Because, well all know, making something a felony always results in reducing the incidents of that behavior !
It also distracts from the complex and disturbing privacy issues that nobody really wants to get into, because it steps on too many government and industry-impacted toes...
How much of a right do people have to hound and harass other people, and is your right to pester someone greater than their right to the level of privacy that you enjoy ?
"randomly" patting ME down, they are TOTALLY useless.
Even IF the TSA wasn't a huge con, I STILL wouldn't fly.
The fact that resources are wasted screening ME, over and over again, and scrutinizing ME means they are THAT much more likely to miss someone that is an actual hazard.
I guess the liberal members didn't see any point in preventing the police from having the same information anybody with inexpensive IR equipment has access to.
It's the difference between PRETENDING to care about privacy, and recognizing that that illusion of privacy is just that, an ILLUSION.
Conservatives love living in a little non-existent ideal world, compleatly detached from reality.
The assumption that it's just your ears that contribute to perception of sound, the assumption that people only perceive sound up to 20kHz, these and other assumptions and statements made by so many self proclaimed experts here are demonstrably incorrect.
You'll never really experience the kind of audio reproduction that is possible with $15k worth of high end audio equipment, and that's fine, it's not something that's "worth it" to you. I'm sure most posters don't even have a proper place TO listen to high-end audio. It's not for everybody. It isn't being a snob, it's just an interest you don't share, or really know very much about.
My criticism was not with the scientists, adn you would know that had you actually read the post to which you are responding.
I never made any remarks about conspiracies, and have no desire for such straw man arguments.
Again, if all the supporters of MMGW, like yourself, are so certain, tell the rest of us why, talk about the specific data that convinces you.
Again, the type of dialogue on the subject I've observed here is lacking any substance, and indicates to me that most of the supporters of MMGW are unable to even articulate WHY it is they believe, beyond simply saying "because the experts say so".
Equating these observations with creationism - well that's just childish. My criticisms and observations stand - you don't talk about the specific data that's convinced you because you can not. This comes across as a faith-based type of ideology. Obviously you don't like that observation - to bad. If the bible fits, wear it.
Science is never "settled", there are always caveats and room for further discovery. Always.
To state otherwise is to show a misunderstanding of what science IS, and is to reduce "science" to little more than religion/superstition.
The "better people than you" argument is an ad-hominem; concepts and ideas are the issue, not the type of judgement of individuals that is the hallmark of religious zealotry and cheap politickery.
The "people more qualified than you" argument is also of suspect integrity - what you REALLY mean is "people more qualified in their own little peer group/discipline/vocation/guilds to be vested the sole arbiters of Truth.
And, finally, if everyone is so certain of the data, let's talk about the data. In this ongoing debate very little discussion of that incontrovertible "proof" is the one thing that is most lacking.
If you understood the data, you'd talk about it.
People are justified in their skepticism, and all the self-righteous anger, ad-hominems, politicization, hidden agendas, and elevation of "climate science" to the level of other sciences without actually having to validate assertions, is not going to change a thing.
If you don't know, just admit it, you don't know. It's obvious that "the lady doth protest too much."
BS, people ONLY defer to "authority" when THEY are too incompetent to come to a rational conclusion themselves, because of their OWN shortcomings, and lack of ability to decide, based on the facts.
That makes everyone's precious "science" and "authorities" no more valid than religious-based "faith".
Deferring to "science" without a full understanding it isn't enlightened, intelligent, or moral. It's mere superstition.
the differences between ICE's, hybrids, and all-electrics is the day a mass-produced electric car will have a chance in the US.
That day is not today.
Huge battery-packs for a truly mass-produced electric car are hardly even possible with the current supply-chain. And even if it were, how much more are the batteries (and the other complex high-tech) going to increase in cost of manufacture vs. increase in sales volume; we aren't talking about inexpensive materials, and whenever energy prices jump, so do production costs.
The Volt was never really mass-produced. I seriously doubt it ever COULD have been mass-produced. It certainly never could have been mass-produced for a price that the average Joe could afford, with or without subsidization.
There's the real world and the fantasy-ideal, in the real world that is America the Volt was never a great option for anyone but a tiny fraction of the population. Live in a cold area ? Forget it, the Volt is a losing proposition. Live in a rural or in most suburban areas, and have to drive a near average distance to work ? It's a losing proposition.
The Volt was always a feel-good PR move, it was never really an ICE or hybrid replacement for the average consumer.
It's funny reading the comments here, how many people even test drove and seriously considered the Volt ? How many people here actually own one of these dogs ?
And no, I'm not some conservative nutbag, I WANT an electric car. I'm just not going to spend a down-payment on a freakin' HOUSE on a car that isn't even mass-produced sufficiently to guarantee service and parts for the thing for it's (short) estimated lifespan. And neither are the rest of the American public.
is always lying, and that it's not about properly informing or educating you, but rather, to manipulate you into behaving the way some corporation wants you to. Usually with profoundly shallow and anti-social consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
...to close your FB account ?
It sure distracts from the privacy issues FB creates in the first place.
And it gives the impression that FB cares about, and will take steps to, protect your privacy.
Couldn't create better advertising for FB if you tried.
None of those reasons trump the reason we don't drill local more.
It's cheaper not to.
And, if oil is really running out, we SHOULD sit on our local reserves as long as possible.
for the Presidency, and who NOT to vote for !
has gone almost as well as the war on drugs.
how to teach kids WHAT to think.
Which is part of the American trend to barrage students with useless and excessive testing.
Real educators teach people HOW to think. Not what to.
if you get the hell out of TN !
Because, well all know, making something a felony always results in reducing the incidents of that behavior !
It also distracts from the complex and disturbing privacy issues that nobody really wants to get into, because it steps on too many government and industry-impacted toes...
How much of a right do people have to hound and harass other people, and is your right to pester someone greater than their right to the level of privacy that you enjoy ?
and hot babes always works really well.
If an entity has no authority to demand information from your business, you shouldn't give it to them.
If you can't think of many legitimate reasons why, then you shouldn't have a business OR a job.
"randomly" patting ME down, they are TOTALLY useless.
Even IF the TSA wasn't a huge con, I STILL wouldn't fly.
The fact that resources are wasted screening ME, over and over again, and scrutinizing ME means they are THAT much more likely to miss someone that is an actual hazard.
I guess the liberal members didn't see any point in preventing the police from having the same information anybody with inexpensive IR equipment has access to.
It's the difference between PRETENDING to care about privacy, and recognizing that that illusion of privacy is just that, an ILLUSION.
Conservatives love living in a little non-existent ideal world, compleatly detached from reality.
But what's stopping a private citizen or corporation from using relatively inexpensive IR equipment and telling the police what they've found ?
The cops need a warrant, but I sure don't; I'm just standing on the sidewalk, pointing a fancy IR cam at a house.
Oh those violent potheds with their knives....
I have cams that go up to 48, and I work with cams in manufacturing automation systems that go even higher.
Fuck, yeah !
and a "regular" CD.
But we have paragon amps and proper monitors.
And a proper listening space.
The assumption that it's just your ears that contribute to perception of sound, the assumption that people only perceive sound up to 20kHz, these and other assumptions and statements made by so many self proclaimed experts here are demonstrably incorrect.
You'll never really experience the kind of audio reproduction that is possible with $15k worth of high end audio equipment, and that's fine, it's not something that's "worth it" to you. I'm sure most posters don't even have a proper place TO listen to high-end audio. It's not for everybody. It isn't being a snob, it's just an interest you don't share, or really know very much about.
to conduct a "study" to get paid to tell people what they already know...
My criticism was not with the scientists, adn you would know that had you actually read the post to which you are responding.
I never made any remarks about conspiracies, and have no desire for such straw man arguments.
Again, if all the supporters of MMGW, like yourself, are so certain, tell the rest of us why, talk about the specific data that convinces you.
Again, the type of dialogue on the subject I've observed here is lacking any substance, and indicates to me that most of the supporters of MMGW are unable to even articulate WHY it is they believe, beyond simply saying "because the experts say so".
Equating these observations with creationism - well that's just childish. My criticisms and observations stand - you don't talk about the specific data that's convinced you because you can not. This comes across as a faith-based type of ideology. Obviously you don't like that observation - to bad. If the bible fits, wear it.
Science is never "settled", there are always caveats and room for further discovery. Always.
To state otherwise is to show a misunderstanding of what science IS, and is to reduce "science" to little more than religion/superstition.
The "better people than you" argument is an ad-hominem; concepts and ideas are the issue, not the type of judgement of individuals that is the hallmark of religious zealotry and cheap politickery.
The "people more qualified than you" argument is also of suspect integrity - what you REALLY mean is "people more qualified in their own little peer group/discipline/vocation/guilds to be vested the sole arbiters of Truth.
And, finally, if everyone is so certain of the data, let's talk about the data. In this ongoing debate very little discussion of that incontrovertible "proof" is the one thing that is most lacking.
If you understood the data, you'd talk about it.
People are justified in their skepticism, and all the self-righteous anger, ad-hominems, politicization, hidden agendas, and elevation of "climate science" to the level of other sciences without actually having to validate assertions, is not going to change a thing.
If you don't know, just admit it, you don't know. It's obvious that "the lady doth protest too much."
BS, people ONLY defer to "authority" when THEY are too incompetent to come to a rational conclusion themselves, because of their OWN shortcomings, and lack of ability to decide, based on the facts.
That makes everyone's precious "science" and "authorities" no more valid than religious-based "faith".
Deferring to "science" without a full understanding it isn't enlightened, intelligent, or moral. It's mere superstition.
against the politicians and the jackbooted thugs posing as peace officers that have undermined and denigrated the Constitution ?
I want to see political careers ENDED. I want to see cops and DA's REMOVED PERMANENTLY from "law-enforcement".
What about the real damage these policies have had ? Is the public going to be compensated for THAT ?
I'd also like to live in America, but since THAT is no longer possible, I'll settle for either of the above.
the differences between ICE's, hybrids, and all-electrics is the day a mass-produced electric car will have a chance in the US.
That day is not today.
Huge battery-packs for a truly mass-produced electric car are hardly even possible with the current supply-chain. And even if it were, how much more are the batteries (and the other complex high-tech) going to increase in cost of manufacture vs. increase in sales volume; we aren't talking about inexpensive materials, and whenever energy prices jump, so do production costs.
The Volt was never really mass-produced. I seriously doubt it ever COULD have been mass-produced. It certainly never could have been mass-produced for a price that the average Joe could afford, with or without subsidization.
There's the real world and the fantasy-ideal, in the real world that is America the Volt was never a great option for anyone but a tiny fraction of the population. Live in a cold area ? Forget it, the Volt is a losing proposition. Live in a rural or in most suburban areas, and have to drive a near average distance to work ? It's a losing proposition.
The Volt was always a feel-good PR move, it was never really an ICE or hybrid replacement for the average consumer.
It's funny reading the comments here, how many people even test drove and seriously considered the Volt ? How many people here actually own one of these dogs ?
And no, I'm not some conservative nutbag, I WANT an electric car. I'm just not going to spend a down-payment on a freakin' HOUSE on a car that isn't even mass-produced sufficiently to guarantee service and parts for the thing for it's (short) estimated lifespan. And neither are the rest of the American public.
...and me, #4.
is always lying, and that it's not about properly informing or educating you, but rather, to manipulate you into behaving the way some corporation wants you to. Usually with profoundly shallow and anti-social consequences.