"Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place."
Well, that would have to change, of course. I think the key would be to allow the populace to present a consensus of their *needs*, but for the Western financiers to directly hire the contractors to fulfill the needs, eliminating the corrupt middle-men. It might be necessary to psychologically split them from the populace, by constructing new villages in territory which is isolated and thereby safe from terrorist interference, and then offer to the populace: "here it is, brand shiny new village with schools and industries and hospitals, etc. -- who feels like relocating?"
"Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design"
You're obviously more up-to-date on this stuff than I am. Could you please read my post #9882789, and then see if you can deal with the preceding post from "2TecTom (311314)"? (Wear your flame-suit.)
"Nitpicking? try to do some real research. A good start is here"
I don't understand why you're doggedly obssessing on my having used the word "hydrogen". My OP clearly said, "(***E.G.*** solar, hydrogen, nuclear)". And then I explained in a follow-up that I was generically referring to "Alternative Energy Sources".
"it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues."
I never claimed, nor meant to create an impression, otherwise. OTOH, one needn't necessarily be incapable of engaging in an intelligent conversation in that circumstance.
"follow your own advice and try using Google"
apparently I must have sounded condescending, which wasn't my intention. Review my post history, and you'll see that such isn't my style.
"Google it" was my way of saying, in a (sadly confounded) effort to save metaphorical breath: "I've seen convincing stuff about this written by people who should know, and right now I don't feel like going to compile a list of references for you, since *I*'ve already read it and I'm not sure you'd be interested enough to make it worth my effort."
Whew. That being understood, what I was trying to say, is that, even as of several years ago, I'd seen enough to convince me that acceptably-safe nuclear is feasible and practical today. The most salient point I remember about it, is that a new generation of plant-design involves plants which are basically "self-extinguishing", in that a failure of any major safety system results in natural physical forces shutting down the reactor. (Simplistically: think of a reaction chamber which is hermetically sealed and completely submerged, and whose structural integrity is physically dependent on sustaining the reaction within nominal parameters, so that a runaway reaction will cause the chamber to collapse and be flooded and the reaction thereby extinguished.)
"they DO hate liberty and democracy" I don't dispute that. (In fact it reminds me of the Japanese overlord of the galley-slaves in "Eric The Viking", who says, "You incomprehensible, horizontal-eyed, Western trouser-wearers! Eurgh! You all look the same to me! How I despise your lack of subtlety and your joined-up writing!") BUT I do dispute that they would be exporting terrorism purely for those reasons.
Also, you fail to distinguish "they" from "Islam". "They" (the rabid variety) are a minority.
"requires that other civilizations be subdued. All others must convert or die."
Your perceptions of Islam are simply inaccurate. I could refer you to many knowledgable authorities, in and out of Islam, to support this. Your views are descriptive only of certain fundamentalist sects. It's like saying that Branch Davidians represent all USA Christians.
wow. I'm not quite sure what to make of that. To possibly clarify: how (if at all) do those feelings vary with the nature of the relationship? and how do you feel about women on top?
"He doesn't like "infidels", period." I suggest you google this. Virtually every commentator/analyst I've seen/heard/read, says that OBL's biggest beef is our presence on "holy" soil in Saudi.
"doesn't like" is very different from "wants to attack on their home soil". Americans "don't like" the practice of forced female circumcision, but we'd never go to war to prevent it.
Do you really believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd COMPLETELY left the region IMMEDIATELY after GW#1, and had NO troops in the region since then?
For that matter, in the context of my original point about he consequences of our reliance on Arab petro, the question really should be: Do you sincerely believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd NEVER put troops in the region?
**WE** empowered the Taliban against the USSR; WE supplied the Stinger missiles to OBL's people in Afghanistan. If we'd never been in GW#1, do you genuinely believe that OBL would have thanked us by EXPORTING terrorism?
"So... by immediatly acting like a suspect, I keep myself from being a suspect?"
I think you know I didn't say that. *Your* single act (of declining DNA without a warrant) doesn't make you not a suspect; but your consistent policy of always being similarly vigilant of your rights (1) strengthens all our rights, (2) prevents you from incriminating yourself on that future day when you REALLY don't like their request, and more strongly wish to decline (for WHATEVER reason), and (3) eventually wears down their interest in maintaining such habits as ethnic profiling, thus "allowing & encouraging" them to conduct their investigations more fruitfully. (Think twice before you answer that last point: I think I can anticipate your intuitive response, and I think you won't like where it eventually leads you.)
"I'd also tell them...where I'm headed, and the last time I had a drink"
There's nothing more I can say to dissuade you that this is innocuous, except to suggest that you casually ask some experienced criminal attorneys, especially of the Alan Dershowitz variety.
"If DNA becomes harder to get than fingerprints, the tool is essentially denied the police"
BEEP, error! LEGALISTICALLY, fingerprints are already equally hard: they get them only if they arrest you, an act which requires justification as least as strong as we're already discussing for voluntary DNA.
"there's nothing wrong with it" Well, I've already expressed what I think IS wrong with it. Repetition would be pointless.
"aren't we diluting the red-button of protest by using it for nuisances"
Well, that's one theory, but not one which I understand. Counter-example: Washington was influenced a lot more effectively by the late-stage Vietnam mass protests, than it was by the early, small, infrequent actions.
You clearly don't understand the LEO mentality: the more which the public meekly accepts, the more they're encouraged to believe that you DON'T have a right to decline.
"treat the police as the enemy" There's probably NEVER been a case of an LE institution becoming MORE considerate of individual rights, as a consequence of LESS insistence on observance of those rights.
And I'm not advocating throwing rocks at them. I'm merely advocating being just as vigilant in maintaining your legitimate rights, as LEOs commonly are in exercising their legitimate powers. You would do no less if dealing with your child's school principal, or a doctor who was pressuring you to agree to surgery.
In fact, there lies what might be a good paradigm for discussing this: how say you, if the policeman's target isn't you but your pre-teen child? Maybe even better, your best friend's child, whom you're hosting while the parents are climbing K2?
"nuclear is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar."
I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready". I'm talking about "ready", technologically and financially, i.e. no MATERIAL barriers. You're speaking of attitudinal/policy issues, which is EXACTLY the point of my OP: that we must change our attitudes and be open and willing to re-evaluate the state of nuclear power, at least as an interim measure.
re: hybrid, you're right, I misspoke, since that term has been co-opted. I should have said "mixed" or "blended". Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY. Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
"The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income."
Excellent point, with which I agree. But 9/11 cost them less than US$1M. And I still maintain that Palestine is the last on the list of causes of *exported* terrorism, and that $$$ -- *Western* $$$, for image reasons -- could go a long way toward fixing the Palestine problem.
"I'm completely willing to accept that ALL of those things won't happen"
why?
"I am not afraid to stand up and say "that's wrong!" This is what's commonly referred to as "being a responsible citizen.""
And how is that noble goal advanced by yielding to the officer's demand, immediately and without protest? (which your OP seemed to favor)
"by giving into fear and denying this tool rather than dealing with its consequences, you're doing nothing."
I'm not talking about denying DNA as a tool, GENERICALLY. I'm talking about not immediately dropping one's shorts upon any request from anyone with a badge or uniform. If you do this when they don't have a STRONG preponderance of reasonable cause, you seem to THINK that it's a no-cost or low-cost option. But you're wrong, because there's an invisible cost to ALL of us, every time that ONE of us does that.
Furthermore -- in view of this history of investigations, mistaken identifications, prosecutions, and EXECUTIONS which have gone horribly wrong -- if you were in the least respect the subject of a criminal investigation, and you did ANYTHING except to immediately clam-up and demand an attorney, then you'd be a fool.
and I don't think you understand what *I* meant by good/evil. The evil to which I referred, is the evil of creeping restriction of privacy and other human rights (e.g. reasonable evidence supporting a *warrant* for a search).
"prove your innocence so the authorities can get out there and find the real rapist"
you haven't spent much time observing police mentality. It's like taking a dog for a walk: he wants to sniff EVERYTHING, in the hope of stumbling on something interesting, EVEN IF THE OBJECT WASN'T HIS ORIGINAL GOAL.
I once made the mistake of reporting a stalker, in real-time, whom I saw following a woman for a while (not just my opinion, he followed her all the way home, then she saw him reverse direction after he'd watched her go inside). I waited for the cops to arrive, so I could point him out. After they had ALREADY DECIDED that he was a legitimate threat which I did well to report, AND arrested him, they wanted to ***SEE*** MY ID. Cops are like a neurotic Weimaraner I once owned, who constantly made chomping motions with his mouth, on the chance that his mouth might land on something interesting.
Yes, I give most cops credit for genuine concern for public safety, AT THE MOMENT WHEN they're in the thick of an investigation of violence. But they are NEVER -- not for a moment -- devoid of the mentality of, "is there a quick opportunity for me to rack up my score?"
The QUICKEST way for the cop to find the rapist, is to focus on the likeliest suspects, not a dragnet.
"only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost"
which makes it not ready. QED. And this was part of my point, i.e. re-invest the savings (from leaving the Middle East) into making other alternatives ready for wide-spread use.
"our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited."
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology). It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.
"I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Israel"
I was expecting this response from someone. The fact is, the biggest Islamic threat TO THE USA today, is from a group founded by a guy who's pissed about US troops not leaving Saudi soil after Gulf#1. 9/11 would never have happened purely because of Israel. And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
"hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry"
re: hydrogen: nitpicking. The point is, That Set Of Entities Colloquially Named As Alternative Energy Sources.
re: "entire global nuclear power industry"
not what i meant. not saying all existing plants are safe; saying that the technology exists to build new plants which are acceptably safe. google for it.
I think there's more unintentional wisdom than you realize, in the fact that you chose to say "refresh their relations", versus "refresh their relationships".
Let's stop trying to find Band-Aids for energy resources which are inherently finite and time-limited. Short of global population-control (NBL--Not Bloody Likely), eventually we'll have no choice but to go with unlimited sources (e.g., solar, hydrogen, nuclear). And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear -- which today is much more advanced, safety-wise, than most people realize.
This isn't an argument for "nuclear forever". But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East -- think of how fast we could in advance in alternate-source technology, using all the funds and human resources we'd save by COMPLETELY removing ourselves from trouble-spots around the world.
Not to mention the funds, etc., we'd save by not needing such a high level of anti-terrorism preparedness: despite the pap which the Gang Of Bush tries to feed us -- "They hate us because they hate liberty and democracy" -- the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.
Isn't that basket of benefits worth the cost of tolerating a few years of nuclear?
"If the APD wants my DNA to see if I raped a girl on my way to work, and I know that I didn't, then I can go ahead and give it to them."
You seem completely willing to trust -- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime) -- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes -- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historical evidence from police behavior in even the most "liberal" of countries, you retain such trust. How charmingly naive.
It's really depressing to be reminded of the number of people who are seduced by the argument which says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to fear?"
Some famous person said, "All that is required for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing."
"If the APD wants my DNA to see if I raped a girl on my way to work, and I know that I didn't, then I can go ahead and give it to them."
You seem completely willing to trust -- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime) -- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes -- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historical evidence from police behavior in even the most "liberal" of countries, you retain such trust. How sweet.
It's really depressing to be reminded of the number of people who are seduced by the argument which says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to fear?"
Some famous person said, "All that is required for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing."
Absolutely on the level... I went to the Amazon URL provided for Mead & Conway in a prior post. Halfway down the page, it says: "Customers interested in Introduction to VLSI Systems may also be interested in:
Free service to meet singles"
Boy, their artificial intelligence systems are a lot sharper than I imagined!
You mentioned "legal to download", and then "illegal to use [p2p]". So, since p2p uses specific ports, I thought that perhaps you were making a distinction of those ports versus ftp or http.
"I can't tell, what the court would say about unintentional sharing."
Seems like a very large loophole. Modify a p2p protocol, to announce an mp3's availability in an anonymous usenet post which says, "I'm a script-kiddy. I found an open ftp at [ip.address]. Here's a list of the files I found." In fact, it might be a very smart thing for a sharer to do, because it transfers the legal liabiliy from the "innocent" weak-security machine, to the downloader who becomes "guilty" of accessing someone else's machine "without permission".
"And it isn't the point here. The point is: it's legal to download but illegal to distribute."
If you choose to the restrict the discussion to my original, apparently erroneous, belief that the copy-recipient is prosecutable in the EU, then you're correct in saying "it isn't the point". I believe it's VERY much to the point, because I'm actually more interested in the broader issues of: -- legal restraints on sharing, and -- the growing hegemony of US interests, particularly through the cowardly cooperation of the EU bureaucrats. Did the average EU resident actually anticipate and welcome this role of the EU legislators as an oppressive trans-national government? Didn't most people envision the EU primarily as way to eliminate frictions in travel and trade, i.e. a means for *reducing* regulation?
And, again to raise my previous concern, do you sincerely believe that your current freedoms aren't threatened by EU standardization in these matters?
Slashdot Mirror
"Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place."
Well, that would have to change, of course. I think the key would be to allow the populace to present a consensus of their *needs*, but for the Western financiers to directly hire the contractors to fulfill the needs, eliminating the corrupt middle-men.
It might be necessary to psychologically split them from the populace, by constructing new villages in territory which is isolated and thereby safe from terrorist interference, and then offer to the populace:
"here it is, brand shiny new village with schools and industries and hospitals, etc. -- who feels like relocating?"
"Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design"
You're obviously more up-to-date on this stuff than I am.
Could you please read my post #9882789, and then see if you can deal with the preceding post from "2TecTom (311314)"? (Wear your flame-suit.)
"Nitpicking? try to do some real research. A good start is here"
I don't understand why you're doggedly obssessing on my having used the word "hydrogen".
My OP clearly said, "(***E.G.*** solar, hydrogen, nuclear)".
And then I explained in a follow-up that I was generically referring to "Alternative Energy Sources".
"it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues."
I never claimed, nor meant to create an impression, otherwise.
OTOH, one needn't necessarily be incapable of engaging in an intelligent conversation in that circumstance.
"follow your own advice and try using Google"
apparently I must have sounded condescending, which wasn't my intention.
Review my post history, and you'll see that such isn't my style.
"Google it" was my way of saying, in a (sadly confounded) effort to save metaphorical breath:
"I've seen convincing stuff about this written by people who should know, and right now I don't feel like going to compile a list of references for you, since *I*'ve already read it and I'm not sure you'd be interested enough to make it worth my effort."
Whew.
That being understood, what I was trying to say, is that, even as of several years ago, I'd seen enough to convince me that acceptably-safe nuclear is feasible and practical today.
The most salient point I remember about it, is that a new generation of plant-design involves plants which are basically "self-extinguishing", in that a failure of any major safety system results in natural physical forces shutting down the reactor.
(Simplistically: think of a reaction chamber which is hermetically sealed and completely submerged, and whose structural integrity is physically dependent on sustaining the reaction within nominal parameters, so that a runaway reaction will cause the chamber to collapse and be flooded and the reaction thereby extinguished.)
"Not only is it unnecessary to begin a new subject with every post you make, it's considered hubris and bad form."
"Hubris"?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm not sure to whom you're referring.
Regardless, I personally find it useful, whether done by myself or others.
"they DO hate liberty and democracy"
I don't dispute that.
(In fact it reminds me of the Japanese overlord of the galley-slaves in "Eric The Viking", who says, "You incomprehensible, horizontal-eyed, Western trouser-wearers! Eurgh! You all look the same to me! How I despise your lack of subtlety and your joined-up writing!")
BUT I do dispute that they would be exporting terrorism purely for those reasons.
Also, you fail to distinguish "they" from "Islam". "They" (the rabid variety) are a minority.
"requires that other civilizations be subdued. All others must convert or die."
Your perceptions of Islam are simply inaccurate. I could refer you to many knowledgable authorities, in and out of Islam, to support this.
Your views are descriptive only of certain fundamentalist sects. It's like saying that Branch Davidians represent all USA Christians.
wow.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
To possibly clarify:
how (if at all) do those feelings vary with the nature of the relationship?
and how do you feel about women on top?
I've been flogging this idea for a while.
No one's interested.
"He doesn't like "infidels", period."
I suggest you google this.
Virtually every commentator/analyst I've seen/heard/read, says that OBL's biggest beef is our presence on "holy" soil in Saudi.
"doesn't like" is very different from "wants to attack on their home soil".
Americans "don't like" the practice of forced female circumcision, but we'd never go to war to prevent it.
Do you really believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd COMPLETELY left the region IMMEDIATELY after GW#1, and had NO troops in the region since then?
For that matter, in the context of my original point about he consequences of our reliance on Arab petro, the question really should be:
Do you sincerely believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd NEVER put troops in the region?
**WE** empowered the Taliban against the USSR; WE supplied the Stinger missiles to OBL's people in Afghanistan.
If we'd never been in GW#1, do you genuinely believe that OBL would have thanked us by EXPORTING terrorism?
?Long after multiple others thought it was worth responding?
check your time-stamps before modding, jerk.
"So... by immediatly acting like a suspect, I keep myself from being a suspect?"
...where I'm headed, and the last time I had a drink"
I think you know I didn't say that.
*Your* single act (of declining DNA without a warrant) doesn't make you not a suspect; but your consistent policy of always being similarly vigilant of your rights
(1) strengthens all our rights,
(2) prevents you from incriminating yourself on that future day when you REALLY don't like their request, and more strongly wish to decline (for WHATEVER reason), and
(3) eventually wears down their interest in maintaining such habits as ethnic profiling, thus "allowing & encouraging" them to conduct their investigations more fruitfully.
(Think twice before you answer that last point: I think I can anticipate your intuitive response, and I think you won't like where it eventually leads you.)
"I'd also tell them
There's nothing more I can say to dissuade you that this is innocuous, except to suggest that you casually ask some experienced criminal attorneys, especially of the Alan Dershowitz variety.
"If DNA becomes harder to get than fingerprints, the tool is essentially denied the police"
BEEP, error!
LEGALISTICALLY, fingerprints are already equally hard: they get them only if they arrest you, an act which requires justification as least as strong as we're already discussing for voluntary DNA.
"there's nothing wrong with it"
Well, I've already expressed what I think IS wrong with it. Repetition would be pointless.
"aren't we diluting the red-button of protest by using it for nuisances"
Well, that's one theory, but not one which I understand.
Counter-example: Washington was influenced a lot more effectively by the late-stage Vietnam mass protests, than it was by the early, small, infrequent actions.
You clearly don't understand the LEO mentality: the more which the public meekly accepts, the more they're encouraged to believe that you DON'T have a right to decline.
"treat the police as the enemy"
There's probably NEVER been a case of an LE institution becoming MORE considerate of individual rights, as a consequence of LESS insistence on observance of those rights.
And I'm not advocating throwing rocks at them.
I'm merely advocating being just as vigilant in maintaining your legitimate rights, as LEOs commonly are in exercising their legitimate powers. You would do no less if dealing with your child's school principal, or a doctor who was pressuring you to agree to surgery.
In fact, there lies what might be a good paradigm for discussing this:
how say you, if the policeman's target isn't you but your pre-teen child?
Maybe even better, your best friend's child, whom you're hosting while the parents are climbing K2?
"Nitpick - Hybrid cars do not use grid power"
agreed.
see latest post.
"nuclear is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar."
I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".
I'm talking about "ready", technologically and financially, i.e. no MATERIAL barriers.
You're speaking of attitudinal/policy issues, which is EXACTLY the point of my OP:
that we must change our attitudes and be open and willing to re-evaluate the state of nuclear power, at least as an interim measure.
re: hybrid, you're right, I misspoke, since that term has been co-opted. I should have said "mixed" or "blended". Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY. Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
"The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income."
Excellent point, with which I agree.
But 9/11 cost them less than US$1M.
And I still maintain that Palestine is the last on the list of causes of *exported* terrorism, and that $$$ -- *Western* $$$, for image reasons -- could go a long way toward fixing the Palestine problem.
"I'm completely willing to accept that ALL of those things won't happen"
why?
"I am not afraid to stand up and say "that's wrong!" This is what's commonly referred to as "being a responsible citizen.""
And how is that noble goal advanced by yielding to the officer's demand, immediately and without protest? (which your OP seemed to favor)
"by giving into fear and denying this tool rather than dealing with its consequences, you're doing nothing."
I'm not talking about denying DNA as a tool, GENERICALLY.
I'm talking about not immediately dropping one's shorts upon any request from anyone with a badge or uniform.
If you do this when they don't have a STRONG preponderance of reasonable cause, you seem to THINK that it's a no-cost or low-cost option.
But you're wrong, because there's an invisible cost to ALL of us, every time that ONE of us does that.
Furthermore -- in view of this history of investigations, mistaken identifications, prosecutions, and EXECUTIONS which have gone horribly wrong --
if you were in the least respect the subject of a criminal investigation,
and you did ANYTHING except to immediately clam-up and demand an attorney,
then you'd be a fool.
and I don't think you understand what *I* meant by good/evil.
The evil to which I referred, is the evil of creeping restriction of privacy and other human rights (e.g. reasonable evidence supporting a *warrant* for a search).
"prove your innocence so the authorities can get out there and find the real rapist"
you haven't spent much time observing police mentality.
It's like taking a dog for a walk: he wants to sniff EVERYTHING, in the hope of stumbling on something interesting, EVEN IF THE OBJECT WASN'T HIS ORIGINAL GOAL.
I once made the mistake of reporting a stalker, in real-time, whom I saw following a woman for a while (not just my opinion, he followed her all the way home, then she saw him reverse direction after he'd watched her go inside).
I waited for the cops to arrive, so I could point him out.
After they had ALREADY DECIDED that he was a legitimate threat which I did well to report, AND arrested him, they wanted to ***SEE*** MY ID.
Cops are like a neurotic Weimaraner I once owned, who constantly made chomping motions with his mouth, on the chance that his mouth might land on something interesting.
Yes, I give most cops credit for genuine concern for public safety, AT THE MOMENT WHEN they're in the thick of an investigation of violence. But they are NEVER -- not for a moment -- devoid of the mentality of, "is there a quick opportunity for me to rack up my score?"
The QUICKEST way for the cop to find the rapist, is to focus on the likeliest suspects, not a dragnet.
"only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost"
which makes it not ready.
QED.
And this was part of my point, i.e. re-invest the savings (from leaving the Middle East) into making other alternatives ready for wide-spread use.
"our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited."
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology).
It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.
"I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Israel"
I was expecting this response from someone.
The fact is, the biggest Islamic threat TO THE USA today, is from a group founded by a guy who's pissed about US troops not leaving Saudi soil after Gulf#1.
9/11 would never have happened purely because of Israel.
And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
"hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry"
re: hydrogen: nitpicking. The point is, That Set Of Entities Colloquially Named As Alternative Energy Sources.
re: "entire global nuclear power industry"
not what i meant.
not saying all existing plants are safe;
saying that the technology exists to build new plants which are acceptably safe.
google for it.
FLAMAEBAIT?!
you insensitive clod, my reference to the Finnish army was an allusion to today's story about net-addiction in Finnish draftees.
I think there's more unintentional wisdom than you realize, in the fact that you chose to say "refresh their relations", versus "refresh their relationships".
"Once the word sex is mentioned the women immediately roll over and are asleep within seconds."
And exactly how does this result in an absence of sex?
For that matter, for a lot of men, how would they notice the difference?
.. effects of hibernation.
It's the same as spending all your time on slashdot.
And the biggest effect is that it gets you out of the Finnish army.
Let's stop trying to find Band-Aids for energy resources which are inherently finite and time-limited. Short of global population-control (NBL--Not Bloody Likely), eventually we'll have no choice but to go with unlimited sources (e.g., solar, hydrogen, nuclear). And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear -- which today is much more advanced, safety-wise, than most people realize.
This isn't an argument for "nuclear forever". But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East -- think of how fast we could in advance in alternate-source technology, using all the funds and human resources we'd save by COMPLETELY removing ourselves from trouble-spots around the world.
Not to mention the funds, etc., we'd save by not needing such a high level of anti-terrorism preparedness:
despite the pap which the Gang Of Bush tries to feed us -- "They hate us because they hate liberty and democracy" -- the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.
Isn't that basket of benefits worth the cost of tolerating a few years of nuclear?
"If the APD wants my DNA to see if I raped a girl on my way to work, and I know that I didn't, then I can go ahead and give it to them."
You seem completely willing to trust
-- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime)
-- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes
-- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historical evidence from police behavior in even the most "liberal" of countries, you retain such trust.
How charmingly naive.
It's really depressing to be reminded of the number of people who are seduced by the argument which says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to fear?"
Some famous person said, "All that is required for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing."
"If the APD wants my DNA to see if I raped a girl on my way to work, and I know that I didn't, then I can go ahead and give it to them."
You seem completely willing to trust
-- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime)
-- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes
-- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historical evidence from police behavior in even the most "liberal" of countries, you retain such trust.
How sweet.
It's really depressing to be reminded of the number of people who are seduced by the argument which says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to fear?"
Some famous person said, "All that is required for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing."
Absolutely on the level...
I went to the Amazon URL provided for Mead & Conway in a prior post.
Halfway down the page, it says:
"Customers interested in Introduction to VLSI Systems may also be interested in:
Free service to meet singles"
Boy, their artificial intelligence systems are a lot sharper than I imagined!
"...physics engineer...lasers...serious gaps in my semiconductor physics understanding..."
;-)
hmmm... is there any possible way that I could interest you in a job with Bin Laden Engineering, Inc.?
--signed,
Wile E. Coyote
"How is this related to port numbers?"
You mentioned "legal to download", and then "illegal to use [p2p]".
So, since p2p uses specific ports, I thought that perhaps you were making a distinction of those ports versus ftp or http.
"I can't tell, what the court would say about unintentional sharing."
Seems like a very large loophole. Modify a p2p protocol, to announce an mp3's availability in an anonymous usenet post which says, "I'm a script-kiddy. I found an open ftp at [ip.address]. Here's a list of the files I found."
In fact, it might be a very smart thing for a sharer to do, because it transfers the legal liabiliy from the "innocent" weak-security machine, to the downloader who becomes "guilty" of accessing someone else's machine "without permission".
"And it isn't the point here. The point is: it's legal to download but illegal to distribute."
If you choose to the restrict the discussion to my original, apparently erroneous, belief that the copy-recipient is prosecutable in the EU, then you're correct in saying "it isn't the point".
I believe it's VERY much to the point, because I'm actually more interested in the broader issues of:
-- legal restraints on sharing, and
-- the growing hegemony of US interests, particularly through the cowardly cooperation of the EU bureaucrats.
Did the average EU resident actually anticipate and welcome this role of the EU legislators as an oppressive trans-national government?
Didn't most people envision the EU primarily as way to eliminate frictions in travel and trade, i.e. a means for *reducing* regulation?
And, again to raise my previous concern, do you sincerely believe that your current freedoms aren't threatened by EU standardization in these matters?