lol

Because our technology was not advancing as fast as it is now, or capable of the level of destruction that it soon will be. The answer to the Fermi Paradox is that species destroy themselves when technology gets to point where true space travel is possible. Technology advances technology, to the point that technological evolution advances far faster than societal evolution. As a result, technology is created that a species is not responsible enough to handle, and it destroys itself either in the form of weapons or its inability to control the technology it creates.

How long do you think our species would last if a way was found to create a fusion device from household products that could be used as a weapon? We're one discovery away from killing ourselves off, and the faster our technology advances, the more likely that discovery is to be found.

I'm not saying that we need to stop scientific advancement, I'm just saying that it's very likely to lead to our own destruction due to our immaturity at handling the technology we have and are on the verge of discovering.

The hubris of of someone thinking humans will be around in 1000 years, much less 5 billion, is astonishing.

My bad on replying to your post. I read a later comment you made, "Oh right, you're a Zionist. Even more of a fucktard then.". Had I read it before I posted, I would have realized that you're not the kind of person that one spends time replying to. Now that I know, no worries about me replying to any further posts by you on /.

The issue is that, in Britain, "reasonable" does not include bringing a bat out after hoodlums throwing rocks through your windows with your family home (not using it, just bringing it out and brandishing it). It doesn't include a woman using a pen knife to defend herself from three men on a London subway. It doesn't include a man shooting a burglar as he was being robbed for the seventh time, a man who was then denied parole years later due to his being a threat to burglars (and no, that's not a joke). It doesn't include a man attacked by a knife-wielding robber who, during the struggle, got the knife away from the robber and fatally stabbed him.

I could list many more, but the point should be made by now. While self-defense is not "illegal", it is prosecuted to such an extent that defending yourself can be more dangerous to your own liberty than committing the crime itself is to the liberty of the criminal.

Absolutely, but good luck coming up with a plan that requires people not to take the easy road (like throwing bulbs in the trash when they shouldn't) and having that plan work. If people, as a whole, were capable of that, we could implement true Communism on a global scale and we'd all live happily every after in a world where we all get along, there are no Joneses to keep up with because no one desires to be a Jones, and everything we need is provided to us, heh.

LED's would be a good replacement if the longevity of the lights is accurate as claimed. The incandescents would never be a waste, though, since I'd switch out the bulbs in winter. One big drawback to incandescents is the heat they emit. Using incandescents in lamps with a lampshade/reflector to trap and radiate the heat has been shown to be a very good source of localized heat.

On the flip side, I don't have to worry about having a substance in my house that has cleanup recommendations that involve a hazmat suit. How much mercury do you think has been tossed into landfills by now? I'll give you a hint:

"According to www.lightbulbrecycling.com, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans)."

You can Google many more articles questioning the environmental wisdom of using CFL's.

If your concern is the environment, you should be a lot less fanatical against incandescent light bulbs for that reason, not to mention the fact that the manufacturing of CFL's has a much bigger environmental footprint, as well.

..by stockpiling 300 100w incandescent light bulbs. By the time I run out of those, a suitable, and cheaper, replacement for 100W incandescent bulbs should be available.

There have been a number of studies, and many articles, discussing this issue. You can Google as many as you care to read. I'll provide a link to a WSJ article discussing it today: Why Women Make Less

The article discusses the hours-worked issue extensively. It doesn't go into detail about the fewer hours worked other than to say it's mostly due to children, but other articles that break this "children/family" category down find it's due to a number of the variables I mentioned. The article also discusses the trend where women are starting to become the "richer sex".

"How dare women demand to be paid the same money as men for doing the same job"

Women do get paid as much as men; once actual hours worked, time off for family, medical time off, vacation, and types of jobs (men work more dangerous, higher paying jobs) are factored in. In large blue cities (like New York) women are now making more then men.
   

First business computer I had was a 286 with a 20meg hard drive. Then we got 40meg hard drives and $3K 4meg memory cards for ADA, but what were we ever going to need that much drive space and memory for??

The answer to this question will become obvious if Iran gets nukes. If Iran goes nuclear, expect a number of Middle East countries to start taking steps to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, as a deterent to a nuclear Iran. These will be the same counties that didn't have an issue with not having nuclear weapons when Isreal was the only country in the region to have them.

Probably because your idea of "backwards" equates to "red state" or "flyover". The problem with that is that the "advanced" blue-states are, by far, in the worst financial shape. If I was starting any business, much less a business with the potential to make billions of dollars, I'd be looking for a "backward" place to base it, too.

I see. Everyone's fingerprint is already available due to the ID card. Yet the article indicates that Brazil is on a "massive fingerprinting spree".

Something doesn't add up.