This clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age.
In the UK they cannot prosecute him for the same crime twice. No double jeopardy allowed unless there is new evidence.
So, if there's new evidence, the same person can be retried for something? Because, in the US, we have this thing against that. We call it "double jeopardy."
I would note that OPEC stands for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and includes, among others, China, Russia and Canada. It is a common error to assume that OPEC only refers to Persian Gulf countries, but it does not. This is why the Energy Information Administration makes such a distinction.
Wow, this story has been up for nearly an hour and there's still no comments? Slashdotters are clearly deeply concerned with highlighting the dishonesty of politicians. Maybe because it's so hard to spot...
Well, my main point about the 5% number is that we're hardly dependent. It's important, sure, but it's a much smaller number than you'd think. Most people probably think all our oil comes from Iraq or something, (I know I used to) which is simply not true. It's much less than that.
I do downplay nuclear, and like you say, it has to do with lumping electricity production in as general "energy consumption." The only way to compare the two toward my specific end was by doing that, which does make certain unrealistic comparisons, but the devil's always in the details.
I don't know the info on new plants in the US, I really don't. But I think you're saying none of these places have actually broken ground. That's a pretty big difference between being presently under construction. Of course, if I understand the plans right, getting the whole design pre-approved and then building cookie-cutter plants is going to shave years off the construction of a series of plants. So, assuming the NRC does approve them, then, ya, things are looking up in the US. Assuming the NRC approves them. That may or may not be a bigger if than we think.
Lastly, in terms of public opinion on nuclear, I'm just talking about why it's so low right now, which has more to do with opinion over the last 20-40 years than present opinion. Outlook is favorable, certainly, but nuclear is still much smaller than it could be. Even if Americans are more pro-nuke than ever, we're no where near where we should be. Our present nuclear generation (~800 kWh), in terms of raw kWh, dwarfs even France (~420 kWh), but it could be so much higher.
I don't know why people harp on oil with the Iraq war. I think they're just not very well informed, mostly. Back in the 70's when there was the embargo and such, speculators drove the price of oil up like crazy, but that's not a realistic scenario anymore. It would really be ideal if everyone had electric cars, but our much higher efficiency vehicles still make a difference.
I absolutely agree with you on nuclear. There's no realistic reason to oppose it. More radioactive products are released to the atmosphere in normal operation of a coal fired plant than came out of Three Mile Island. Mostly, the problem is going away now, but it's been a long time coming that people are beginning to trust nuclear again. There are still college professors out on Long Island who boast that they had a hand in destroying the Shoreham plant, a nuclear plant that should have cost maybe $200 million to build, and was finally abandoned after 20 years of protesting and a $6 billion investment. Fear of that kind of public outcry, and general distrust of the industry on the side of the public both contribute there.
It would seem to me that the most vocal proponents of both the war/oil connection and the dangers of nuclear power are rather poorly informed on these issues.
Have you considered that you might be the problem? Maybe you're a little too dependent on Hollywood spoon-feeding to be able to actually pay attention to something?
That's actually a misconception. Oil from "Persian Gulf" countries only accounts for 17% of foreign oil consumption, which is a mere 51% (same link) of our total oil usage, which is only 59% (Liquids + Natural Gas) of our total energy consumption. That makes Persian Gulf oil a mere 5% of our total energy usage. Our Nuclear usage is more than that (8%, second link), and everyone knows we hate Nuclear in the US.
The connection between our interests in the middle east and our oil needs is tenuous at best. What we really need the balls to do is build more Nuclear plants. Here China is again a great example, with 23 new reactors presently under construction.
No. That mentality is exactly the problem. This is a fucking democracy. Start acting like it. It's not like your vote for Obama or McCain is going to matter. On the one hand, your one vote is practically irrelevant unless you live in one of very few swing states. On the other hand, whoever wins won't matter because they're exactly the fucking same.
Oh my fucking god. I am throwing away 5 mod points posted elsewhere for this. You, sir, are the problem.
It was a contest between two contenders.
No it fucking was not. There were 5, count them, 5 candidates who were registered on sufficient ballots to win the presidency. The fact that you are too fucking ignorant to be even dimly aware of what they show outside of CNN is utterly pathetic.
How about this: some bizarre and slightly creepy subsection of the populace in a free society is given reign to pursue this lifestyle as part of a natural right. Then, in the course of human events, there is a terrible global catastrophe and everyone else dies, leaving only the Omar.
Believe it or not, most "blind" web users can, in fact, see. They can't see well enough to read, but definitely well enough to draw boxes around what they want to read. Seriously, check out what qualifies as "blind."
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who always finds it oddly disturbing that the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States looks an awful lot like "scrotum?"
Yes, it would.
This clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age.
In the UK they cannot prosecute him for the same crime twice. No double jeopardy allowed unless there is new evidence.
So, if there's new evidence, the same person can be retried for something? Because, in the US, we have this thing against that. We call it "double jeopardy."
I would note that OPEC stands for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and includes, among others, China, Russia and Canada. It is a common error to assume that OPEC only refers to Persian Gulf countries, but it does not. This is why the Energy Information Administration makes such a distinction.
Indeed I did.
Well, I for one assumed they were putting servers inside of buffalos. Local power source, too.
Wow, this story has been up for nearly an hour and there's still no comments? Slashdotters are clearly deeply concerned with highlighting the dishonesty of politicians. Maybe because it's so hard to spot...
You should totally build a big hunk of it out of used pinball machine parts.
Well, my main point about the 5% number is that we're hardly dependent. It's important, sure, but it's a much smaller number than you'd think. Most people probably think all our oil comes from Iraq or something, (I know I used to) which is simply not true. It's much less than that.
I do downplay nuclear, and like you say, it has to do with lumping electricity production in as general "energy consumption." The only way to compare the two toward my specific end was by doing that, which does make certain unrealistic comparisons, but the devil's always in the details.
I don't know the info on new plants in the US, I really don't. But I think you're saying none of these places have actually broken ground. That's a pretty big difference between being presently under construction. Of course, if I understand the plans right, getting the whole design pre-approved and then building cookie-cutter plants is going to shave years off the construction of a series of plants. So, assuming the NRC does approve them, then, ya, things are looking up in the US. Assuming the NRC approves them. That may or may not be a bigger if than we think.
Lastly, in terms of public opinion on nuclear, I'm just talking about why it's so low right now, which has more to do with opinion over the last 20-40 years than present opinion. Outlook is favorable, certainly, but nuclear is still much smaller than it could be. Even if Americans are more pro-nuke than ever, we're no where near where we should be. Our present nuclear generation (~800 kWh), in terms of raw kWh, dwarfs even France (~420 kWh), but it could be so much higher.
I don't know why people harp on oil with the Iraq war. I think they're just not very well informed, mostly. Back in the 70's when there was the embargo and such, speculators drove the price of oil up like crazy, but that's not a realistic scenario anymore. It would really be ideal if everyone had electric cars, but our much higher efficiency vehicles still make a difference.
I absolutely agree with you on nuclear. There's no realistic reason to oppose it. More radioactive products are released to the atmosphere in normal operation of a coal fired plant than came out of Three Mile Island. Mostly, the problem is going away now, but it's been a long time coming that people are beginning to trust nuclear again. There are still college professors out on Long Island who boast that they had a hand in destroying the Shoreham plant, a nuclear plant that should have cost maybe $200 million to build, and was finally abandoned after 20 years of protesting and a $6 billion investment. Fear of that kind of public outcry, and general distrust of the industry on the side of the public both contribute there.
It would seem to me that the most vocal proponents of both the war/oil connection and the dangers of nuclear power are rather poorly informed on these issues.
This is what I'm saying. It was a good story, but not as delicately subtle in execution as it really could have been.
Have you considered that you might be the problem? Maybe you're a little too dependent on Hollywood spoon-feeding to be able to actually pay attention to something?
There's no need to use a sledgehammer. Heck, I think the scar on the wing was even a little too blatant.
That's actually a misconception. Oil from "Persian Gulf" countries only accounts for 17% of foreign oil consumption, which is a mere 51% (same link) of our total oil usage, which is only 59% (Liquids + Natural Gas) of our total energy consumption. That makes Persian Gulf oil a mere 5% of our total energy usage. Our Nuclear usage is more than that (8%, second link), and everyone knows we hate Nuclear in the US.
The connection between our interests in the middle east and our oil needs is tenuous at best. What we really need the balls to do is build more Nuclear plants. Here China is again a great example, with 23 new reactors presently under construction.
Americans acting like "ridiculous reactionaries!?" Never!
People like this are going to make it increasingly difficult for legitimate students to come over here.
No. That mentality is exactly the problem. This is a fucking democracy. Start acting like it. It's not like your vote for Obama or McCain is going to matter. On the one hand, your one vote is practically irrelevant unless you live in one of very few swing states. On the other hand, whoever wins won't matter because they're exactly the fucking same.
Maybe you should look elsewhere for women.
Oh my fucking god. I am throwing away 5 mod points posted elsewhere for this. You, sir, are the problem.
It was a contest between two contenders.
No it fucking was not. There were 5, count them, 5 candidates who were registered on sufficient ballots to win the presidency. The fact that you are too fucking ignorant to be even dimly aware of what they show outside of CNN is utterly pathetic.
Stop being part of the problem.
Hahaha, you're a funny guy! Public schools focusing on education, that's hilarious!
How about this: some bizarre and slightly creepy subsection of the populace in a free society is given reign to pursue this lifestyle as part of a natural right. Then, in the course of human events, there is a terrible global catastrophe and everyone else dies, leaving only the Omar.
Fewer people is far more sustainable anyways.
Like the Omar?
As an electrical engineer, I feel I have a fairly firm grasp on how people figure out a lot of these seemingly extremely complex things.
Magic.
Dude, learn how to link youtube videos. Also, this time is far more applicable.
Believe it or not, most "blind" web users can, in fact, see. They can't see well enough to read, but definitely well enough to draw boxes around what they want to read. Seriously, check out what qualifies as "blind."