Explain to me why having my country become WARM is such a bad thing?
Mosquitos.
Global warming is only bad if the place you live in is already hot.
... or if the place you live is near the coast. ... or if the weather patterns of the place where you live are altered unfavorably (too little/too much rain, tornados where there haven't been any before, etc)... or, or, or...
1 is irrelevant, Archimedes worked this out a bloody long time ago, and I'm amazed people still manage to get it wrong.
1 becomes extremely relevant as soon as the water is not completely still anymore. And, guess what, the oceans aren't still at all, they have tides. So even if the _average_ water level stays the same, the amplitude of the tides is going to increase. And, guess what again, a city that's flooded for 12 hours a day is pretty much as bad as one that's flooded all the time.
To drill a hole in a tooth, a "metal tool" won't do. Tooth enamel is the hardest substance in the body. You need a ceramic/diamond coated drill bit to do that.
Which I will counter with, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family Leave Act... need I continue?
No, you don't really. You've shown that you missed the point of human rights. Human rights aren't something that should be observed only if it is convenient and popular.
Is it okay to steal as long as you don't murder ? I don't think so.
I know that in Germany, kids get put in different school programs starting at a fairly early age, so that by graduation, their future employment area has already been determined (lived there, this is based on talks with kids in their schools).
Eh, that's maybe a bit too simplified. You can always switch the branch of the secondary school you're in if you qualify, and earn any school diploma even later in your life. If you find out at 30 that maybe learning a trade was a mistake, there's always the option of going to university.
Heck. Even if you started out with "lowest" branch of secondary school and learned a trade, you can still work yourself up to getting a degree in Law and become Chancellor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der
That makes you a blip in the statistics, but nothing else.
This works especially well if the party of your "least bad" choice among the two major players also controls congress.
Whoops. I _knew_ that the "Vote for someone else" strategy came with some hooks attached. Voting for a third party also has the benefit to influence the policies of the major parties.
In theory. In practice (and since so many other people are convinced that they only have two choices), minor parties are pretty much irrelevant. This happened to some extent with the Greens and Democrats due to Nader's strong showing in the 2000 elections.
Yep, and the 2000 elections were won by neither of them, precisely because of this. Vote for a minor party instead of one of the two big ones, and you'll actually make the big party that you partially agree with lose the election. Way to go.
Why else would characteristic 3 include "terrorists" as a scapegoat when the regimes he allegedly used for the study never focused on such a group?
Of course the Nazis hunted "commie terrorists", just that back then the word "terrorist" was not in general use yet.
According to them, eeeevul commie terrorists for example set the parliament on fire. Is setting the parliament on fire "terroristic" enough to qualify as terrorism ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Why should kids be able to get away with unacceptable behaviour just because they're born clever?
Define "unacceptable".
Correcting a mistake the teacher made ? Unacceptable for some teachers, since teachers are never wrong and students are always wrong. (Experienced this one myself, basically, the teacher threw a tantrum when the _whole friggin' class_ pointed out to him politely that what he just said was wrong, since we all knew the right answer from a class we've just had earlier the very same day.
Student showing mild signs of boredom (such as looking out the window, or reading ahead in the textbook) since he could hold the class himself ? Unacceptable ?
G&T kids are likely to become "troublemakers" because the normal education system does not offer enough challenges.
Teachers usually do not like these kids and start harassing them as soon as it starts to show that the kid is actually smarter than the teacher. (Teachers cannot stand anyone appearing smarter than they are in class, even if the appearance is true). Their classmates do not like these kids because they usually get better grade with much, much less effort. And the classmates are even better at harassing than the teacher. All the harassment does lead to trouble eventually (unless the G&T kid is especially good at hiding his abilites or has an ungodly tolerance to harassment). And guess which side the teacher will side with if there's trouble between a normal kid and the smartass G&T "troublemaker" ? Bingo.
It's not just that it's ripe for abuse so much as it's an indicator that the Dutch have completely given up on taking care of themselves and their communities on any level other than a centralized beaurocracy.
Then again, you can probably find American "communities" that are larger than the Netherlands.
No, it allows you to still control where the car is going while braking. Since ABS stops lockups of the wheels it is possible to stamp on the brakes a whole lot harder - hence stopping quicker.
Um, do you know _how_ ABS stops the wheels from locking up ? It's not doing so by magic. It simply releases the brake pads a bit when it detects locking. Did you ever perform an emergency braking manoeuver in an ABS-equipped car ? Yes ? Did you notice the car shuddering and the brake pedal pulsating ? Yes ? This happens because the ABS system applies and releases the brake in quick succession.
If you want to decelerate quickly and don't mind not being able to steer, then locking the wheels is the way to go.
At 5% unemployment, someone in America is working.
... or just too many factually unemployed people have been dropped from the statistic. How long do you need to be unemployed before you're labeled "hopeless" instead of "unemployed" ? 6 months ?
Shopping for a healthcare plan needs to be like shopping for car insurance.
The difference between the two is that usually you have to behave stupidly to become an "undesirable" for a car insurance company, and if anything you'll end up paying higher premiums.
As far as health insurance goes, avoiding stupid behavior doesn't guarantee that you don't end up being undesirable and never even get an offer for health insurance.
Then you're probably quite healthy and don't have any pre-existing conditions that make any insurance agent act like you just dropped a live tarantula in their lap when they read that field on the application form.
Sometimes that W guy latches on to something good.
I'm still eagerly awaiting the moment.
Sure, lets find a way to reduce pollution, but lets not take the stupid approach of reducing our standard of living,
The Kyoto protocol doesn't dictate any particular approach. A country may reduce its CO2 output to the agreed level by any means it deems effective. If W's magic was anything serious, he'd have the protocol signed. Not doing so just shows that he just gives a shit. Anything he proposes might or might not eventually happen after his presidency is over, and by that time he doesn't have to deal with it any longer.
when we can invent a better way.
... or wait for magic. How many new nuclear power plants does GWB plan to build ? 50 ? 100 ? That's the order of magnitude needed to have any significant impact. But why be smarter and more efficient when you can be bigger and inefficient ?
Where's the funding into fusion research ? And does a 3.6 L engine (vs. 6.8 L) reduce anyone's standard of living (and not just the imaginary dick size) by any noticable amount ? Or proper insulation of houses ?
Re:Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point
on
Controlling Hurricanes?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"Not working" also isn't necessary in order never to own anything.
If you make just enough to pay for your rent and other basic expenses (and *gasp* there are people who make that little), you'll never own anything.
Most third world countries aren't known for their great welfare systems, either.
Actually, if you've got some billions left and spend them on researching alternative fuel sources and more importantly, more efficient energy usage, you might end up complying with the criteria anyway.
and doing things our way.
Yeah, I've heard that from W. "Let's use science to take care of it.". Because science will magically make us able to burn the same amount (or more) of carbon-containing fuels while producing less CO2. Hoooooray for science. It can even circumvent basic chemistry.
That's what you get when you confuse science with magic.
Re:Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point
on
Controlling Hurricanes?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A welfare state isn't necessary in order to have people who don't own anything.
I prefer to live in a technological society which offers some hope for coping with the weather.
If you happen to live in the US, you should consider relocating. There are alternatives that suit your preferences much better.
What's technological about ~10 mpg SUVs ? That's fuel economy from the fricken stone age, because the engine technology is from the fricken stone age. If you need to drive a car that large, at least put an engine in there (for example, a modern diesel engine with particulate filter) that converts a larger percentage of the energy in the fuel into forward motion and less of it into noise and heat.
Slashdot Mirror
Mosquitos. Global warming is only bad if the place you live in is already hot.
Yeah, right. Bullets don't kill people, either. Most people who get shot die from hypovolemic shock or organ failure.
1 becomes extremely relevant as soon as the water is not completely still anymore. And, guess what, the oceans aren't still at all, they have tides. So even if the _average_ water level stays the same, the amplitude of the tides is going to increase. And, guess what again, a city that's flooded for 12 hours a day is pretty much as bad as one that's flooded all the time.
1. It's a dirty job and someone's gotta do it. 2. No one else is gonna do it for us. 3. We have no other place to go at the moment.
Ask yourself, which is more contagious ? And ask yourself, which is deadlier ? Which of the two can already be treated (cured) to some extent ?
and we'll adapt.
You go first, I'll follow your example.
Removing tartar doesn't have anything to do with drilling teeth. And bits of tartar were the "white stuff" you saw flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_(dental)
To drill a hole in a tooth, a "metal tool" won't do. Tooth enamel is the hardest substance in the body. You need a ceramic/diamond coated drill bit to do that.
No, you don't really. You've shown that you missed the point of human rights. Human rights aren't something that should be observed only if it is convenient and popular.
Is it okay to steal as long as you don't murder ? I don't think so.
Eh, that's maybe a bit too simplified. You can always switch the branch of the secondary school you're in if you qualify, and earn any school diploma even later in your life. If you find out at 30 that maybe learning a trade was a mistake, there's always the option of going to university.r
Heck. Even if you started out with "lowest" branch of secondary school and learned a trade, you can still work yourself up to getting a degree in Law and become Chancellor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6de
That makes you a blip in the statistics, but nothing else.
This works especially well if the party of your "least bad" choice among the two major players also controls congress.
Whoops. I _knew_ that the "Vote for someone else" strategy came with some hooks attached.
Voting for a third party also has the benefit to influence the policies of the major parties.
In theory. In practice (and since so many other people are convinced that they only have two choices), minor parties are pretty much irrelevant.
This happened to some extent with the Greens and Democrats due to Nader's strong showing in the 2000 elections.
Yep, and the 2000 elections were won by neither of them, precisely because of this. Vote for a minor party instead of one of the two big ones, and you'll actually make the big party that you partially agree with lose the election. Way to go.
Of course the Nazis hunted "commie terrorists", just that back then the word "terrorist" was not in general use yet.
According to them, eeeevul commie terrorists for example set the parliament on fire. Is setting the parliament on fire "terroristic" enough to qualify as terrorism ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Define "unacceptable".
Correcting a mistake the teacher made ? Unacceptable for some teachers, since teachers are never wrong and students are always wrong. (Experienced this one myself, basically, the teacher threw a tantrum when the _whole friggin' class_ pointed out to him politely that what he just said was wrong, since we all knew the right answer from a class we've just had earlier the very same day.
Student showing mild signs of boredom (such as looking out the window, or reading ahead in the textbook) since he could hold the class himself ? Unacceptable ?
What the hell is G&T?
Gifted & talented.
No matter how you pronounce the title, if you spell it with any other letters than G, T, A and C, then you're missing the hidden joke.
Guanine
Adenine
Cytosine
Thymine
People who aren't morons.
G&T kids are likely to become "troublemakers" because the normal education system does not offer enough challenges.
Teachers usually do not like these kids and start harassing them as soon as it starts to show that the kid is actually smarter than the teacher. (Teachers cannot stand anyone appearing smarter than they are in class, even if the appearance is true).
Their classmates do not like these kids because they usually get better grade with much, much less effort. And the classmates are even better at harassing than the teacher.
All the harassment does lead to trouble eventually (unless the G&T kid is especially good at hiding his abilites or has an ungodly tolerance to harassment). And guess which side the teacher will side with if there's trouble between a normal kid and the smartass G&T "troublemaker" ? Bingo.
Then again, you can probably find American "communities" that are larger than the Netherlands.
No, it allows you to still control where the car is going while braking.
Since ABS stops lockups of the wheels it is possible to stamp on the brakes a whole lot harder - hence stopping quicker.
Um, do you know _how_ ABS stops the wheels from locking up ? It's not doing so by magic. It simply releases the brake pads a bit when it detects locking. Did you ever perform an emergency braking manoeuver in an ABS-equipped car ? Yes ? Did you notice the car shuddering and the brake pedal pulsating ? Yes ? This happens because the ABS system applies and releases the brake in quick succession.
If you want to decelerate quickly and don't mind not being able to steer, then locking the wheels is the way to go.
The difference between the two is that usually you have to behave stupidly to become an "undesirable" for a car insurance company, and if anything you'll end up paying higher premiums.
As far as health insurance goes, avoiding stupid behavior doesn't guarantee that you don't end up being undesirable and never even get an offer for health insurance.
Then you're probably quite healthy and don't have any pre-existing conditions that make any insurance agent act like you just dropped a live tarantula in their lap when they read that field on the application form.
I'm still eagerly awaiting the moment. Sure, lets find a way to reduce pollution, but lets not take the stupid approach of reducing our standard of living,
The Kyoto protocol doesn't dictate any particular approach. A country may reduce its CO2 output to the agreed level by any means it deems effective. If W's magic was anything serious, he'd have the protocol signed. Not doing so just shows that he just gives a shit. Anything he proposes might or might not eventually happen after his presidency is over, and by that time he doesn't have to deal with it any longer. when we can invent a better way.
"Not working" also isn't necessary in order never to own anything. If you make just enough to pay for your rent and other basic expenses (and *gasp* there are people who make that little), you'll never own anything. Most third world countries aren't known for their great welfare systems, either.
and doing things our way.
Yeah, I've heard that from W. "Let's use science to take care of it.". Because science will magically make us able to burn the same amount (or more) of carbon-containing fuels while producing less CO2. Hoooooray for science. It can even circumvent basic chemistry.
That's what you get when you confuse science with magic.
A welfare state isn't necessary in order to have people who don't own anything.
If you happen to live in the US, you should consider relocating. There are alternatives that suit your preferences much better.
What's technological about ~10 mpg SUVs ? That's fuel economy from the fricken stone age, because the engine technology is from the fricken stone age. If you need to drive a car that large, at least put an engine in there (for example, a modern diesel engine with particulate filter) that converts a larger percentage of the energy in the fuel into forward motion and less of it into noise and heat.