All of the methods used to extract power from those things have negative environmental effects, yes, see my other reply for a breakdown.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Did I say anything about Fossil Fuels? Don't put words in my mouth. There is no power generation method without some kind of tragedy of the commons (externalized costs).

Nuclear - Waste
Hydro - Land destruction/fish extinctions
Solar - High Land use/nasty chemicals in fabrication
Wind - Dead birds/rare earths used in construction with all the poisoning that involves
Tidal - Removing energy from the tides which effects tidal species

Please, show me the mythical free energy method you developed that doesn't have any externalized costs.

So...you believe Harry Reid when he said he made it up to score points in the political arena?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Pretty clear here, Harry says that Romney paid taxes, but now Harry wants to see Romney's tax returns. Would you show other people your tax returns?

Because there is no mythical free energy machine that is producing power with no negative aspects. So, since you care so much about the negative aspects of power generation, I encourage you to turn off your main circuit breaker and live in the dark.

More on this, many of the Democrats of the time, and shortly before agreed with the WMD problem, this wasn't some kind of lie told by the government, it was a known issue with Iraq.

http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

But again, you might not actually be old enough to remember this stuff from Clinton's time in the white house.

Your coworker was probably right, as WMD (chemical weapons) were shown used against the Kurds in his lifetime, but apparently you aren't old enough to remember it. The WMD came from the US, but were not meant for that purpose but as a deterant against an invasion by Iran. Also, during this most recent war, there were chemical weapons recovered and destroyed in Iraq, but you may have missed the news as it wasn't a big deal to the military as they already knew they were there.

I have seen plenty of ignorance from the pro Snowden side just in this comment section. Much of the ignorance is over what Snowden actually revealed. What was the government doing that was so bad? Please provide links to your assertions, bonus points if you provide links to things being done that are actually against the mandate of the NSA:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Can you show me anywhere where it was said that the NSA was recording phone calls, reading mail (even email) or any other kind of surveillance on US citizens (except the metadata program, which was already ended by the time of the revelation according to the gov).

Every program I have seen exposed by Snowden was foreign surveillance, which is kind of sort of what we ask the NSA to do...

Doesn't go?

Except that the two blasts were in different locations. It is possible that it was path time differences between two lensed images.

Not to take anything away from all the jokes, but wouldn't Qo'onoS be in our Galaxy, not another one 7.8 billion light years away?

The best cure for hangovers is to drink a glass of water between each "drink". Prevention is the best cure known.

The religious exemption of the law does not "establish an official religion" nor does it "prevent the free exercise of religion", therefore it doesn't fall foul of the first amendment religious stuff as that is all that is covered by the first.

Religious exemptions are all about not preventing the free exercise of religion, which is the heart of the first amendment protections of religion. Asking which religion to determine if the beliefs of that religion are what you say they are doesn't fall foul of that either.

Perhaps you should go back to social studies class and learn about the establishment clause and the meaning of it.

I was agreeing with you, not refuting what you said. I agree, calling TEA party people fascist is so far from reality as to be laughable. TEA party people are more libertarian in theory than any other philosophy.

So than refute how they were socialists. As far as I can tell keeping everyone down equally is a form of socialism. Socialism is about control, fascism is the control in practice. When you try to tell someone else how to live "for the public good", you are being fascist.

Entitled rich assholes are allowed to be christian as well, along with the entitled poor assholes, and the people who actually work for their money and are assholes. Even you can be christian while still being your asshole self. You can claim to be emperor of the universe if you feel like it, and as we have no way to tell who is the emperor of the universe, perhaps you could get away with it.