Drunks made the decision to do something completely legal. It's only afterwards when they are impaired that they make the illegal decision. Or are you on some religious crusade against alcohol entirely. If so, you might want to try and make your case a little more clearly.

And please try thinking before you post this time. It isn't hard.

There is a big push to hurt low income people. Governments lower taxes and increase fees for services all the time. The so called cure for climate change seems to be taxing energy use to actually make it unaffordable in the hopes that some day someone might actually be fed up enough to create an economically viable and reliable alternative while oppressing the bulk of the people into using less. Even the criminal justice system is infiltrated. You have a constitutional right to a trial by jury but in practice, you will have to pay for it. I've seen the prices start at $120 and get as high as $1500 in my area.

Ronald Reagan probably said it best when he said " I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help" was the nine most terrifying words in the English language. It is not because the government cannot help, it is because in trying to do so, it tends to wreak havoc on people. Without government helping, you might not be any better off but at least you won't be paying for the boots on your neck holding you down every time it seems like you could get ahead.

Drunks are impaired in their decision making and motor skills which is why it is illegal for them to drive while intoxicated. Saying there is a choice is a bit like saying people who drink and drive are completely sound and in control of themselves which sort of negates the reasoning for making it illegal in the first place.

Stop and think about that a bit.

You do not ruin a life by driving drunk. Drunk drivers only ruin someone else life when they have accidents which they are more prone to do. But simply driving over the legal limit often has no impact whatsoever at all on others or the drunken driver.

It would seem that you need the name also.

The context I posed the question in was specifically of the defendant's pov. If you cannot follow that, you need a lot more help than I do. If your intent was to expand above it, you would look a lot less ridiculous if you a: attempted to point that out while going there, and b: refrained yourself from trying to insult someone in order to elevate your own self worth while appearing to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Sigh... I guess you do not know the CO2 reduction done in Europe the last 20 years and the increase of CO2 production in China over the last 20 years or you would have provided it. It is an indisputable fact that Europe, or the EU more specifically has drastically increased their imports since attempting to cope with Co2 reductions.

The amount of Co2 reduction verses increases is meaningless because it does not and never has to be a one for one trade. China has actually increaes their Co2 production over the same period of time well above any reductions in Europe. But the real magic sticking you in the eye is that I did not limit it to china as you pretend to want to.

The rest of your post(s) clearly shows you how sciense and research works ...

Why don't you take a deep breath, wait a few minutes, try to parse that into a constructive thought, maybe ask you mom to help or something and then repost it as a complete thought that everyone else can understand.

How exactly should a government do its own research? Paying funds to a private company? Or having its own research institutions competing with private companies?

How about all of the above? I mean if the problem is actually serious and needs attention, why not just address it. Crime is one of those all of the above situations and it is workign pretty damn well. We have government funded police, security guards (private companies), government paying security guards, and government institutions competing with private companies all in order to keep crime low. And yes, it is working fantastically as crime rates (more specifically violent crimes) are dropping huge amounts over the last 50 years. One thing they did not do though, was impose an enormous taxes and burdensome regulations on victims of crime in the hopes they could somehow figure out how to lower the crime rates on their own in some distant future.

Taxing what you don't want, like pollution, and leaving the rest to 'the market' workes quite fine if you leave the market otherwise alone.

Only if your goal is control and subjugation of the populace why expanding your own power. Otherwise it is destructive and overly burdensome and intentionally cruel to lower income people. It does little to nothing to advance any legitimate goals other that creating hardships for the population.

Why don't you open your eyes and look around a bit. Stop mindlessly repeating the shit you have been brainwashed with and actually apply some critical thinking skills if you have them. This nonsense you are spouting is really worthless drivel to anyone not advancing their own goals and will be resisted by the majority of the population all the way. If climate change really is a problem, then using the power that already exists within governments to explore the cures and fixes while implementing them is the proper solution. Not sitting on your thumbs and buying carbon credits from Al Gore or burdening the populous and hoping they come up with the cure. It's almost as if your understanding of economics is limited to a second grade level. This makes about as much sense as divesting from fossil fuels- which only makes the stock cheaper so others will purchase it and life goes on.

My guess is that they exploited the sony root kits that was on the servers from an IT guy wanting to listen to some tunes while grepping logs.

Publicity might have a bit to do with it but remember that endeavor mission which they lost the tool bag and people watch it burn up on reentry?

Mistakes can and has happened. Its a particularly challenging work enviroment usually performed by novices on the particular application of repair with distractions all around. There is likely a practical application for it also.

Have you not learned anything? Those rush jobs on death stars always result in some hole they forget to cover and it gets blown up with one shot.

You can choose to be purposely ignorant if you want but i'n not sure it is a good idea to advertise it.

It will also make the manifold boost from the turbo act like rocket thrusters helping you get off the ground.

I looked for years to find those LEDs that made a whorring noise (sound effects) when they light up but i think that was all hollywood.

Museum?? They sell it at outdoor stores in the camping and hiking sections with brand names now. No novelties there any more. And yes, just like at the museum (COSI in Columbus Ohio) , i had to try it. Not bad.

Forget the fiber connection, I want a terrabyte data store that reads at 10Gbps!

She can't get cable ?

I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.