how are the terrorists going to take out dozens of square miles of windmills and undersea HVDC cables, even a large nuke is too small for the job
A nuke would do just fine. A 25 megaton warhead would destroy everything within a 20 mile radius. The resulting tsunami would probably take out anything that the initial detonation missed. And depending on the range of the EMP, if any of the windmills managed to survive, their motors and control circuitry would be... in less than optimal condition.
Of course, it's not just terrorists you need to worry about. Good luck trying to protect your floating cuisinarts in a time of war. And what about natural disasters? A good tornado plowing through the area would decimate your generating capacity. A Tsunami would wipe out the whole field. It's just a shitty idea in general.
There should be some sort of Godwin's Law for the word "cancer".
Re:Used car salesmen use the same thing
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 4, Funny
As someone who just became five minutes late on my 'protection' money, I can attest to th
Well, at least the goons were nice enough to hit the "preview" and "submit" button for you, in addition to all the other bits that they were hitting...
Re:Here's a better idea
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Sucks to be you. You can get a decent ADSL line here for as low as $20 per month.
Re:Used car salesmen use the same thing
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
With one of these notebooks, you'll always have that threat looming that your notebook will shut down if someone steals your only CC and you have to cancel it or what not at the wrong time in the billing cycle.
I would assume that there would be a grace period, and that they'd try to contact you fist. That's just good business sense. Even the mafia won't off-you if you're 5 minutes late on your payments - they'll send someone around to have a chat with you, first.
Even if you're willing to accept the cost (and I'm not), there's an added problem: "green energy" hasn't been around long enough for us to judge the real-world environmental impact. It only seems green because there's no fossil fuels burned - you still have to take into account the energy required to produce the infrastructure, and any impact on local wildlife.
Wind turbines are a great example - it takes decades for them to start paying back the energy which we put into building them. Then there's maintenance costs which, due to their dispersed nature, are significant. And then we have to worry about disruption to bird migration patterns, plus there's been instances recently of them killing off huge numbers of bats. So how "green" are they, exactly?
I think for a trip over 2hours it makes sense to take public transit
The problem is that a 2 hour trip by car will probably be 3 hours by bus. And that's without counting the drive to the bus station, and the wait for the bus. And then there's the problem of transportation on the other side, if you're traveling to multiple destinations in one city. So, in other words, screw public transportation.
I live in one city, and every weekend I drive my car to another city to visit friends and family. The trip is about 180km (112 miles) each way. It simply makes no sense at all for me to take public transit. It's cheaper and much more convenient to drive. And I actually like driving, which is a bonus.
Keep on building kinda cool stuff that noone actually wants & they'll keep having their lunch eaten by the Japanese & Koreans.
Pft. I've spent hundreds of dollars adding these types of things to my car. I'd give anything to get my hands on that touch-screen.
Anyway, people don't know what they want if it's available yet. Sure, the average person might not even realize you can plug an iPod into a car. But when someone new gets in my car and discovers the interface for the first time, they immediately fall in love with it. Ditto with all the other features. People look at me weird when I tell them I've put a computer in the car, but once they see it, everyone loves it.
So, long story short, you never know what people want until you offer it to them, and if you think that innovation and creativity are bad things then you must be employed in banking or accounting rather than marketing or r&d.
Not wanting to fight a war that is unwinnable which only makes things worse does not make you either a coward or a criminal.
I'm not sure what war you're talking about, but it's got nothing to do with the discussion anyway. Even if I grant you the point, it's a red herring. The fact of the matter is that Hinsman and his ilk are criminals and cowards, and the sooner we kick their asses back over the border, the happier I'll be.
Tell that to Israel which...
Oh so you're an anti-semite, too? Colour me unsurprised. I think we're done here.
No, not at all. Just wanted to clarify my suspicion. I also guessed that you lived in rural Alberta and drove a pickup truck at least at some point in your life.
Actually, I've lived in and around the GTA ever since I immigrated from europe. But yeah, we're definitely done here. I'm not wasting my time on a bigot like you.
How else should I respond to someone who says get the fuck out, but with a get the fuck out?
No, I don't want them to get the fuck out, I want them officially deported. I want the government to send a message that we will not harbor criminals and cowards.
Human life is precious
Tell that to AQI. Or Saddam, for that matter.
if someone doesn't want to fight in an illegal war
Well, first, there's technically no such thing as an illegal war. Second, no ruling has ever been passed on the legality of the war. Do some reading.
And lastly, the judge who ruled on the deportation cases made it quite clear that the legality or illegality of the war was irrelevant.
In other words, you're fractaly wrong. Again.
we should let them.
Sure, we should let them: as soon as they've served out their prison terms in the US. If they want to move to Canada afterwards, I've got no problem with that. I'll still think that they're morons, cowards, and honourless douchebags, but that's fine - there are plenty of similar people here already, and the country hasn't collapsed yet.
I'm just wondering how you feel about other refugees immigrating here?
Oh, I see. Because I'm opposed to criminals using our immigration system in order to escape reasonable laws, that must mean I'm a racist bigot who's opposed to any darkies polluting my country, eh? It's so much easier to dismiss people when you can file them away in the "racist" box.
Ah, yes, the "if you don't like it here, you can get the fuck out!" response. Always good to meet another tolerant Liberal:) You guys are just all about diversity and freedom and stuff.
Yeah, the same conservatives that have started sending war resistors back to the U.S. where they will be persecuted
Have they? Wow! About time! I've been wondering how long those honourless fucktards would be allowed to stay and clutter up our immigration system.
Thanks for letting me know! I think I'll go down to Jeremy Hinsman's house and throw him a farewell party. Or just have a beer and point and laugh. Whatever.
Which has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
The thing is we also have a right to be free from persecution and thus follows the no 'hate speech'.
Persecution isn't speech, persecution is mistreatment. You cannot mistreat someone with speech, unless you're inciting others to murder them, or you're libeling them. We already have laws against those things - the "hate speech" provisions are a further restriction on unpopular speech. Therefore we do NOT have free speech, since any unpopular opinion I hold can get me prosecuted if someone finds it offensive.
The whole idea is ridiculous. If I call you a cheap bastard, I'm not persecuting you, and I can't be charged with anything. If I call you a cheap jew, I'm still not persecuting you, but I can suddenly get dragged in front of a "human rights tribunal" and made to shell out thousands of dollars for your hurt feelings. If you don't see the problem there, then there's something very wrong with you.
You're innocent until proven guilty
In the normal courts yes, but not in the Orwellian "human rights tribunals". You are presumed guilty and are forced to prove your innocence.
To add to that, you are not provided with a lawyer and must seek legal council at your own expense if you wish it. You have pretty much none of the rights which we would normally afford the accused in a court of law. I guess your highschool law classes didn't cover this stuff, huh?
Seriously, read up on this stuff. It's scary.
You have the right to defend yourself and your home with equal or slightly greater force than those threatening it.
Tell that to my old boss. He fired a warning shot in order to scare away two violent thugs who had just busted down his door. The cops charged HIM with illegally discharging a firearm, and improper storage of a firearm.
The storage issue is a problem too - most attackers are unlikely to wait patiently by while you dick around with the combination locks and loading the magazine.
The person was acquitted of all charges because...
Because it was a high-profile case that got a lot of play in the media, and they couldn't just bury it. If your case doesn't get as much publicity, you get screwed.
What is the point about censoring the location where you are firing off a minigun? It's obviously restricted, and it isn't as if people are going to wander onto some military base and pick up a minigun.
Because it's probably not on a base - more likely it's the private property of some merc company which doesn't want the location of their training areas broadcast on national television.
Oh, and while I'm at it, I should point out that the plaintiff in this case is Richard Warman - one of the most oppressive "Liberals" in Canada. He's the guy who keeps abusing the "Human Rights Commission" (10 separate cases so far!) to pursue his personal political agenda, and the guy who tried to have the CRTC ban Canadian access of certain American internet sites.
In other words, your complaint isn't just wrong, it's fractaly wrong.
I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us
REACH us? Buddy, we've pioneered so many forms of insanity that the yanks would have to rewrite their constitution in order to catch up to us.
We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech. We can be prosecuted for thought crimes and "hate speech" in courts which do not follow any traditional legal structures, where you are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and where truth is no defense. We have no right to defend our homes. We have no right to own and employ firearms in self defense. We don't even have the equivalent of the fifth amendment, let alone the Posse Comitatus!
If you think the US is bad, you haven't been paying much attention to what's going on at home.
When a layman thinks of evolution, they tend to think it means "humans descended from monkeys." This statement in itself is clearly false, in no theory that I know of, did we descend from monkeys.
Well, if by "monkeys" you mean "apes", and by "descended from" you mean "still are", then yeah, that's exactly what evolution tells us:)
We ARE apes. The Hominidae family includes humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and several extinct sub-families which are the common ancestors of the present-day members of the Great Ape family.
We do know some things, like it is extremely likely that we are cousins to modern monkeys, but how exactly we are related to them is unclear. The fossil record just isn't complete enough.
Actually, it is, but we can ignore the fossil record if it makes you uncomfortable and just look at the DNA evidence. We know pretty much exactly how the different members of the Great Ape family diverged. That's why we can say that we are very closely related to chimpanzees, and more distantly related to gorillas and orangutans. We can trace the trail of genetic mutation to figure out which species are closely related. We can then use the fossil record to help us estimate how long ago each "branch" split off from the trunk.
Really, you need to look at the current state of the science, because the points you're making haven't been true for at least a decade now.
God Dammit! Some of us watch BG on hulu and are still waiting for the last episode. Could you keep your spoilers to yourselves. Sheesh.
Don't worry - no spoiler could possibly spoil the experience as much as actually watching it will. To say that it was a huge disappointment would be a massive understatement.
Slashdot Mirror
A nuke would do just fine. A 25 megaton warhead would destroy everything within a 20 mile radius. The resulting tsunami would probably take out anything that the initial detonation missed. And depending on the range of the EMP, if any of the windmills managed to survive, their motors and control circuitry would be ... in less than optimal condition.
Of course, it's not just terrorists you need to worry about. Good luck trying to protect your floating cuisinarts in a time of war. And what about natural disasters? A good tornado plowing through the area would decimate your generating capacity. A Tsunami would wipe out the whole field. It's just a shitty idea in general.
There should be some sort of Godwin's Law for the word "cancer".
Well, at least the goons were nice enough to hit the "preview" and "submit" button for you, in addition to all the other bits that they were hitting ...
Whoops. My bad.
Sucks to be you. You can get a decent ADSL line here for as low as $20 per month.
I would assume that there would be a grace period, and that they'd try to contact you fist. That's just good business sense. Even the mafia won't off-you if you're 5 minutes late on your payments - they'll send someone around to have a chat with you, first.
You're living in a special world ...
Sure, at 10 times the price.
Even if you're willing to accept the cost (and I'm not), there's an added problem: "green energy" hasn't been around long enough for us to judge the real-world environmental impact. It only seems green because there's no fossil fuels burned - you still have to take into account the energy required to produce the infrastructure, and any impact on local wildlife.
Wind turbines are a great example - it takes decades for them to start paying back the energy which we put into building them. Then there's maintenance costs which, due to their dispersed nature, are significant. And then we have to worry about disruption to bird migration patterns, plus there's been instances recently of them killing off huge numbers of bats. So how "green" are they, exactly?
The problem is that a 2 hour trip by car will probably be 3 hours by bus. And that's without counting the drive to the bus station, and the wait for the bus. And then there's the problem of transportation on the other side, if you're traveling to multiple destinations in one city. So, in other words, screw public transportation.
I live in one city, and every weekend I drive my car to another city to visit friends and family. The trip is about 180km (112 miles) each way. It simply makes no sense at all for me to take public transit. It's cheaper and much more convenient to drive. And I actually like driving, which is a bonus.
Pft. I've spent hundreds of dollars adding these types of things to my car. I'd give anything to get my hands on that touch-screen.
Anyway, people don't know what they want if it's available yet. Sure, the average person might not even realize you can plug an iPod into a car. But when someone new gets in my car and discovers the interface for the first time, they immediately fall in love with it. Ditto with all the other features. People look at me weird when I tell them I've put a computer in the car, but once they see it, everyone loves it.
So, long story short, you never know what people want until you offer it to them, and if you think that innovation and creativity are bad things then you must be employed in banking or accounting rather than marketing or r&d.
No, He didn't.
All I know is that you don't know what Socrates said :)
I'm not sure what war you're talking about, but it's got nothing to do with the discussion anyway. Even if I grant you the point, it's a red herring. The fact of the matter is that Hinsman and his ilk are criminals and cowards, and the sooner we kick their asses back over the border, the happier I'll be.
Oh so you're an anti-semite, too? Colour me unsurprised. I think we're done here.
Actually, I've lived in and around the GTA ever since I immigrated from europe. But yeah, we're definitely done here. I'm not wasting my time on a bigot like you.
No, I don't want them to get the fuck out, I want them officially deported. I want the government to send a message that we will not harbor criminals and cowards.
Tell that to AQI. Or Saddam, for that matter.
Well, first, there's technically no such thing as an illegal war. Second, no ruling has ever been passed on the legality of the war. Do some reading.
And lastly, the judge who ruled on the deportation cases made it quite clear that the legality or illegality of the war was irrelevant.
In other words, you're fractaly wrong. Again.
Sure, we should let them: as soon as they've served out their prison terms in the US. If they want to move to Canada afterwards, I've got no problem with that. I'll still think that they're morons, cowards, and honourless douchebags, but that's fine - there are plenty of similar people here already, and the country hasn't collapsed yet.
Oh, I see. Because I'm opposed to criminals using our immigration system in order to escape reasonable laws, that must mean I'm a racist bigot who's opposed to any darkies polluting my country, eh? It's so much easier to dismiss people when you can file them away in the "racist" box.
Ah, yes, the "if you don't like it here, you can get the fuck out!" response. Always good to meet another tolerant Liberal :) You guys are just all about diversity and freedom and stuff.
WHAT?? NOOOO! I've wasted SO MUCH TIME!!!
Have they? Wow! About time! I've been wondering how long those honourless fucktards would be allowed to stay and clutter up our immigration system.
Thanks for letting me know! I think I'll go down to Jeremy Hinsman's house and throw him a farewell party. Or just have a beer and point and laugh. Whatever.
Which has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
Persecution isn't speech, persecution is mistreatment. You cannot mistreat someone with speech, unless you're inciting others to murder them, or you're libeling them. We already have laws against those things - the "hate speech" provisions are a further restriction on unpopular speech. Therefore we do NOT have free speech, since any unpopular opinion I hold can get me prosecuted if someone finds it offensive.
The whole idea is ridiculous. If I call you a cheap bastard, I'm not persecuting you, and I can't be charged with anything. If I call you a cheap jew, I'm still not persecuting you, but I can suddenly get dragged in front of a "human rights tribunal" and made to shell out thousands of dollars for your hurt feelings. If you don't see the problem there, then there's something very wrong with you.
In the normal courts yes, but not in the Orwellian "human rights tribunals". You are presumed guilty and are forced to prove your innocence.
To add to that, you are not provided with a lawyer and must seek legal council at your own expense if you wish it. You have pretty much none of the rights which we would normally afford the accused in a court of law. I guess your highschool law classes didn't cover this stuff, huh?
Seriously, read up on this stuff. It's scary.
Tell that to my old boss. He fired a warning shot in order to scare away two violent thugs who had just busted down his door. The cops charged HIM with illegally discharging a firearm, and improper storage of a firearm.
The storage issue is a problem too - most attackers are unlikely to wait patiently by while you dick around with the combination locks and loading the magazine.
Because it was a high-profile case that got a lot of play in the media, and they couldn't just bury it. If your case doesn't get as much publicity, you get screwed.
Because it's probably not on a base - more likely it's the private property of some merc company which doesn't want the location of their training areas broadcast on national television.
Oh, and while I'm at it, I should point out that the plaintiff in this case is Richard Warman - one of the most oppressive "Liberals" in Canada. He's the guy who keeps abusing the "Human Rights Commission" (10 separate cases so far!) to pursue his personal political agenda, and the guy who tried to have the CRTC ban Canadian access of certain American internet sites.
In other words, your complaint isn't just wrong, it's fractaly wrong.
Yeah, damn those conservatives! That Paul Martin guy for instance. What will they do next??
I know that feeding partisan trolls is usually a bad idea, but your brand of nonsense is just SOOOO tempting!
You know, those sea-state weirdos make me wonder what the going rate for Somali Pirates is, these days ...
If you're going to create your own nation, I hope you invest in a large arsenal!
REACH us? Buddy, we've pioneered so many forms of insanity that the yanks would have to rewrite their constitution in order to catch up to us.
We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech. We can be prosecuted for thought crimes and "hate speech" in courts which do not follow any traditional legal structures, where you are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and where truth is no defense. We have no right to defend our homes. We have no right to own and employ firearms in self defense. We don't even have the equivalent of the fifth amendment, let alone the Posse Comitatus!
If you think the US is bad, you haven't been paying much attention to what's going on at home.
You're linking Pansperima as an example of current evolutionary theory? Are you mental?
Well, if by "monkeys" you mean "apes", and by "descended from" you mean "still are", then yeah, that's exactly what evolution tells us :)
We ARE apes. The Hominidae family includes humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and several extinct sub-families which are the common ancestors of the present-day members of the Great Ape family.
Actually, it is, but we can ignore the fossil record if it makes you uncomfortable and just look at the DNA evidence. We know pretty much exactly how the different members of the Great Ape family diverged. That's why we can say that we are very closely related to chimpanzees, and more distantly related to gorillas and orangutans. We can trace the trail of genetic mutation to figure out which species are closely related. We can then use the fossil record to help us estimate how long ago each "branch" split off from the trunk.
Really, you need to look at the current state of the science, because the points you're making haven't been true for at least a decade now.
Don't worry - no spoiler could possibly spoil the experience as much as actually watching it will. To say that it was a huge disappointment would be a massive understatement.