To be fair, a random bunch of dirt doesn't make much heat, but put a few million (billion?) cubic miles of the stuff together, and you get a molten core, a thin layer of solidified crust penetrated with volcanos, etc.
Ummm, the US isn't always the good guy. In fact, it has demonstrably become evil, having killed almost as many Arabs as Hitler killed Jews, having overthrown democracies to install dictatorships (in both Iraq and Iran), and its record of oppression against its own citizens (largest prison population on Earth, by FAR the largest per capita prison population of Earth).
A few dozen of these things would be enough to stop a carrier fleet from attacking your non-aggressing nation, but would be more or less useless offensively. The analogy was not that civilians would use them, it was that civilians use them for self defense, as a nation-state would use these cargo container missiles.
They had a few nukes back then. I suppose that is the exception that proves the rule. Their arsenal is now much more advanced, and has served as a deterrent ever since. You won't see anyone invading Israel any time in the near future.
Too bad you are missing more recent data (which shows Texas crime rates decreasing rapidly, as a greater and greater share of the population gets permits, while New York's are spiking upwards), and that data is not corrected for population growth. Texas is growing, while New York is stagnating, and now losing population, IIRC.
It also makes aggression by big fat bullies less likely (think USA).
This is analogous to having civilians having concealed weapons. With concealed carry laws in Texas, violent crime has dropped significantly, even as it rises in other populous nations. With a weapon like this, wars are much less likely to break out.
This is sort of like a poor-man's nuke. No nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded (and only one has had a possession invaded--England). Maybe this sort of thing will stop us from invading any more countries using hair-brained justifications.
Nope, I looked at it myself. The payoff for things like that is years off (like ten years at least), and very expensive (multiple millions of dollars). We have the ability to get to a payday with medical devices within a few months to a couple of years AT MOST. Money coming from those applications will allow us to expand to the point that we can pursue drug applications in earnest.
Also, you really think the oil and coal companies want to spend ALL of their profit on research? The budget of those GRANTING INSTITUTIONS goes towards GRANTS. You can think what you want, but the fact is that Big Oil and Big Coal don't spend much or any money on climate research, because any results from such research would immediately be labelled as biased. So instead of that, they just spend money on lobbyists to try to protect themselves from those who would shut down the engine of society forever in the name of some phantom future.
You know, it's not hard to stop torturing people. All it would take is a phone call. There isn't a "process" that anyone has to go through. It's simple.
Because he has failed to take that simple action, Obama has proven that he is every bit as evil as Bush. Democrats are exactly the same as Republicans--both parties are merely wings of the Greater Fascist Party that has ruled this nation since Coolidge.
By pretending that you have a choice, they divide America against itself, leaving those in charge free to do what they want as soon as they are in office, and to take in fat paychecks with their corporate pals once they leave. If they would do what they talk about while they are in the minority, the US would be a paradise, but instead, we are in Hell. Because people can't recognize that the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Enjoy the future, spun (how perfect is that username?), it's a lot closer than you think. You had a huge hand in bringing us to this point.
You can't subsidize something and let the market sort it out at the same time. This is why our "free" markets don't work. They aren't free! They are run by the government via taxes and subsidies.
Ever think about how much "dirty" energy goes into making those solar panels, including their transportation, installation, and maintenance costs? What is the environmental impact of all those batteries? What is the environmental and societal cost of getting all those rare elements that are needed to make the panels work? How many wars in Africa are fueled by such things?
Why wouldn't you want 8 companies coming to you for land access? Without government regulations demanding access, you could charge them. Then the REAL costs of such services would become clear, and people could move to more sustainable systems, like Earthships.
Monopolies make it "cheap" to live like we do, rather than allowing us the option of living much more efficiently (or even developing the technology and methods to live more efficiently). Maybe the most efficient form of powering the home is actually burning propane, or maybe it's solar power, but there is no way to tell with all the government imposed incentives and disincentives obscuring the actual costs of things. Sort of like how it costs far less to sweeten a soda with sugar, but thanks to corn subsidies, we have HFCS in everything, which is apparently contributing to the obesity epidemic, which is increasing the cost of our health care. Tariffs on sugar make it more expensive. This also effects other sectors, like transportation (if you didn't weigh so much, maybe you would ride your bike to work), more people could fit on planes, etc.
You can poke around this intermingling spider web of regulations, taxes, and subsidies, and maybe you can make some things better, but you will certainly make other things worse, as in your Dallas example. A better way would be to simply BAR the government from interfering in commerce ALTOGETHER. They have never done anything but damage by sticking their fat fingers where they don't belong. Anything they ever "fixed" was a problem that they themselves created.
No, under the system of government controls that create the power monopoly, Linus would be in jail, and there would be no Linux. You would have to code the whole thing yourself. If you attempted to distribute it, you wold have sherrifs deputies knocking at your door, and confiscating your computers. If you attempted to resist, you would be shot. That is the kind of country we live in.
ITT Cowards who don't know anything about solar power.
It would cost AT LEAST 50K to install a system capable of running a central air system, and that DOES NOT include installation.
I researched going off grid here in my little 1br house, and found it would cost me $40K if I didn't cool the house completely in the summer (rather only used a window unit in the room I was in). To cool my whole house with central air would cost $70K, but I'm in Texas where we have gone for weeks with highs above 100 every day.
Why is it Slashdot hates a "monopoly" when its Microsoft (which was NEVER a monopoly, just really popular at its peak), but FUCKING LOVES IT when it's some random shitty government enforcing it using thugs with jackboots, body armor, and assault rifles?
His policies accelerated the terminal decline of America faster than any president before him?
Of course, Obama hit the nitrous as soon as he got into office.
Much like Rome, we have had the last of our "Good Emperors". We are now doomed to a series of one-termers which will ultimately result in the end of this nation.
You think Bush was bad? Obama has followed on and expanded every single one of his policies, save for a few bits of windowdressing.
When are we pulling out of Iraq again? Why are we still torturing people at Bagram? Why is the Fed still giving free money to the banks? Why is spending still skyrocketing?
Dems and Repubs are the same. Until people can see that, and really understand it, nothing will change. If we're lucky, we'll have a Dem in the WH and Repubs in the Legislature and they will be locked up completely. Everything they do only makes everything worse, and that includes the SEC.
Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?
Who lives in the granting agencies? What are their biases? This is what strikes at the heart of the problem. For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.
Remember, Occam's razor was originally invented to prove that God exists.
I never heard of a "gun-toting" American killing anyone over a depiction of Jesus. Hell, even the guys who made the Mary and Jesus statue out of cow dung got away just fine with nothing more than a few protesters.
America is polite, largely because our population is armed.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, a random bunch of dirt doesn't make much heat, but put a few million (billion?) cubic miles of the stuff together, and you get a molten core, a thin layer of solidified crust penetrated with volcanos, etc.
Ummm, the US isn't always the good guy. In fact, it has demonstrably become evil, having killed almost as many Arabs as Hitler killed Jews, having overthrown democracies to install dictatorships (in both Iraq and Iran), and its record of oppression against its own citizens (largest prison population on Earth, by FAR the largest per capita prison population of Earth).
A few dozen of these things would be enough to stop a carrier fleet from attacking your non-aggressing nation, but would be more or less useless offensively. The analogy was not that civilians would use them, it was that civilians use them for self defense, as a nation-state would use these cargo container missiles.
They had a few nukes back then. I suppose that is the exception that proves the rule. Their arsenal is now much more advanced, and has served as a deterrent ever since. You won't see anyone invading Israel any time in the near future.
Too bad you are missing more recent data (which shows Texas crime rates decreasing rapidly, as a greater and greater share of the population gets permits, while New York's are spiking upwards), and that data is not corrected for population growth. Texas is growing, while New York is stagnating, and now losing population, IIRC.
An article with evidence pointing both ways: http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1526463189/Concealed-carry-laws-Experts-debate-impact
It also makes aggression by big fat bullies less likely (think USA).
This is analogous to having civilians having concealed weapons. With concealed carry laws in Texas, violent crime has dropped significantly, even as it rises in other populous nations. With a weapon like this, wars are much less likely to break out.
This is sort of like a poor-man's nuke. No nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded (and only one has had a possession invaded--England). Maybe this sort of thing will stop us from invading any more countries using hair-brained justifications.
I don't think you can, that's what the blue pill was for.
Then roll over and find a copy of your own head in the bed with you.
Right, because creditors never go after expensive and re-sellable capital.
Easy to pay back the initial "loans" when you have access to infinite free money courtesy of the Fed's discount window, with interest rates set at 0%.
GM got in trouble for "paying back" the initial bailout with funds from other bailouts.
Nope, I looked at it myself. The payoff for things like that is years off (like ten years at least), and very expensive (multiple millions of dollars). We have the ability to get to a payday with medical devices within a few months to a couple of years AT MOST. Money coming from those applications will allow us to expand to the point that we can pursue drug applications in earnest.
Also, you really think the oil and coal companies want to spend ALL of their profit on research? The budget of those GRANTING INSTITUTIONS goes towards GRANTS. You can think what you want, but the fact is that Big Oil and Big Coal don't spend much or any money on climate research, because any results from such research would immediately be labelled as biased. So instead of that, they just spend money on lobbyists to try to protect themselves from those who would shut down the engine of society forever in the name of some phantom future.
You know, it's not hard to stop torturing people. All it would take is a phone call. There isn't a "process" that anyone has to go through. It's simple.
Because he has failed to take that simple action, Obama has proven that he is every bit as evil as Bush. Democrats are exactly the same as Republicans--both parties are merely wings of the Greater Fascist Party that has ruled this nation since Coolidge.
By pretending that you have a choice, they divide America against itself, leaving those in charge free to do what they want as soon as they are in office, and to take in fat paychecks with their corporate pals once they leave. If they would do what they talk about while they are in the minority, the US would be a paradise, but instead, we are in Hell. Because people can't recognize that the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Enjoy the future, spun (how perfect is that username?), it's a lot closer than you think. You had a huge hand in bringing us to this point.
Only when it's to banks.
Or car companies.
Or anyone else who puts money in politician's pockets.
You can't subsidize something and let the market sort it out at the same time. This is why our "free" markets don't work. They aren't free! They are run by the government via taxes and subsidies.
Ever think about how much "dirty" energy goes into making those solar panels, including their transportation, installation, and maintenance costs? What is the environmental impact of all those batteries? What is the environmental and societal cost of getting all those rare elements that are needed to make the panels work? How many wars in Africa are fueled by such things?
Why wouldn't you want 8 companies coming to you for land access? Without government regulations demanding access, you could charge them. Then the REAL costs of such services would become clear, and people could move to more sustainable systems, like Earthships.
Monopolies make it "cheap" to live like we do, rather than allowing us the option of living much more efficiently (or even developing the technology and methods to live more efficiently). Maybe the most efficient form of powering the home is actually burning propane, or maybe it's solar power, but there is no way to tell with all the government imposed incentives and disincentives obscuring the actual costs of things. Sort of like how it costs far less to sweeten a soda with sugar, but thanks to corn subsidies, we have HFCS in everything, which is apparently contributing to the obesity epidemic, which is increasing the cost of our health care. Tariffs on sugar make it more expensive. This also effects other sectors, like transportation (if you didn't weigh so much, maybe you would ride your bike to work), more people could fit on planes, etc.
You can poke around this intermingling spider web of regulations, taxes, and subsidies, and maybe you can make some things better, but you will certainly make other things worse, as in your Dallas example. A better way would be to simply BAR the government from interfering in commerce ALTOGETHER. They have never done anything but damage by sticking their fat fingers where they don't belong. Anything they ever "fixed" was a problem that they themselves created.
Right, and what is the REAL rate that you pay, as you subsidize your power company with taxes in Austin?
No, under the system of government controls that create the power monopoly, Linus would be in jail, and there would be no Linux. You would have to code the whole thing yourself. If you attempted to distribute it, you wold have sherrifs deputies knocking at your door, and confiscating your computers. If you attempted to resist, you would be shot. That is the kind of country we live in.
Well, M8y, I'm glad to see that you are an expert in energy law in every country on the Planet Earth.
That's great, except you have to pay for 40 years worth up front.
If you could lease solar power, that would be dandy, but you can't.
ITT Cowards who don't know anything about solar power. It would cost AT LEAST 50K to install a system capable of running a central air system, and that DOES NOT include installation. I researched going off grid here in my little 1br house, and found it would cost me $40K if I didn't cool the house completely in the summer (rather only used a window unit in the room I was in). To cool my whole house with central air would cost $70K, but I'm in Texas where we have gone for weeks with highs above 100 every day.
Why is it Slashdot hates a "monopoly" when its Microsoft (which was NEVER a monopoly, just really popular at its peak), but FUCKING LOVES IT when it's some random shitty government enforcing it using thugs with jackboots, body armor, and assault rifles?
I guess you missed the part where GWB killed 3 million Iraqis.
Of course, Obama is following in his tradition. When are we going to leave Iraq?
His policies accelerated the terminal decline of America faster than any president before him?
Of course, Obama hit the nitrous as soon as he got into office.
Much like Rome, we have had the last of our "Good Emperors". We are now doomed to a series of one-termers which will ultimately result in the end of this nation.
You think Bush was bad? Obama has followed on and expanded every single one of his policies, save for a few bits of windowdressing.
When are we pulling out of Iraq again? Why are we still torturing people at Bagram? Why is the Fed still giving free money to the banks? Why is spending still skyrocketing?
Dems and Repubs are the same. Until people can see that, and really understand it, nothing will change. If we're lucky, we'll have a Dem in the WH and Repubs in the Legislature and they will be locked up completely. Everything they do only makes everything worse, and that includes the SEC.
More people were killed during Stalin's purges. Why didn't their deaths cause a little ice age?
Why wasn't the world frozen back when the global population of humans only ten million or so?
Basically, that's one dumb hypothesis.
Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?
Who lives in the granting agencies? What are their biases? This is what strikes at the heart of the problem. For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.
Remember, Occam's razor was originally invented to prove that God exists.
I never heard of a "gun-toting" American killing anyone over a depiction of Jesus. Hell, even the guys who made the Mary and Jesus statue out of cow dung got away just fine with nothing more than a few protesters.
America is polite, largely because our population is armed.