Uh, yeah. Nukes shield the people they protect. Why would you think that people not protected by nukes would benefit? And it's not like they are dying to any greater degree than they would have in a world without nukes. All that violence was already there. Nukes just cut the violence between the big boys, who were the worse offenders.
Which is why if you want a peaceful world, you should be in FAVOR of nuclear proliferation.
As an example, ~400,000 Koreans died in WWII. ~350,000 died in the Korean War. Now imagine if that war had been fought across the entirety of Asia.
Are you really that stupid? Serfs were property, you blithering buffoon. They owned nothing of what they made. EVERYTHING was stolen from them. The lords didn't have property rights either. They were just boys with swords who took what they wanted, and built a system that allowed them to do it.
I guess you missed the part where property rights were enshrined followed promptly by the death of feudalism in Europe, and slightly more slowly the death of slavery in the US. I mean, it can't get much clearer than that. But you have some sort of insane beef with the concept of "property" that you would twist the world and everything in it into some incomprehensible narrative in order to force your idiotic idea to be the truth.
Your thought process is appears to be nothing but doublethink.
Yeah, but they didn't share the technology with anyone, and it was thus lost, and now is nothing but a curiosity. It was not useful to humanity, and like a thousand other things was lost to time. It just happened to be rediscovered, unlike the other worthless things that no-one ever shared.
It is worth no more than a Norwegian claim on Newfoundland.
No, it leads you AWAY from it. That much is clear from history. In feudalism, the rights of the majority are violated by a small minority. To equate respect for property rights with the total violation of property rights is a level of stupidity and doublethink that I just can't believe human beings are capable of. Please tell me you are Cleverbot or some other such idiotic machine.
Yeah, and it was about as useful as the Antikathyra mechanism or Norsemen in America. Electricity wasn't generated in the Dark Ages, and it certainly wasn't harnessed for productive uses.
No, it isn't. A typical rare earth mine produces enough thorium to power to planet over a given year, and there are thousands of such mines, many of which are currently uneconomical because of thorium contamination (thorium isn't useful for much other than nuclear fuel, and is expensive to store/dispose of without reactors to burn it).
The fact is that there is so much thorium in Earth's crust, you hardly need another energy source. If we ran out after 100,000 years, we would start mining other planets and moons for the stuff. It is so energy dense that such operations would be economical, even with our current primitive technology.
Just because they steal doesn't mean you can or should. Instead of trying to use their thievery as an excuse for your own, it is better to attack theirs until they can't do it any more.
However, if you feel as I feel, that the government is totally out of control and must collapse before positive change can be effected, then you should steal as much as possible to usher in that collapse sooner.
Yes, that is correct. Think back to the days of the Soviet Union. There was always some drought, or flood, or some "natural" disaster to which they assigned the blame for their inability to keep food available to their people.
If we would allow new technology to come into being/use in the nuclear space, we could use power from the resulting LFTRs to desalinate seawater or water from brackish aquifers and drought wouldn't matter one whit.
You have normalcy bias, then. You see the way things are now, and assume that is the natural order. The USA will never go to war with a nuclear armed nation, which rules out large scale wars that significantly deplete the population. This is why deaths from war have dropped by 1-2 orders of magnitude since the advent of nuclear weaponry. If nukes hadn't been invented, you can bet that WWII would have lasted for 10 more years as we went to war with the USSR, and potentially China. Not a fun time, as hundreds of millions would have died in that sort of conflict. But Russian and Chinese hands were stayed by our nuclear deterrent, and we had little proxy wars instead.
Yes, exactly. From NON NUCLEAR NATIONS. If those nations had nukes, they could defend themselves. If those nations were part of a coalition of small nations that collectively owned nukes, they could defend themselves. But they aren't, so they get the shit freed out of them by the West whenever it is convenient for the sociopaths in power to do so.
Which is funny, because we don't really have problems handling large animals in zoos today. The dinosaur enclosures were built by retarded hippies. Not only could you not see them most of the time (as it was built more like a wildlife refuge than a zoo), but the human areas were separated from the predator areas by ACTIVE defenses (electric fences). They could have put the safari ride on an elevated track, so you could see them from above, or put them in a tunnel with three foot thick polycarbonate glass, or just had a habitat that was clear of visibility obstructions with a wide moat and a sheer cliff on the human side like modern zoos. People don't often worry about tigers or apes escaping, either of which are a lot smarter than any lizard from 64+ million years ago.
Also, hand-held weapons are easily able to take out big game today. You could certainly kill a T-rex with a well placed shot from a 357. Nevermind using an elephant gun, which should have been standard equipment for the "guides".
I always watch the news. I developed that habit when I was the current events champion in my high school years ago. You need to apply modifiers to your belief system in regards to propaganda organizations. American media, including CNN, has gotten so bad that I automatically discount all of their analysis, and only pay attention to the factual accounts which they report (ie "there is a civil war in Syria"--they are utterly complicit in pushing the US government's desired public view on that conflict, same with Libya, same with Iraq, same with Afghanistan, same with a half dozen other "low level" conflicts).
You are assuming a situation that seems unlikely. Give me numbers that say that sea levels rise by more than that, and in what kind of time period. I haven't seen a precedent in human history, and before that, only when the ice dams in North America gave did we see sudden large changes in sea level.
Also, note that pretty much everyone can raise their grade, if they know that a deluge is coming. Those that can't will move vital operations to higher ground, and we get more marshland, which prevents further flooding.
Satellites, medicine, and skyscrapers come from an earlier era of science, prior to the emergence of publish or perish. Further, with the scientific method, older works in major fields that have not been refuted have a higher likelihood of being correct. Things like thermodynamics and evolution have withstood a great deal of attack, and stand as 9+ sigma theorems. Climate science is at best in the three sigma range, and given the clampdown on dissenting opinion, I would place it even lower than that. There are other sets of circumstances that I can see that explain the data, but require different remediation methods, but when I present them, I tend to get shouted down and called an idiot by people who don't know thing one about physical chemistry.
+.155C/decade is the same trend as +.309C/decade, as in they are positively correlated. The degree of the change is extraordinarily important, though, and getting it wrong is the difference between life and death for a lot of people.
Wait, wait. You realize that by claiming that the heat island effect is a change in the baseline, you are thus assuming no growth in urban environments, right?
Good Lord, you've been outwitted by a high school "denialist".
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah. Nukes shield the people they protect. Why would you think that people not protected by nukes would benefit? And it's not like they are dying to any greater degree than they would have in a world without nukes. All that violence was already there. Nukes just cut the violence between the big boys, who were the worse offenders.
Which is why if you want a peaceful world, you should be in FAVOR of nuclear proliferation.
As an example, ~400,000 Koreans died in WWII. ~350,000 died in the Korean War. Now imagine if that war had been fought across the entirety of Asia.
Are you really that stupid? Serfs were property, you blithering buffoon. They owned nothing of what they made. EVERYTHING was stolen from them. The lords didn't have property rights either. They were just boys with swords who took what they wanted, and built a system that allowed them to do it.
I guess you missed the part where property rights were enshrined followed promptly by the death of feudalism in Europe, and slightly more slowly the death of slavery in the US. I mean, it can't get much clearer than that. But you have some sort of insane beef with the concept of "property" that you would twist the world and everything in it into some incomprehensible narrative in order to force your idiotic idea to be the truth.
Your thought process is appears to be nothing but doublethink.
Yeah, but they didn't share the technology with anyone, and it was thus lost, and now is nothing but a curiosity. It was not useful to humanity, and like a thousand other things was lost to time. It just happened to be rediscovered, unlike the other worthless things that no-one ever shared.
It is worth no more than a Norwegian claim on Newfoundland.
Uhh, yeah, there is a point, you just don't get it. Fewer people die. This is not an abstract concept.
No, it leads you AWAY from it. That much is clear from history. In feudalism, the rights of the majority are violated by a small minority. To equate respect for property rights with the total violation of property rights is a level of stupidity and doublethink that I just can't believe human beings are capable of. Please tell me you are Cleverbot or some other such idiotic machine.
Yeah, and it was about as useful as the Antikathyra mechanism or Norsemen in America. Electricity wasn't generated in the Dark Ages, and it certainly wasn't harnessed for productive uses.
Yes it is, you blithering buffoon. LFTRs are INTRINSICALLY safe.
Educate yourself for 5, 16, or 120 minutes before opening your stupid mouth again.
No, it isn't. A typical rare earth mine produces enough thorium to power to planet over a given year, and there are thousands of such mines, many of which are currently uneconomical because of thorium contamination (thorium isn't useful for much other than nuclear fuel, and is expensive to store/dispose of without reactors to burn it).
The fact is that there is so much thorium in Earth's crust, you hardly need another energy source. If we ran out after 100,000 years, we would start mining other planets and moons for the stuff. It is so energy dense that such operations would be economical, even with our current primitive technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
1.21 Jiggawatts!
Well, except for the "electricity generation" part.
Yes, exactly.
Just because they steal doesn't mean you can or should. Instead of trying to use their thievery as an excuse for your own, it is better to attack theirs until they can't do it any more.
However, if you feel as I feel, that the government is totally out of control and must collapse before positive change can be effected, then you should steal as much as possible to usher in that collapse sooner.
Yes, that is correct. Think back to the days of the Soviet Union. There was always some drought, or flood, or some "natural" disaster to which they assigned the blame for their inability to keep food available to their people.
If we would allow new technology to come into being/use in the nuclear space, we could use power from the resulting LFTRs to desalinate seawater or water from brackish aquifers and drought wouldn't matter one whit.
You have normalcy bias, then. You see the way things are now, and assume that is the natural order. The USA will never go to war with a nuclear armed nation, which rules out large scale wars that significantly deplete the population. This is why deaths from war have dropped by 1-2 orders of magnitude since the advent of nuclear weaponry. If nukes hadn't been invented, you can bet that WWII would have lasted for 10 more years as we went to war with the USSR, and potentially China. Not a fun time, as hundreds of millions would have died in that sort of conflict. But Russian and Chinese hands were stayed by our nuclear deterrent, and we had little proxy wars instead.
Yes, exactly. From NON NUCLEAR NATIONS. If those nations had nukes, they could defend themselves. If those nations were part of a coalition of small nations that collectively owned nukes, they could defend themselves. But they aren't, so they get the shit freed out of them by the West whenever it is convenient for the sociopaths in power to do so.
Which is funny, because we don't really have problems handling large animals in zoos today. The dinosaur enclosures were built by retarded hippies. Not only could you not see them most of the time (as it was built more like a wildlife refuge than a zoo), but the human areas were separated from the predator areas by ACTIVE defenses (electric fences). They could have put the safari ride on an elevated track, so you could see them from above, or put them in a tunnel with three foot thick polycarbonate glass, or just had a habitat that was clear of visibility obstructions with a wide moat and a sheer cliff on the human side like modern zoos. People don't often worry about tigers or apes escaping, either of which are a lot smarter than any lizard from 64+ million years ago.
Also, hand-held weapons are easily able to take out big game today. You could certainly kill a T-rex with a well placed shot from a 357. Nevermind using an elephant gun, which should have been standard equipment for the "guides".
There is no need to characterize him as such. He was a thief, plain and simple. He failed to respect natural rights, and violence resulted.
So? They did it self funded. Any other city could do that now, if they really wanted to. They have both more money and more advanced technology today.
I always watch the news. I developed that habit when I was the current events champion in my high school years ago. You need to apply modifiers to your belief system in regards to propaganda organizations. American media, including CNN, has gotten so bad that I automatically discount all of their analysis, and only pay attention to the factual accounts which they report (ie "there is a civil war in Syria"--they are utterly complicit in pushing the US government's desired public view on that conflict, same with Libya, same with Iraq, same with Afghanistan, same with a half dozen other "low level" conflicts).
shadowstats.com
That inflation.
You are assuming a situation that seems unlikely. Give me numbers that say that sea levels rise by more than that, and in what kind of time period. I haven't seen a precedent in human history, and before that, only when the ice dams in North America gave did we see sudden large changes in sea level.
Also, note that pretty much everyone can raise their grade, if they know that a deluge is coming. Those that can't will move vital operations to higher ground, and we get more marshland, which prevents further flooding.
Sorry, guy, you are totally wrong on this: http://www.gthcenter.org/exhibits/graderaising/index.html
Satellites, medicine, and skyscrapers come from an earlier era of science, prior to the emergence of publish or perish. Further, with the scientific method, older works in major fields that have not been refuted have a higher likelihood of being correct. Things like thermodynamics and evolution have withstood a great deal of attack, and stand as 9+ sigma theorems. Climate science is at best in the three sigma range, and given the clampdown on dissenting opinion, I would place it even lower than that. There are other sets of circumstances that I can see that explain the data, but require different remediation methods, but when I present them, I tend to get shouted down and called an idiot by people who don't know thing one about physical chemistry.
Other planets in the solar system warming is irrelevant? You and I disagree on the definition of that particular word, apparently.
+.155C/decade is the same trend as +.309C/decade, as in they are positively correlated. The degree of the change is extraordinarily important, though, and getting it wrong is the difference between life and death for a lot of people.
Wait, wait. You realize that by claiming that the heat island effect is a change in the baseline, you are thus assuming no growth in urban environments, right?
Good Lord, you've been outwitted by a high school "denialist".