No. We've been lucky. And yes, there have been successful attempts to get them better under control. The first 20 years were pretty reckless and afterwards there also have been unintended close calls.

Yeah, using nuclear bombs as an example of restraint isn't very enlightened. We made bombs for one purpose, and when that purpose went away we instantly found another use for them as soon as we had the first bombs ready, and then proceeded by furiously making as many of them as possible. The main reason we haven't blown up the planet a few times is luck.

Overripe Camembert Mortars? Munster grenades?

The list of chemical weapons uses in the last century is nice. I'll point out though where it suffers from 'mainstream' bias. That chemical gas usage in Iraq in 1920 is omitted is acceptable, the claim can be disputed with reason. A similar claim about use of chemical weapons by the Syrian is taken as fact because everyone says so, while it's very doubtful that the Syrian army has resorted to chemical weapons. The very significant fact that Iran always refused to even make chemical weapons let alone use them while Iraq used them abundantly is turned into them running a weapons program after some restraint. They never made the weapons. Sure, proponents did some research, but proposals for weaponization were met with an unequivocal no from Khomeini.

I wonder about the claim that chemical weapons killed millions of people . How many besides the german concentration camps? Often war casualties were not killed but maimed.

Intelligence is a plus if the species is opportunistic and social. Like for instance raptors. Standing on rear legs opens opportunities - indicating that it increases chances for opportunistic strategies to outweigh the extra braincost.

I think the genes responsible for 'bigger' and 'more' generally don't take up more space, much less than 'restructure to do the same in a brain half the size'. Probably we've taken a very wasteful approach to getting smarter in terms of er, brain real estate.

Right. Assange wrote a piece about Google

http://www.newsweek.com/assang...

I said such a thing in a recent post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6696045&cid=48782413), but much less eloquently .

Ow, good quote.

It's a public secret that the reason NSA 's billion dollar program doesn't intercept any terrorist communication is their spam filters

that many more came after you.

My wife: Her pussy was always wet until we got married; then it dried up.

Maybe you just haven't noticed the followup part of the metaphor...

Could be, I don't know. Dissolve and spray? But you really need very little to close the place because the actual extent of the danger doesn't matter much. Perception runs its own course.

Alpha emissions are easily shielded too. On the other hand, if the sample is broken and dispersed they can't avoid closing the whole place down. Small amounts of plutonium function great in dirty bombs.

To be honest I don't really think there are any black flag operations involved in whatever you think..
But I do think it's about the money.