No, you re-wrote what the OP said. He didn't say "unfit for human habitation" he implied that they were living in a place unsafe for human habitation.

That doesn't mean the occupants aren't human - it means that they're living a place that isn't safe. This is fairly basic English language comprehension.

Which has what to do with your claim that the OP implied that poor people aren't human, exactly?

Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.

Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference? Did the Dollar and the Peso attend as well?

Oh, you mean Mt. Gox held an impromptu press conference. Yeah, well, whoever trusted an online card trading portal as if it were a bank deserves whatever they got, IMO.

Not if they're using animal rennet to set the curd. Modern cheeses often don't, but it was the standard method in traditional cheesemaking.

Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.

Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.

Fiat currency and backing are different things. All fiat currency is unbacked, but just because a currency is unbacked, doesn't make it fiat.

Backed currency relies on the physical properties of the universe to create scarcity (i.e. anything backed by a physical thing is inherently limited). Fiat currency relies on the authority of the state to create scarcity (i.e. only the state is allowed to print money). Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin rely on mathematical principles to create scarcity. Bitcoin is not backed; it's also not a fiat currency.

Seriously, you can't recognise the name of one of the site's editors?

"The dredge spoils bound for the ocean will be tested before they are dumped to ensure they are safe. GBRMPA says previous testing has already shown there are no identified contaminants in the sediments to be dredged and dumped from Abbot Point."

http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

So, I wasn't quite right, it's not being processed to remove toxic material, it's being tested to ensure there isn't any. Slight difference, same end result.

Yay, more false analogies. Silt isn't asbestos, neither is it radioactive waste, nor is it fossil fuel emissions, as in some other posts analogies. It's dirt. They're moving dirt from one patch of dirt, to another patch of dirt.

"The Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and The Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment report that the total amount of reserved area in Tasmania is 3,064,500 hectares, which is 45% of the state’s total terrestrial area. Of this, 45% of Tasmania’s forests are also protected within its reserve system."

http://natureneedshalf.org/tas...

I should have said 45% of Tasmania is protected. Some of it by world heritage listing, some of it through other mechanisms. Links, one from each side, so you don't go all genetic fallacy on me.

So yeah, closer to an order of magnitude lower than your figure. Even by slashdot standards, you're a hypocrit.

Good thing they're processing it before dumping it at sea then, isn't it?

Do coal plants blow silt and sand now? This is the main reason all the stink about this annoys me. What's happening is that a few million tonnes of sand and silt are being moved from point A to point B (when point B already consists entirely of sand and silt). And the the Green groups and people like Get Up post images of clownfish and coral reefs, with captions about "DUMPING TOXIC SLUDGE ON THEIR HOME!".

It's also about 25km from the reef (the green in this image). It's located at about the midpoint between the port and the reef, at 25km each way.