You are mixing up two things. One is "is the science correct, and to what uncertainty?" The other is "what should we do about it, and what would this cost? These are completely different questions. The response "I think that it would cost too much to solve the problem, therefore I will assert that the science is inaccurate and the problem does not exist" is not a logical response.
No, I am not "mixing up two different things". I am posing two different concepts, the first is that we have no freaking clue what the climate will do over the next 1,000-2,000 years. The second is that the solutions proposed are costly, including a cost in lives lost, across a wide variety of measures. To ask for that level of sacrifice with so little certainty there is a real problem that the proposed actions will actually solve is asking to be shown the door.
What has happened, right now, is an asymmetric response: so far, the people politically on the left have been proposing possible solutions, while people politically on the right have been refusing to propose solutions or analyze them-- when the problem is discussed, their response has been overwhelming: "the problem doesn't exist and it's a hoax."
And that's the problem, there is insufficient evidence/proof relative to the response demanded. It may well be a hoax, there simply isn't enough 'there' there to say with certainty.
No, the warming following the last glaciation finished about ten thousand years ago, and the sea level rise attributable to that is pretty much done. Here's a good graph: cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png [antarcticglaciers.org]
That's one theory. There are others.
The earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years, but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[36] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming[37] (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.[38]
There's also this:
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacialâ"interglacial periods within an ice age.
Which I find interesting in that if the reasons why ice ages occur and why some are longer than others are so poorly understood, how can it be claimed that there is sufficient certainty in the claims of AGW proponents to make the kind of major societal/economic/industrial/diplomatic sacrifices that would be required across the board in order to achieve any even slightly-meaningful effect?
Before we start condemning those in poverty to further suffering and death (artificial energy scarcity/high prices are extremely regressive taxes that impact the poorest the most and the quickest) let's be sure the lives sacrificed are not sacrificed for an; "Oops, my bad. Scratch that theory.'
How many lives per cent/kWh in higher prices is too much? When those who wish to raise energy prices as a social-engineering tool can honestly answer that with solid numbers and justify their deaths convincingly to their families, I'll start listening.
It wouldn't matter Trump or Clinton. The EC needs to be done away with. In Tennessee, Democrats are in the same boat as Californian Republicans, so getting rid of the EC would be liberating for both parties. I basically vote Libertarian, Green, The go fuck yourself party simply because there is next to no point in a Democrat voting in Tennessee.
As posters here have already suggested, a proportional State EC might be the way to go here, as it seems to strike a balance between serving the originally-intended function/purpose of the EC while generally tending to more truly represent the popular vote in most scenarios.
A direct democracy election process is indistinguishable from mob rule. Which is fine and dandy until you're in the next group the mob targets, or simply ignores the vital needs of in favor of the mobs' current favorite flavor du jour.
"Well screw 'em they're the minority" only works as long as you remain a part of the majority, and those divisions are never stable or predictable when it comes to mobs.
Yawn...the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. Guess what, we didn't pollute or cause the glaciers to melt either. Blame it on the dinosaurs that emitted carbon dioxide and methane from their gargantuan farts.
Well, the Earth is currently in a warming phase after the last ice age. That means global average temperatures will continue to rise past the 2 degrees Celsius TFS mentions even if humans never existed and no matter what we do (unless we figure out how to make a P-U 238 Explosive Space Modulator and cause the Earth to disappear with an Earth-shattering Kaboom), a strategy consisting mainly of adaptation (along with efficient but lower-impact CO2 and pollution controls) seems to be the logical strategy. We cannot stop global temperature rise, at the very best we might, maybe, be able to slow the rate of rise by a few tenths of a degree, but at huge costs in lives, suffering, opportunities, and wealth.
If we want to minimize the impact of humans on the Earth then the logical strategy is to concentrate on moving as much of those industries, activities, and resource-gathering activities which pollute or otherwise impact the Earths' environment to space as possible as quickly as possible...hopefully before limited Earth-bound resources become too scarce/expensive to accomplish it and condemn humans to extinction.
You're exactly right. Our kids have an iPad each through the school but it is made abundantly clear to them and their parents (who own the iTunes account, what with their 13+ age restriction) that we, the school, owns the device.
What happens if parents refused to sign up for any accounts on behalf of their son/daughter-student? And/or refuse to sign for responsibility for the school-provided device(s) nor provide their own device(s)? If the student himself refuses to sign for responsibility/an account, or even take possession of the device(s)?
I'm sorry, but the rebellion of India against the British was partly *caused* by Britain attempting to enforce a gun ban in India.
Mahatma Gandhi was very much opposed to gun bans, as evidenced by one of his quotes:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
"Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor," Mahatma Gandhi - The Doctrine of the Sword
Today's society has no place for guns.
You are laughably naive and have swallowed all the crap fed you by your professors and other leftists/Progressives. As long as basic human nature remains relatively unchanged, the natural right & ability to defend oneself and their family & property will always have a lofty place among a free people. It is only criminals and those in government who wish to rule over a people against their will who wish to ban guns.
But its early days yet. We don't really know how it works. If it turns out to be a real thing, then physicists will have to mull it over for a couple of decades before new applications appear.
And if it's real, then once physicists have figured out how it work, they can get busy on increasing its efficiency. Getting to Mars in a week or Titan in a month vastly changes the economics of human expansion through the solar system.
Not quite. A bit of cart-before-horse.
Once there's enough testing done to prove it has potential, then engineers will take it, play with it, improve it, apply it, then sometime later, physicists and other scientists will figure out precisely why it works and why what the engineers did worked.
Wanting a government that obeys it's constitution and it's laws is "anarchist shit"? Just...wow. Extreme, much?
Yes your enemy built your roads, supplies clean water and...
Wrong. Government builds nothing, buys nothing, sells nothing, and owns nothing. The people do, have, and own all that. Those things you mention were all done by the people despite government greed, incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and general ham-handedness, not because of it. Government makes laws, collects taxes, and directs large armed men to imprison, kill, and/or destroy enemies of the nation and lawbreakers. That is all.
Guns won't free you.
Guns have freed every people who have thrown off a government since guns became widespread. Of course, guns alone won't overthrow a government but they are essential when it does become necessary. They also act as a deterrent to overreaching authority attempting to go too far. As the warning WW2 Japan's Emperor received from his generals regarding a possibly invasion of the US and being met with 'a rifle behind every window...and blade of grass' demonstrates, they are also a deterrent to foreign aggression and thus prevent war and promote peace.
If you want to ban guns change the Constitution, there's a procedure in it to do that. By using the sort of tactics that have been employed to 'end-run' around 2nd Amendment protections, you legitimize the very same tactics being used against other Amendments, some of which you may actually care about.
You'd think the government would team with vendors to patch every exploit so our computers are more secure and less likely to be hacked by bad guys. It is perfectly logical that the sheriffs across the USA do not have a master key to everyone's backdoor. If that key got out, the crooks could enter everyones house too. Why is it so hard to see backdoors for computers is just as bad and the same thing? With the government wanting to exploit computers, the bad guys can exploit them too.
The various LEAs would love a master house key as you suggest. First things first, however, The other thing you're missing is that all too often these days the "bad guys" *are* the government, so of course they'd love easy access, to your computer/phone and/or to your house. They simply realize that they need to have the former before they can achieve the latter.
It's funny you mention that since all the same criticisms of Islam are also valid when leveled against Christianity. Christianity also puts God's law above the laws of men. Christianity is also replete with massacres against unbelievers. Remember when Moses told his followers to kill all the men and older women, and keep only the virgin women? Good times!
The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity went through a reformation and many large US Christian denominations even have female pastors, and some include LGBTQ as well. Almost all believe that God meant it when he said "Vengeance is mine" and the vast majority are quite pacifistic and nonviolent in most circumstances. There are no 'honor killings' or fatwas issued. Nobody is threatened or killed for leaving Christianity. The vast majority who do object to non-hetero sex are of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" type.
Islam has not seen a similar reformation to adapt to modern society and still largely operates from a 6th-century set of morals, laws, principles, and practices. On the whole as it currently stands, Islam is totally incompatible with the modern world. Islam must either reform itself or risk being reformed or destroyed by the rest of the world. One of the two IS going to happen. It's up to believers in Islam to choose. So far, they have chosen violent conflict.
Religion must be eliminated if we are to go forward together as a species. Not outlawed and systematically destroyed, but simply educated away.
The problem is twofold; first, it is human nature to form religions/believe in supernatural forces. Short of some sort of mind-control you will fail, as the Chinese fail. Second, a functioning society that is not a prison/police state requires a common moral framework among its' citizens for peace and order to be maintained, and religion has been the only system to achieve it to any meaningful and useful degree. This is particularly true the more free and open the society is, as in such societies, restraints on personal behavior are most often self-imposed.
Of course it doesn't change their conclusion because that has already been bought and paid for
That, and Comey, Lynch, et al, know very well what happens to those who might threaten the Clintons. One only need look at the bloody path they left behind in Arkansas. Fort Marcy Park is still exactly where it was when Vince Foster was found dead, so yes, nothing has changed.
Why not send a few troops to raid the Vatican? I'd say to send some cruise missiles, but there's some art worth preserving despite of the creeps who live there
Islam itself is racist - it is an ideology of Arabic supremacy.
Islam is a form of government that uses religion as it's basis of authority and legitimacy. It is an authoritarian theocracy designed for world conquest.
They stand (and kill) for almost everything the Progressive/Left and most of Western Europe hate. Extreme misogyny, murder of LGBTQ, female genital mutilation, forced religious indoctrination, etc etc etc.
And yet they defend them, call them the 'religion of peace' when they're anything but, import hundreds of thousands of young ME Islamic military-aged males and others into their nations with a laughable excuse for screening and call anyone who questions the wisdom of such a racist xenophobe and worse. This will not end well.
"There's going to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!" - Marvin the Martian
Fortunately, there will be plenty of guns for everyone. It's my constitutional right, damnit!!
It could well be argued that not only is owning firearms a right it is a duty, at least a duty as well as a right for US citizens (including those who intend to become but are not yet citizens and women serving in the NG)) between the ages of 17 and 45, as those people are members of the US UO (Unorganized Militia), whether they know it or not and whether or not they want to be, if called to serve during a state of war.
As long as the federal government is throwing our money and our great-great-great grandkids' money around, the federal government should start a loan-guarantee program to enable every willing citizen who qualifies to be in the UO to purchase a standard US infantry issue M4 carbine and 100 rounds of ammo. It would be money well spent, as one benefit will be a plunging violence and crime rate in places like Chicago and NYC as more formerly-defenseless victims and formerly-defenseless and helpless-to-intervene witnesses to an act of criminal violence happening in front of them, arm themselves. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
People can also watch a fireworks screen saver while staying inside, and yet they keep showing up for real outdoor fireworks.
Those people don't want a fake show.
No, but they will have to settle for a fake fireworks show in the not-too-distant future if current pressures slowly nudging the rate of upwards growth of a growing laundry-list of forbidden/controlled (or simply caused to become too expensive for most people), materials, substances, chemicals, etc etc, continues unchecked, short of some federal government/military fireworks show.
This is not happening because of concern about the threat of foreign terrorists or to protect the general public health & safety.
Any competent occupying force makes removing/denying access by the occupied population to any materiel with any reasonably-possible military potential a top priority.
Too bad the wires usually break at the connector or soldering points.
Make the wires and other conductors out of material using this newly-discovered technique that has yet to be explored so nobody knows if it's possible or not? It's not like they're hawking these things on Ebay or something?
Will this fix a busted capacitor? What we have here is solution to a non existing problem. "Self healing" my ass.
Maybe it will fix a broken capacitor eventually? Hell, maybe it will mean 'unbreakable' wire eventually?
Maybe wait and see what comes after the initial proof-of-concept like a reasonable person who understands the difference between a tested, engineered, and marketable product with known properties & limitations, compared to an initial discovery/announcement and proof-of-concept model of a newly-discovered material where the complete properties, abilities, uses, and limitations are nearly total unknowns?
I understand that's asking for a lot here on Slashdot, with a supposedly technically- and scientifically-sophisticated demographic.
Controlling global warming is the only way to ensure continued industrial society. There are stable markets in which to sell things when natural disaster destroys a population center.
It's not like one day things are fine and then one day suddenly OMGAGWTSUNAMIHURRICANETORNADOEARTHQUAKEFLOODDROUGHT!!!11!!!
Changes will generally be extremely gradual, as changes to the climate in the past have generally been extremely gradual, occurring over large periods of time relative to the pace of change in human societies and technology. We also have the power and will have the time to adapt just as humans have always done throughout history. The climate IS going to change no matter what we do, and so far everything that's been proposed seriously would only slightly mitigate the rate of change by a few tenths of a percent, but coming at a huge cost in lives lost and human suffering.
Even so, nuclear is the only power source that can power a modern society.
You're assuming the goal includes maintaining a modern industrialized society, or that it is even desired by many environmental/climate activists and proponents who would see de-industrialization of places like the US and a switch to a highly structured and centrally-planned low-tech agrarian society as a good thing.
... US vehicles using cameras have them built in...
Cameras, like many electronic devices, require 2 electrical feeds: 'Power in' and 'signal out': The 'signal out' wire can be replaced with a radio but the easiest way to provide power is via wires. It's difficult to believe current tanks don't have this hidden somewhere.
What fighting aircraft and armored vehicles typically have are called "hard points", where weapons and other gear are attached and connected to the vehicle's systems as required.
In the case of well-designed armored vehicles they are hardened to withstand/mitigate hits and damage, and knowing they are an attractive target, are often designed to be harder to penetrate/damage than other less-critical areas.
FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.
They'd be better served going to the source of nearly all criminal activity.
Acme Inc. Walla-Walla WA 99362 Wile E. Coyote, CEO
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Sorry, that's what we here in reality call "wrong".
No matter how you structure carbon taxes they will *always* end up being ultimately paid by the poor. Businesses pay no taxes, their customers do through higher prices.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions.
...By making energy prices skyrocket. You forgot to finish that statement.
Energy taxes and added costs are one of the most regressive forms of taxation upon and wealth-transfer from the poorest to the richest.
By raising energy prices you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. That is a fact. How many unnecessary deaths are you OK with in pursuit of your political/ideological goals? Do the ends justify the means?
Slashdot Mirror
You are mixing up two things. One is "is the science correct, and to what uncertainty?" The other is "what should we do about it, and what would this cost? These are completely different questions. The response "I think that it would cost too much to solve the problem, therefore I will assert that the science is inaccurate and the problem does not exist" is not a logical response.
No, I am not "mixing up two different things". I am posing two different concepts, the first is that we have no freaking clue what the climate will do over the next 1,000-2,000 years. The second is that the solutions proposed are costly, including a cost in lives lost, across a wide variety of measures. To ask for that level of sacrifice with so little certainty there is a real problem that the proposed actions will actually solve is asking to be shown the door.
What has happened, right now, is an asymmetric response: so far, the people politically on the left have been proposing possible solutions, while people politically on the right have been refusing to propose solutions or analyze them-- when the problem is discussed, their response has been overwhelming: "the problem doesn't exist and it's a hoax."
And that's the problem, there is insufficient evidence/proof relative to the response demanded. It may well be a hoax, there simply isn't enough 'there' there to say with certainty.
Strat
... But only the anti-gun pussies want to secede. Ironic. You won't win a war from within your safe space.
Maybe, but it'll be tough withstanding a human-wave charge of thousands upon thousands of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[shudders]
Strat
No, the warming following the last glaciation finished about ten thousand years ago, and the sea level rise attributable to that is pretty much done. Here's a good graph: cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png [antarcticglaciers.org]
That's one theory. There are others.
The earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years, but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[36] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming[37] (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.[38]
There's also this:
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacialâ"interglacial periods within an ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (It's well-cited)
Which I find interesting in that if the reasons why ice ages occur and why some are longer than others are so poorly understood, how can it be claimed that there is sufficient certainty in the claims of AGW proponents to make the kind of major societal/economic/industrial/diplomatic sacrifices that would be required across the board in order to achieve any even slightly-meaningful effect?
Before we start condemning those in poverty to further suffering and death (artificial energy scarcity/high prices are extremely regressive taxes that impact the poorest the most and the quickest) let's be sure the lives sacrificed are not sacrificed for an; "Oops, my bad. Scratch that theory.'
How many lives per cent/kWh in higher prices is too much? When those who wish to raise energy prices as a social-engineering tool can honestly answer that with solid numbers and justify their deaths convincingly to their families, I'll start listening.
Strat
It wouldn't matter Trump or Clinton. The EC needs to be done away with. In Tennessee, Democrats are in the same boat as Californian Republicans, so getting rid of the EC would be liberating for both parties. I basically vote Libertarian, Green, The go fuck yourself party simply because there is next to no point in a Democrat voting in Tennessee.
As posters here have already suggested, a proportional State EC might be the way to go here, as it seems to strike a balance between serving the originally-intended function/purpose of the EC while generally tending to more truly represent the popular vote in most scenarios.
A direct democracy election process is indistinguishable from mob rule. Which is fine and dandy until you're in the next group the mob targets, or simply ignores the vital needs of in favor of the mobs' current favorite flavor du jour.
"Well screw 'em they're the minority" only works as long as you remain a part of the majority, and those divisions are never stable or predictable when it comes to mobs.
Strat
Yawn...the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. Guess what, we didn't pollute or cause the glaciers to melt either. Blame it on the dinosaurs that emitted carbon dioxide and methane from their gargantuan farts.
Well, the Earth is currently in a warming phase after the last ice age. That means global average temperatures will continue to rise past the 2 degrees Celsius TFS mentions even if humans never existed and no matter what we do (unless we figure out how to make a P-U 238 Explosive Space Modulator and cause the Earth to disappear with an Earth-shattering Kaboom), a strategy consisting mainly of adaptation (along with efficient but lower-impact CO2 and pollution controls) seems to be the logical strategy. We cannot stop global temperature rise, at the very best we might, maybe, be able to slow the rate of rise by a few tenths of a degree, but at huge costs in lives, suffering, opportunities, and wealth.
If we want to minimize the impact of humans on the Earth then the logical strategy is to concentrate on moving as much of those industries, activities, and resource-gathering activities which pollute or otherwise impact the Earths' environment to space as possible as quickly as possible...hopefully before limited Earth-bound resources become too scarce/expensive to accomplish it and condemn humans to extinction.
Strat
You're exactly right. Our kids have an iPad each through the school but it is made abundantly clear to them and their parents (who own the iTunes account, what with their 13+ age restriction) that we, the school, owns the device.
What happens if parents refused to sign up for any accounts on behalf of their son/daughter-student? And/or refuse to sign for responsibility for the school-provided device(s) nor provide their own device(s)? If the student himself refuses to sign for responsibility/an account, or even take possession of the device(s)?
Strat
I'm sorry, but the rebellion of India against the British was partly *caused* by Britain attempting to enforce a gun ban in India.
Mahatma Gandhi was very much opposed to gun bans, as evidenced by one of his quotes:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
"Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor," Mahatma Gandhi - The Doctrine of the Sword
Today's society has no place for guns.
You are laughably naive and have swallowed all the crap fed you by your professors and other leftists/Progressives. As long as basic human nature remains relatively unchanged, the natural right & ability to defend oneself and their family & property will always have a lofty place among a free people. It is only criminals and those in government who wish to rule over a people against their will who wish to ban guns.
Strat
Not quite. A bit of cart-before-horse.
Once there's enough testing done to prove it has potential, then engineers will take it, play with it, improve it, apply it, then sometime later, physicists and other scientists will figure out precisely why it works and why what the engineers did worked.
Strat
Do you have to pile anarchist shit on everything?
Wanting a government that obeys it's constitution and it's laws is "anarchist shit"? Just...wow. Extreme, much?
Yes your enemy built your roads, supplies clean water and...
Wrong. Government builds nothing, buys nothing, sells nothing, and owns nothing. The people do, have, and own all that. Those things you mention were all done by the people despite government greed, incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and general ham-handedness, not because of it. Government makes laws, collects taxes, and directs large armed men to imprison, kill, and/or destroy enemies of the nation and lawbreakers. That is all.
Guns won't free you.
Guns have freed every people who have thrown off a government since guns became widespread. Of course, guns alone won't overthrow a government but they are essential when it does become necessary. They also act as a deterrent to overreaching authority attempting to go too far. As the warning WW2 Japan's Emperor received from his generals regarding a possibly invasion of the US and being met with 'a rifle behind every window...and blade of grass' demonstrates, they are also a deterrent to foreign aggression and thus prevent war and promote peace.
If you want to ban guns change the Constitution, there's a procedure in it to do that. By using the sort of tactics that have been employed to 'end-run' around 2nd Amendment protections, you legitimize the very same tactics being used against other Amendments, some of which you may actually care about.
Strat
You'd think the government would team with vendors to patch every exploit so our computers are more secure and less likely to be hacked by bad guys. It is perfectly logical that the sheriffs across the USA do not have a master key to everyone's backdoor. If that key got out, the crooks could enter everyones house too. Why is it so hard to see backdoors for computers is just as bad and the same thing? With the government wanting to exploit computers, the bad guys can exploit them too.
The various LEAs would love a master house key as you suggest. First things first, however, The other thing you're missing is that all too often these days the "bad guys" *are* the government, so of course they'd love easy access, to your computer/phone and/or to your house. They simply realize that they need to have the former before they can achieve the latter.
Strat
It's funny you mention that since all the same criticisms of Islam are also valid when leveled against Christianity. Christianity also puts God's law above the laws of men. Christianity is also replete with massacres against unbelievers. Remember when Moses told his followers to kill all the men and older women, and keep only the virgin women? Good times!
The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity went through a reformation and many large US Christian denominations even have female pastors, and some include LGBTQ as well. Almost all believe that God meant it when he said "Vengeance is mine" and the vast majority are quite pacifistic and nonviolent in most circumstances. There are no 'honor killings' or fatwas issued. Nobody is threatened or killed for leaving Christianity. The vast majority who do object to non-hetero sex are of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" type.
Islam has not seen a similar reformation to adapt to modern society and still largely operates from a 6th-century set of morals, laws, principles, and practices. On the whole as it currently stands, Islam is totally incompatible with the modern world. Islam must either reform itself or risk being reformed or destroyed by the rest of the world. One of the two IS going to happen. It's up to believers in Islam to choose. So far, they have chosen violent conflict.
Religion must be eliminated if we are to go forward together as a species. Not outlawed and systematically destroyed, but simply educated away.
The problem is twofold; first, it is human nature to form religions/believe in supernatural forces. Short of some sort of mind-control you will fail, as the Chinese fail. Second, a functioning society that is not a prison/police state requires a common moral framework among its' citizens for peace and order to be maintained, and religion has been the only system to achieve it to any meaningful and useful degree. This is particularly true the more free and open the society is, as in such societies, restraints on personal behavior are most often self-imposed.
Strat
Of course it doesn't change their conclusion because that has already been bought and paid for
That, and Comey, Lynch, et al, know very well what happens to those who might threaten the Clintons. One only need look at the bloody path they left behind in Arkansas. Fort Marcy Park is still exactly where it was when Vince Foster was found dead, so yes, nothing has changed.
Strat
...they can't Mecca no more.
A blatantly-obvious setup-and-pun joke gets a '-1' on Slashdot over some PC oversensitivity?
I can see why comedians like Seinfeld won't tour colleges anymore.
Strat
Why not send a few troops to raid the Vatican? I'd say to send some cruise missiles, but there's some art worth preserving despite of the creeps who live there
Save the cruise missiles for Islamic holy sites.
Then they can't Mecca no more.
Strat
Islam itself is racist - it is an ideology of Arabic supremacy.
Islam is a form of government that uses religion as it's basis of authority and legitimacy. It is an authoritarian theocracy designed for world conquest.
They stand (and kill) for almost everything the Progressive/Left and most of Western Europe hate. Extreme misogyny, murder of LGBTQ, female genital mutilation, forced religious indoctrination, etc etc etc.
And yet they defend them, call them the 'religion of peace' when they're anything but, import hundreds of thousands of young ME Islamic military-aged males and others into their nations with a laughable excuse for screening and call anyone who questions the wisdom of such a racist xenophobe and worse. This will not end well.
"There's going to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!" - Marvin the Martian
Strat
Fortunately, there will be plenty of guns for everyone. It's my constitutional right, damnit!!
It could well be argued that not only is owning firearms a right it is a duty, at least a duty as well as a right for US citizens (including those who intend to become but are not yet citizens and women serving in the NG)) between the ages of 17 and 45, as those people are members of the US UO (Unorganized Militia), whether they know it or not and whether or not they want to be, if called to serve during a state of war.
As long as the federal government is throwing our money and our great-great-great grandkids' money around, the federal government should start a loan-guarantee program to enable every willing citizen who qualifies to be in the UO to purchase a standard US infantry issue M4 carbine and 100 rounds of ammo. It would be money well spent, as one benefit will be a plunging violence and crime rate in places like Chicago and NYC as more formerly-defenseless victims and formerly-defenseless and helpless-to-intervene witnesses to an act of criminal violence happening in front of them, arm themselves. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
Strat
People can also watch a fireworks screen saver while staying inside, and yet they keep showing up for real outdoor fireworks.
Those people don't want a fake show.
No, but they will have to settle for a fake fireworks show in the not-too-distant future if current pressures slowly nudging the rate of upwards growth of a growing laundry-list of forbidden/controlled (or simply caused to become too expensive for most people), materials, substances, chemicals, etc etc, continues unchecked, short of some federal government/military fireworks show.
This is not happening because of concern about the threat of foreign terrorists or to protect the general public health & safety.
Any competent occupying force makes removing/denying access by the occupied population to any materiel with any reasonably-possible military potential a top priority.
Strat
I'm not sure how you can possibly think the contents of your links (which i did read) refute this.
Because SILENCE, INFIDEL!
Strat
California Highway Patrol has a linux box? EstradaOS?
Nah, PonchOS.
Strat
Too bad the wires usually break at the connector or soldering points.
Make the wires and other conductors out of material using this newly-discovered technique that has yet to be explored so nobody knows if it's possible or not? It's not like they're hawking these things on Ebay or something?
Will this fix a busted capacitor? What we have here is solution to a non existing problem. "Self healing" my ass.
Maybe it will fix a broken capacitor eventually? Hell, maybe it will mean 'unbreakable' wire eventually?
Maybe wait and see what comes after the initial proof-of-concept like a reasonable person who understands the difference between a tested, engineered, and marketable product with known properties & limitations, compared to an initial discovery/announcement and proof-of-concept model of a newly-discovered material where the complete properties, abilities, uses, and limitations are nearly total unknowns?
I understand that's asking for a lot here on Slashdot, with a supposedly technically- and scientifically-sophisticated demographic.
Strat
Controlling global warming is the only way to ensure continued industrial society. There are stable markets in which to sell things when natural disaster destroys a population center.
It's not like one day things are fine and then one day suddenly OMGAGWTSUNAMIHURRICANETORNADOEARTHQUAKEFLOODDROUGHT!!!11!!!
Changes will generally be extremely gradual, as changes to the climate in the past have generally been extremely gradual, occurring over large periods of time relative to the pace of change in human societies and technology. We also have the power and will have the time to adapt just as humans have always done throughout history. The climate IS going to change no matter what we do, and so far everything that's been proposed seriously would only slightly mitigate the rate of change by a few tenths of a percent, but coming at a huge cost in lives lost and human suffering.
Strat
Even so, nuclear is the only power source that can power a modern society.
You're assuming the goal includes maintaining a modern industrialized society, or that it is even desired by many environmental/climate activists and proponents who would see de-industrialization of places like the US and a switch to a highly structured and centrally-planned low-tech agrarian society as a good thing.
Strat
What fighting aircraft and armored vehicles typically have are called "hard points", where weapons and other gear are attached and connected to the vehicle's systems as required.
In the case of well-designed armored vehicles they are hardened to withstand/mitigate hits and damage, and knowing they are an attractive target, are often designed to be harder to penetrate/damage than other less-critical areas.
Strat
FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.
They'd be better served going to the source of nearly all criminal activity.
Acme Inc.
Walla-Walla WA 99362
Wile E. Coyote, CEO
Strat
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Sorry, that's what we here in reality call "wrong".
No matter how you structure carbon taxes they will *always* end up being ultimately paid by the poor. Businesses pay no taxes, their customers do through higher prices.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions.
Energy taxes and added costs are one of the most regressive forms of taxation upon and wealth-transfer from the poorest to the richest.
By raising energy prices you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. That is a fact. How many unnecessary deaths are you OK with in pursuit of your political/ideological goals? Do the ends justify the means?
Strat