insightful, it doesn't make you special.
Parenting is NOT HARD. Its a lot of work, but its rather easy. Sadly, many lazy fucks think they know how to run the world because they did the same thing my dog did, which is reproduce.
Looking around, it seems there are PLENTY of parents that dont know what the fuck their doing, given how their kids are behaving, and how fat, lazy, and entitled they are.
Seriously, get over yourself, and get over your kids, and accept that maybe, just maybe, people other than you know whats best.
If the kid wants to text, then let em text. Just as long as it doesn't take such ridiculous amounts of time that it starts to negatively affect other area's... socializing...
Um, do you think they are sending texts into a void?
He said he didn't have kids. That's like someone without a driver's license trying to tell me how to drive.
And yet, 5yr olds can figure out how to drive. No, parenting really ISN'T that hard to figure out, and you don't need to have kids of your own to "understand."
Finally, since you are a parent, I would certainly hope you know that having a license doesn't prove you know how to drive, it only means you're legally allowed to by the government.
Despite the fact that a geneic is chemically identical to a branded drug (once it has come out of its 6 year patent period anyone can copy it)
Um, no that's not always true, at least in the US. A "generic" in the US can be one of two kinds; the first is the kind you describe, the second kind of generic is a DIFFERENT chemical that's supposed to acomplish the same thing. That latter is actually VERY dangerous, since it could mean interference, or have an effect the brand name wouldn't have (or have an effect which could be fatal to your condition).
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear is a much better option than oil, because the waste is much more easily contained. Drilling in CA doesn't solve the CO2 emission problems.
My friend, radioactive waste will always be dangerous.
Yes, but with current technology, we have the halflife down to 10 years. I think we can handle the waste for 10 years until it becomes safe.
Solar and wind are still underexploited resources in this country. Combine them with better use of the energy we currently make and we will be energy independent and cleaner.
Maybe... but its not like they don't have problems of their own. Also, where we put solar and wind matters... and for some places it really isn't practical. Remember, power is a fairly local thing, since we don't have great ways to store it. You also ignore population growth, with will continually push up demand for energy. I doubt conservation will be enough to counteract population growth.
Installation of residential solar generation is ideal. It places the generation at the place of its consumption. And the use of geothermal heat-exchange heating and cooling should be mandatory.
No, its not really ideal.. especially here in VT, where our winter will be starting in about two weeks and lasting until April. Not to mention the summer we just had, where for three months we had rain every day except for a total of 10 days. Not until the last few weeks have we had consistent days of sun and warm weather... and at night its almost getting cold enough to turn on the heat again. Yes, this may be a fluke year... but what would solar do for anyone in these conditions?
Also, I live in the city, with 0.1 aches. Where exactly would you like me to install geothermal heating and cooling? What about the people in NYC... where exactly would they build that?
The fact is, nuclear is the best option we're going to have for a LONG time, and its only gotten better and safer since the 60s.
I once gave a gamestop employee my zip as 12345. He say "its ok if you don't want to give it." My reply was the no, I am from Schenectady, NY.
What about option three? People stop designing cars, watches, etc, because once they sell one, anyone with the "replicator" can get theirs without the original designer being paid?
Ok, glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
They are also great for lots of other things, but "self defense" should not be one of them. A dog is not unduly bothered by the things we call "conscience", and it is by human standards retarded and hopelessly emotionally dependent (upon its owner). Its natural weapon will hurt you in much the same way a pair of rusty, dirty scissors would do. What would people say if you hired a human bodyguard like that?
I'd be perfectly happy with such a bodyguard. Lets stop pretending I should have any respect for the rights of someone breaking into my house, or even regard for their life.
But they scare people because they are willing and eager to harm people in nasty ways.
You're sadly misinformed. Like all dogs, they have a strong desire to please their owner and be useful. Its not a problem of breed, its a problem of owners. There's no reason a pitbull, raised like any other dog, would be more agressive than any other dog.
I don't mind a ban of dogs like these. IMO, if you want to intimidate and harm people, you should do it yourself.
Not possible; as you said, the dog is an animal without rational thought. People are not.
But since even police use dogs to escape the emotional impact of performing violence themselves, I don't hold out much hope for change.
Moron. Police use dogs because they have a great sense of smell, intelligent, an willing to please their owner. The same reason we bred them to hunt rats, get water fowl, track a fox, or herd sheep.
Police mainly use dogs to sniff out drugs & bombs. Even when they are trained to chase down a suspect, they are trained NOT to kill the suspect.
Who said god was a good guy anyway? Love him or burn in hell? Do what he says or he'll inflict pain and suffering on you? That might be what a wife beater considers love, but that's not what I consider love.
You can't have PhD's in every single area of your life.
You don't need a PhD to get cell phone service or a mortgage, or any of the other examples listed. You can also aquire quite a bit of knowledge on your own as well, if you choose to do so. Not enough to make you anywhere near an expert, but enough to know what you're talking about buy making a purchase decision.
And please don't bring up financial services when even the knowledgeable (those who do this for a living) ran head forward into the the wall.
Huh? Plenty of people (and banks and credit unions) didn't take the stupid bet when buying or selling mortgages. My CU for example never offered the kinds of mortgages that took down the market, they were never in crisis, never in danger of collapse. Nor was my mortgage, because I could actually afford it. Of course I thank those morons that did.. I was able to lower my interest rate over 2% (4% for my small home equity loan), get enough money back to do some major projects on the house, keep my payment within $20 of where it was, AND didn't extend the date at which my house will be fully mine. Saved me quite a bit of money and was able to improve my house at the same time.
And how do you negotiate with a multi-billion dollar company? They'll just tell you to go away.
You answered your own question. And if everyone actualy did just that, went without if you had a choice of only being screwed by A or B, A & B would change to offer better terms. But this constant "I have to have it" attitude only screws yourself. Sure, I worry more now about the employment market even though I'm employed.. but at the same time, there have been great deals out there, and companies have been bending over backwards to get my business. And if they don't, they can go screw, because right now, someone else WILL want my business.
Sorry, you're wrong. Read more of what the founders wrote, and you'll see its not merely freedom from arrest (and case law doesn't support what you say either, otherwise the FCC could flat out tell broadcasters what they can't broadcast).
Of course, you don't even need to do that.. here's the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where do you see in that text that it ONLY applies to not being arrested? It clearly says "make no law."
This is not a problem with free speech. This is a problem with people trying to use their rights to usurp the rights of others, and this phenomion shows up in other areas as well, not just the right to free speech.
The right to free speech ends when you use it to try and take away another persons right to free speech. In a similar vien, your right to own property ends at MY property.
No, not really.. because booing the guy with the microphone prevents OTHERS that may want to hear what he has to say from being able to listen. Free speech is meant to engage in civil debates... but making noise destorys the debate.
Just because you have the right to say doesn't mean I have to listen.
True, but that does not give you the right to make sure OTHERS can't listen, which is what is going on when people are trying to drown out a speaker.
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
If it is not a direct threat to you (ie:I'm gonna kill your honkey ass with this knife right now asshole)
Even then, it might not be a threat. A reasonable person would have to believe the person saying that phrase is actually about to do it. How many times have people said "I'm going to be the shit out of you" but not followed through? Probably more than have actually followed through..
Well, my Vaio i ordered at the end of aug had Chrome on it, and it was set as the default browser. It was the first thing I uninstalled... between IE and FF, I feel I have enough choice, and lately I've been prefering IE over FF 3.5 (which seems to have gotten uglier, somehow).
They are also "nice" enough to install the google toolbar for IE, which I ALSO didn't want (I hate any of those toolbars). Took me an hour to uninstall the crap.
I've seen this happen (legally) in every company I've worked for over the last 10 years.
If its legally done, then there should be some law giving an employer a right to keep your property and give it to you later, when convient to them. Please explain why you think it was legal.
I threatened to call the local police, but it had no effect to change their minds.
You should have followed through, because they have NO RIGHT to your personal property.. not even to scan it. If they are afraid you'll take data with you, they need to have a policy that says "no personal property."
Well, a similar analogy is the phone companies. They are used for illegal activity all the time, providing a number to a paying customer who is breaking the law (for example, these debt collectors that are threatening or harrasing people). I'm sure that at least one time they were "made aware" of a customer who was using their purchased number to break the law, but they have immunity.. as they should. If you want to stop selling counterfit handbags, the hosting companies shouldn't be involved (except to give information in response to a subpoena), go after the person actually selling the bags.
Yes, and that cost is HIGHER than if the merchant didn't take cards at all. All other things being equal, the same item would cost you LESS in a store that didn't take cards than one that does.
Having a license in Europe proves you know the rudiments of driving, ie "how to drive". In the UK you have to take a lesson encompassing driving on all types of roads (except motorways but including a fast dual carriageway), you have to demonstrate knowledge of the basic mechanics of a car including what parts need regular servicing, show recognition of a wide range of road signs and signals from police/traffic wardens, know about driving in varied weather conditions and perform basic manoeuvres like reverse parking, 3-point turn (they don't call it that), etc.. If you pass you usually lack experience but to say passing doesn't prove you know how to drive would be wrong.
This is a flawed analogy by the way. There are many examples of where you can pass some kind of test, but STILL don't know what you're talking about. All it means was that you answered the questions the way you were expected to answer them. So no, passing a drivers test doesn't mean you know how to drive, it means you remembered enough basic things to pass.
Anyway, on the parenting point I'm a young parent - becoming a parent blows you away. My friend tried to explain to me as he had his first child a little before we had ours, he just said you won't understand until you have your own. He was so right. Imagine loving a baby and feeling you'd do anything, even give up your life for that child - can you imagine it? It's not at all like loving your parents, or loving a s.o..
Please explain how so... because I would give up my life to save my SO, or my parents. I hear this alot; I think its some self delusion, a "I'm part of a club" kind of thing. A reaction to the responsiblity one now bears and the sacrifices one must make. I feel I do understand what it would be like to have kids... which is why I don't want any.
Parenting is hard, some parents find it a lot easier (I speak with probably a dozen parents a week of children of all ages from lots of backgrounds) some a _lot_ harder - but it's definitely hard. There is a proviso to that, if you think parenting involves sitting a child in front of TV all day or simply putting it out and forgetting it exists, and think that providing a good meal means macdonalds every night and that discipline is not worth the hassle, then you probably find "parenting" isn't so hard but I wouldn't call that parenting.
I think you confuse "hard" with "a lot of work." It seems fairly obvious how to raise a child. The easy thing to do is feed them McDonalds every night and not discipline them. It takes effort to do otherwise though. Of course part of my point is that simply HAVING kids doesn't qualify you for anything... if it did, how would you explain the kids in the hood that ARE fed McDs everynight, and put buying a PS3 over paying the mortgage? I mean, they hav kids, so surely they know what they are doing now, right? So I have no right to criticize? Because I clearly can't figure out that bad food is bad food, or that beating your kid is wrong?
If you're not legally allowed to drive then don't tell me how to drive.
What does being allowed to do something have to do with KNOWING how to do something? Oh ya, nothing.
If you've never done a thing, don't try to tell someone who's done it how to do it. You'll only show your ignorance.
Ahh, so because i don't have kids, I can't tell a parent that they should feed their kids healthy food instead of McDonalds every night. Yup, that's me showing my ignorance. Because I have to knock a girl up to really know that.
Sorry, you're an ass. Having kids has nothing to do with knowing how to raise them. Any dumbfuck can knock up a girl, or get knocked up. Having a kid doesn't raise your IQ, it doesn't make you insightful, it doesn't make you special.
Parenting is NOT HARD. Its a lot of work, but its rather easy. Sadly, many lazy fucks think they know how to run the world because they did the same thing my dog did, which is reproduce.
Looking around, it seems there are PLENTY of parents that dont know what the fuck their doing, given how their kids are behaving, and how fat, lazy, and entitled they are.
Seriously, get over yourself, and get over your kids, and accept that maybe, just maybe, people other than you know whats best.
If the kid wants to text, then let em text. Just as long as it doesn't take such ridiculous amounts of time that it starts to negatively affect other area's ... socializing ...
Um, do you think they are sending texts into a void?
He said he didn't have kids. That's like someone without a driver's license trying to tell me how to drive.
And yet, 5yr olds can figure out how to drive. No, parenting really ISN'T that hard to figure out, and you don't need to have kids of your own to "understand."
Finally, since you are a parent, I would certainly hope you know that having a license doesn't prove you know how to drive, it only means you're legally allowed to by the government.
So... is it irresponsible to post an angry rant about CELL (notice the two Ls) phones?
Despite the fact that a geneic is chemically identical to a branded drug (once it has come out of its 6 year patent period anyone can copy it)
Um, no that's not always true, at least in the US. A "generic" in the US can be one of two kinds; the first is the kind you describe, the second kind of generic is a DIFFERENT chemical that's supposed to acomplish the same thing. That latter is actually VERY dangerous, since it could mean interference, or have an effect the brand name wouldn't have (or have an effect which could be fatal to your condition).