So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?

That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack, it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.

Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance. I don't deny that female physical abuse exists, it might even be at similar levels to male abuse, but I'm very skeptical that it's as harmful.

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased. (And yes, I'm sure there exists seemingly unjust anecdotes on both sides).

Is that an actual policy or are you making a generalization.

Certainly DV by women exists, perhaps it's even the case that incidents the could be classified as DV are more commonly done by women.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic, I have little doubt that the most severe abuse is overwhelmingly committed by men.

You're kind of proving my point.

To justify killing him you're literally dehumanizing him. I think that's an extremely dangerous road to go down, to justify treatment of others by denying their humanity. He might be a fundamentally evil person, taking pleasure in the death and pain of others. He might be a good, though horribly deluded person, convincing himself he would do the most good by committing a terrible act. But either way he's a human.

Accept that by executing him you're executing a person.

I'm still not comfortable with the principal that the state should be killing people through the judicial system, I don't like the idea that society gets into the habit of having these discussions of whether someone deserves death.

Just say that killing someone with the objective of killing them (as opposed to winning a war or saving a hostage) is never acceptable. I think it's a lot healthier and what's the downside? I understand why the friends and families of victims might want vengeance, but I'm not sure that should be a goal of the judicial system. And is it such a big deal if a handful of people who deserve death end up with life in prison instead? If you're going to screw up it's better to do so on the side of mercy.

I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime. Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."

You seem very certain about a topic that you appear to understand only superficially. You have neglected thermal expansion.

I wonder what commercial uses they're thinking of.

Presumably they're thinking of some super-low footprint embedded devices, but still this seems like a lot more of a fun project than a viable product.

Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.

Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.

Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle this if we're rich. Let's plan to stay that way.

The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn. Just waiting until we run out (or diminish stocks to the point that they become prohibitively or even relatively expensive) is not really a solution.

It would be nice if they provided sources, but there is nothing really controversial in the article. The article from 2007 noted that arctic sea ice was diminishing faster than any models had predicted. That has not changed since 2007: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep... .

I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?