The threat isn't an existing energy shortage. The threat is how easy it would be for a serious energy shortage to occur.
Consider where we get our oil. Most of it comes from politically unstable parts of the world.
Why do you think Bush just asked to double the energy reserve? Because if something happens (and if he's doubling it, he thinks something very easily could happen)we'll be up the creek, sans paddle.
Try thinking long term sometime. It's amazing what a little perspective can do on a subject.
You're right, someone who gets greedy or is dishonest calculates or plans on committing the crime. They think about it.
Sex offenders, on the other hand, often commit their crimes in response to urges, thoughts they can't control, much like an addiction.
Now, imagine you're addicted to cocaine. Once you break the habit, as long as you avoid cocaine you're good.
Now imagine you're addicted to sex with little girls. How, exactly, are you supposed to avoid those? The worst part is that many convicted sex offenders are shown to live very close to parks or elementary schools, I think on purpose.
Anyway, the driving force in sex offenders is very deeply ingrained in the psyche of the offender, harder by far to quit than other crimes, fraud, or even addiction to a substance.
Fine, ignore these two cases and just watch the news for a while. It is very clear that there is NO consistency or common-sense in sentencing in the U.S.
One guy will get thrown under the bus and made an example of for a stupid offense, and the next will get a slap on the wrist for a very serious crime (multiple murders, rapes, molestation, kidnapping, etc).
Take for instance the 2 border security guards, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, IIRC, for failing to file the proper paperwork. Compare that to a habitual sex offender and the destroyed life of his victim, who gets 4 years.
I read the summary, I just didn't want to list the guys whole dossier in my post and generalized it as "spamming".
I never said this guy should get less time, though I do believe 101 years is a bit extreme. I don't think he should be up for parole any sooner than 50 years, however.
I would love to see there be a mandatory order of magnitude on sentences for child molesters, so that if you have been molesting for 5 years, the minimum sentence and soonest you could see parole would be 50 years (5 * 10).
We don't take crimes against children seriously enough in the U.S. and their needs to be much better and harsher sentencing guidelines, IMHO.
There is a concept called Zero Point Thinking, which basically says "Knowing what I know now, if I had to start over which way would I do it?".
When you have the answer to that you should head in that direction as quickly as possible since much of your efforts in your current direction will be wasted when you do finally switch.
Given that a switch to metric is going to be painful no matter when we do it, but we know we need to, switch now! Get it over with and stop wasting time (and lost rockets due to conversion errors).
Enough already, make the change and don't look back.
Microwaves are a reality, and we use them to cook our food all the time.
If there is enough omni-directional microwave power in the air to power devices, there is plenty to effect our bodies. Not sure of the extent of that effect, though.
I've heard stories of workers back in the day standing in front of some big microwave antennas on a mountain near here to keep warm, and using it to cook hot dogs on a stick. I'm not sure as to the validity of the stories, or why they wouldn't make the connection between the hot dogs cooking and them being warm, but there you have it...
I've been out to dinner with plenty of people who had too much to drink and know, for me, that I am better off never touching the stuff.
I know 100% that if I never drink I will never get drunk and kill someone. How many people that drink on a regular basis can say that with 100% surety.
I have no desire to pass through the "gateway" of marijuana and on to other things. You talk as if I'm missing out on something because I believe the propaganda and haven't tried marijuana and gone on to harder drugs.
Dude, you're whack. I am very happy right where I am and know a lot of people who have been down that road with drugs and tell everyone they know to stay the hell away from them because no good can come from it. They didn't always feel that way, but having gone all the way through the experience (and know much more than you do because of it), have a perspective that neither you or I have. I'm more than happy to take their word for it and not make the same mistakes they did.
Like the saying says, "Learn from the mistakes of others, you can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.".
This reminds me of when a company sent out a PDF file with a lot of very sensitive information covered in black, but it was done with a black box in Acrobat.
If you read it on screen or printed it out, it worked as they expected. But when you selected the text and copy and pasted it somewhere else, you could read every bit, including the names and details they thought were obscured.
Yes, but if you are going by a completely strict interpretation, then "the right to bear arms" would refer to their definition of arms, no ours.
And their definition of arms did not include nukes, tanks, or machine guns, since none of them existed.
So you can't use their words with our highly modified definitions of their words and expect the Constitution to stay true to the intentions of it writers.
I've already posted on Slashdot that I would be happy to see "photo-cop" installed on every underpass on the freeway, with a high threshold targeting the worst offenders (fastest and most dangerous).
Of course, that was met by a chorus of replies that despised the idea. Apparently it's OK for speed limits to exist, just not to enforce them, and definitely not with technology.
I also think the requirements for old people renewing their licenses should be much, much more stringent. Way too many incidents in the news of some old dude forgetting which was his left foot and which was his right and plowing through a crowd.
40,000 deaths per year may be normal, but the vast majority of them are preventable. I think they are worth preventing.
Well then, no male should ever be allowed to deliver babies, having never had one himself.
And no doctor should be allowed to treat cancer, unless he himself has had it.
And no brain surgeon should be allowed to operate, unless he himself has had brain surgery.
To say that you can't know about something without having personally experienced it is ludicrous.
Use your notebook for a week to detail every expert you come across on the news, while reading, etc, and see if everyone of them has direct experience (the equivalent of consumption) on the topic for which they are an expert.
The last I checked, Stephen Hawking had never been to outer space, though he has observed it from a distance, exactly as I have with alcohol.
I've read the thread, but just because the driver didn't have alcohol personally, doesn't mean alcohol didn't play a role.
A drunk walks into the street and gets nailed by someone sober, the alcohol directly played a role.
The designated driver is really tired and distracted from babysitting his drunk friends all night and misses a red light, the alcohol directly played a role.
It seems like half the people replying in this thread get so caught up in the difference between 17,000 and say 15,000 if that is the real number, that they lose touch with just how big of a number that really is.
Even if it's only 10,000 people, that's more than died in Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Iraq war combined. And that many die every single year.
So pardon me if I don't dismiss the whole frickin' number over semantics.
So I have to jump into a pool of lava before I can tell someone else it isn't smart to jump into a pool of lava?
I am missing out on exactly zero by not drinking. I have a full and happy life.
I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just tried alcohol once before they died. But I know and hear about a lot of people who regret ever taking their first drink (first smoke, first hit of cocaine, first oxycontin, whatever).
So to say I have no place in this discussion because I've never tried alcohol is ludicrous.
Good catch. Reading closer that's 1,032 deaths per year in Texas.
0.3% is still probably close nationwide, so you're still 130 times more likely to be killed in an alcohol related death than a cell phone distraction related death.
Slashdot Mirror
The threat isn't an existing energy shortage. The threat is how easy it would be for a serious energy shortage to occur.
Consider where we get our oil. Most of it comes from politically unstable parts of the world.
Why do you think Bush just asked to double the energy reserve? Because if something happens (and if he's doubling it, he thinks something very easily could happen)we'll be up the creek, sans paddle.
Try thinking long term sometime. It's amazing what a little perspective can do on a subject.
No, but that cloud of radiation flowing out of the plant is terrible! It stretches north for miles...
Are you going to feel the same way when your 15 year old has her first time with a 30 year old man, even if she thinks its fantastic?
Are you kidding? ...a molester could most likely be more easily converted into civil behavior....
Do you know how likely it is that a sex offender will do it again after getting out of prision?
You're right, someone who gets greedy or is dishonest calculates or plans on committing the crime. They think about it.
Sex offenders, on the other hand, often commit their crimes in response to urges, thoughts they can't control, much like an addiction.
Now, imagine you're addicted to cocaine. Once you break the habit, as long as you avoid cocaine you're good.
Now imagine you're addicted to sex with little girls. How, exactly, are you supposed to avoid those? The worst part is that many convicted sex offenders are shown to live very close to parks or elementary schools, I think on purpose.
Anyway, the driving force in sex offenders is very deeply ingrained in the psyche of the offender, harder by far to quit than other crimes, fraud, or even addiction to a substance.
Well, I don't know of too many kids that volunteer to be molested, so I guess its even.
Fine, ignore these two cases and just watch the news for a while. It is very clear that there is NO consistency or common-sense in sentencing in the U.S.
One guy will get thrown under the bus and made an example of for a stupid offense, and the next will get a slap on the wrist for a very serious crime (multiple murders, rapes, molestation, kidnapping, etc).
Take for instance the 2 border security guards, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, IIRC, for failing to file the proper paperwork. Compare that to a habitual sex offender and the destroyed life of his victim, who gets 4 years.
Good catch.
s/daughter-in-law/step-daughter/
I read the summary, I just didn't want to list the guys whole dossier in my post and generalized it as "spamming".
I never said this guy should get less time, though I do believe 101 years is a bit extreme. I don't think he should be up for parole any sooner than 50 years, however.
I would love to see there be a mandatory order of magnitude on sentences for child molesters, so that if you have been molesting for 5 years, the minimum sentence and soonest you could see parole would be 50 years (5 * 10).
We don't take crimes against children seriously enough in the U.S. and their needs to be much better and harsher sentencing guidelines, IMHO.
Damn right I'm biased. All the spam in the world isn't as bad as a single kid being molested, Mr. "Kook".
So this guy is up for 101 years for spamming, but some dirt bag that molested his daughter-in-law for 6 years only serves a 4 year sentence.
Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.
Good point, I'm not sure. I do have my accounts setup that way, and yes, they send a confirmation email with a link you have to click.
When I setup my domains and listed GMail servers as valid senders, I saw a big increase in spam bounces that were being sent from that domain.
Maybe I had it setup or it was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with GMail.
Thanks.
I want to add SPF to my domains, but I send email from GMail as if it were being sent from my domain.
But if I add GMail's servers as valid sources for my domain, then any gmail user can send email as if it were from me.
If I don't, it makes the email I send look less valid and more likely to be rejected or flagged as spam.
How do I avoid this catch-22?
There is a concept called Zero Point Thinking, which basically says "Knowing what I know now, if I had to start over which way would I do it?".
When you have the answer to that you should head in that direction as quickly as possible since much of your efforts in your current direction will be wasted when you do finally switch.
Given that a switch to metric is going to be painful no matter when we do it, but we know we need to, switch now! Get it over with and stop wasting time (and lost rockets due to conversion errors).
Enough already, make the change and don't look back.
Going to linux.dell.com and clicking the link on the right worked for me. Nice, too, since I was just considering a new laptop to run Ubuntu.
Microwaves are a reality, and we use them to cook our food all the time.
If there is enough omni-directional microwave power in the air to power devices, there is plenty to effect our bodies. Not sure of the extent of that effect, though.
I've heard stories of workers back in the day standing in front of some big microwave antennas on a mountain near here to keep warm, and using it to cook hot dogs on a stick. I'm not sure as to the validity of the stories, or why they wouldn't make the connection between the hot dogs cooking and them being warm, but there you have it...
I've been out to dinner with plenty of people who had too much to drink and know, for me, that I am better off never touching the stuff.
I know 100% that if I never drink I will never get drunk and kill someone. How many people that drink on a regular basis can say that with 100% surety.
I have no desire to pass through the "gateway" of marijuana and on to other things. You talk as if I'm missing out on something because I believe the propaganda and haven't tried marijuana and gone on to harder drugs.
Dude, you're whack. I am very happy right where I am and know a lot of people who have been down that road with drugs and tell everyone they know to stay the hell away from them because no good can come from it. They didn't always feel that way, but having gone all the way through the experience (and know much more than you do because of it), have a perspective that neither you or I have. I'm more than happy to take their word for it and not make the same mistakes they did.
Like the saying says, "Learn from the mistakes of others, you can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.".
This reminds me of when a company sent out a PDF file with a lot of very sensitive information covered in black, but it was done with a black box in Acrobat.
If you read it on screen or printed it out, it worked as they expected. But when you selected the text and copy and pasted it somewhere else, you could read every bit, including the names and details they thought were obscured.
Yes, but if you are going by a completely strict interpretation, then "the right to bear arms" would refer to their definition of arms, no ours.
And their definition of arms did not include nukes, tanks, or machine guns, since none of them existed.
So you can't use their words with our highly modified definitions of their words and expect the Constitution to stay true to the intentions of it writers.
I've already posted on Slashdot that I would be happy to see "photo-cop" installed on every underpass on the freeway, with a high threshold targeting the worst offenders (fastest and most dangerous).
Of course, that was met by a chorus of replies that despised the idea. Apparently it's OK for speed limits to exist, just not to enforce them, and definitely not with technology.
I also think the requirements for old people renewing their licenses should be much, much more stringent. Way too many incidents in the news of some old dude forgetting which was his left foot and which was his right and plowing through a crowd.
40,000 deaths per year may be normal, but the vast majority of them are preventable. I think they are worth preventing.
Well then, no male should ever be allowed to deliver babies, having never had one himself.
And no doctor should be allowed to treat cancer, unless he himself has had it.
And no brain surgeon should be allowed to operate, unless he himself has had brain surgery.
To say that you can't know about something without having personally experienced it is ludicrous.
Use your notebook for a week to detail every expert you come across on the news, while reading, etc, and see if everyone of them has direct experience (the equivalent of consumption) on the topic for which they are an expert.
The last I checked, Stephen Hawking had never been to outer space, though he has observed it from a distance, exactly as I have with alcohol.
I read that, I just don't believe it. DAMM has just as much reason to lowball their numbers as MADD has to highball their numbers.
You are berating me for taking my source at face value, when you are taking yours at face value as well.
Whatever the number, its way higher than it ought to be.
I've read the thread, but just because the driver didn't have alcohol personally, doesn't mean alcohol didn't play a role.
A drunk walks into the street and gets nailed by someone sober, the alcohol directly played a role.
The designated driver is really tired and distracted from babysitting his drunk friends all night and misses a red light, the alcohol directly played a role.
It seems like half the people replying in this thread get so caught up in the difference between 17,000 and say 15,000 if that is the real number, that they lose touch with just how big of a number that really is.
Even if it's only 10,000 people, that's more than died in Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Iraq war combined. And that many die every single year.
So pardon me if I don't dismiss the whole frickin' number over semantics.
If you think alcohol isn't a drug, you are either in denial or ignorant. Period.
Either way, neither of us is going to change the others mind, so there is no point in continuing.
So I have to jump into a pool of lava before I can tell someone else it isn't smart to jump into a pool of lava?
I am missing out on exactly zero by not drinking. I have a full and happy life.
I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just tried alcohol once before they died. But I know and hear about a lot of people who regret ever taking their first drink (first smoke, first hit of cocaine, first oxycontin, whatever).
So to say I have no place in this discussion because I've never tried alcohol is ludicrous.
Good catch. Reading closer that's 1,032 deaths per year in Texas.
0.3% is still probably close nationwide, so you're still 130 times more likely to be killed in an alcohol related death than a cell phone distraction related death.