we're generally more willing to believe a tragedy was accidental and not the result of systemic problems between the police and a particular community when it was accidental and not the result of systemic problems between the police and a particular community.

The problem is, this death was a result of systemic problems between the police and society at large, specifically the police thinking - correctly, it appears - that they're above the law.

This also goes to show why you should not tolerate such problems even when you are currently not affected: eventually they'll grow to the point where even you aren't safe.

Accusations of shilling are among the lowest form of argumentation.

Unless you happen to be identifying an actual shill.

The person who is attributed with explaining away his father's quote is not some pseudonymous person on the internet. He actually happens to be an nuclear industry shill. Calling him such is not a "form of argumentation". It is simply informative.

Now calling you a shill would be a low form of argumentation. I would never do that without evidence. So keep going. Before you're done, who knows?

Given the evidence, it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed just as quickly and easily as any religion.

That's because every religion is an ideology and every ideology a religion.

No, if Iran sides with the US in stomping out ISIS, they are definitely not choosing the lesser evil...

It's pretty fucked up when the US may actually side and assist Iran in stomping out ISIS. It truly is an act of choosing the lesser evil???

I guess there's always a Greater Satan.

Religion isn't always right... they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

This is unlikely to have much to do with either, and more with Ayatollah wishing to stay "Grand": a gatekeeper of Heaven who dictates to ignorant masses in the name of God. That doesn't really work if the masses aren't ignorant, and even more so if they get used to debating.

In other words, power corrupts. It should really be regarded like super-heroin: no matter your initial purposes for getting it, you will be addicted and unwilling to put it down, until keeping it and getting more is all that really matters to you anymore. Which explains why the world is so dysfunctional: every society is led by junkies.

Ah nevermind, I got it. It's not terribly obvious though...

Look, I'm not picky or anything, and I know headlines are shortened, but what the hell does " Apple Said To Team With Visa, MasterCard On iPhone Wallet" mean?

It is a universally acknowledged government problem. Governments are known to have built 'free speech zones' to deal with the issue.

Perhaps we should just pay a chinese hazardous waste disposal company to take it off our hands.

The tracks can be constructed to bring the shipping containers to port, in order to be loaded up onto the slow boat to China.

"I would say my father was referring to fusion energy. I know this because I became my father's eyes and ears as I travelled around the country for him."

So, a nuclear advocate covers for his nuclear advocate father's boneheaded remark pretending that nuclear energy would be cost effective. Or at least that's the assertion of someone named "Blubbaloo" who is the person who created the "too cheap to meter" wikipedia page. It is the only wikipedia entry that "Blubbaloo" has ever seemed to have made. And one that he seems to guard very carefully. And the only person who has ever disputed the meaning of Strauss' statement was his nuclear advocate son.

It's funny that a "physicist" wouldn't be able to understand the concept of externalities.

Here's a little detail from the talk pages of that very interesting wiki artifact:

We should not discount the popular impact of this statement. I added "Newspaper articles at the time..." and I wonder why there is any question about Strauss' meaning. Clearly the New York Times, writing about the Sept. 16 1954 speech, understood that Strauss was referring to the entire atomic energy program. Even if Strauss was misunderstood, he did not take any great pains to clear up the record. User:wkovarik -- Bill Kovarik, March 15, 2011.

A direct copy of the entire speech would clear up most of the questions around the usual (often mangled, as the one included today is) quotes. (Did the NYT reprint the entire speech or just portions?)
Robert Pool, 1997 p.71,[1] quotes this preceding line, often left out: "Transmutation of the elements--unlimited power ... these and a host of other results all in fifteen short years. It is not too much to expect that our children...." etc. There's little question that Strauss was waxing poetic; more to the point: many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends. Which completely makes sense considering their need to create more plutonium.
His view was not widely shared; in 1951, General Electric's own C. G. Suits, who was operating the Hanford reactors, said that "At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from conventional fuels.... This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe."[2] Twang (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends."

Shills is shills, ya know?

Stop spelling it "BitCoin", it's "Bitcoin", as in common grammar rules where you don't put a cApITal in the middle of a word.

That so, TeknoHog?

After marijuana I can put the pain aside; it's still there, but I become able to ignore it by making an effort.

Tha'ts a mild psychedelic effect. It lets you see your mind as a set of subsystems rather than a whole. Actual hallucinogens like LSD have similar but far stronger effect, which is why they're potentially very useful in treating things like addictions - but of course that's impossible thanks to the War on Drugs, ironically enough.

It's also almost certainly the real reason for WoD: an outbreak of self-awareness could shatter the chains of delusion which keep people in their place beneath the booths of the Powers That Be. What would happen to our society and it's "elite" if people stopped fighting each other to become millionaires and instead banded together to ensure a decent standard of living for all?

I don't see a positive future for the US. Either the middle class will continue to get fucked until everybody is at the poverty level (except the uber-wealthy) or there will be a civil war.

Relax, the way things are going we seem headed for World War III long before that.

Alcohol, being the most dangerous of those ready intoxicants, has the property of having a somewhat tested method of measuring whether your system is effected.

Not really. While acute alcohol intoxication is easy to test, the lingering effects are not. Hangover persists even after all ethanol has been burned up, as do the effects of lack of (restful) sleep, not to mention possible withdrawal effects. And of course depression and outright illness which result from heavy use don't exactly make you a safer driver, nor does lowered constitution due to being too hungover to practice, etc.