Show me a city where the (wild and domestic) animal biomass approaches double-digit percentages of the human biomass.

not like the wild animals and fish don't piss and shit into our water

The wild animals don't tend to piss and shit birth control hormones and other still quite bioactive medications.

This.

The subsidies for fossil fuels by first-world western nations (and China) (those in a position to fund green energy technologies) are a small percentage of the total. Most fossil fuel subsidies are done by oil producing nations as a form of population pacification. The idea that these funds are available for redirection is ludicrous.

ty

in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!)

Not that I disagree with you, but what part of the gaming industry isn't preying off of exactly the same neurons as gambling? Nearly every game, be you buying the game itself, in-game purchases, or DLC, is getting its revenue almost entirely due to exploiting pleasure-seeking behavior.

Again, as was pointed out by someone else to (one of) you, AC, I made no assertive claims which needed a citation. I can hardly be charged with "I'm right even though I did the exact same thing." Such false equivalence is a cheap crutch.

I love how on Slashdot how threads frequently go, Poster A:"Well, this is true (with not citations)" Poster B: "No, that is wrong (with no citations)." Poster C: "No, B is wrong because they provide no citations (still no citations for A or C)". No one is providing concrete numbers or citations. You chew someone out for not being concrete, but then turn around and still are no concrete yourself, making vague comparisons because the word "argument" gets used in a lot of places that have no relevance to the issue. I would assume that most people who actually cared about the subject would take a quick Google search because it is a heavily researched topic.

You're not a victim of anything, as much as you wish to draw it that way.

As poster B, if you feel poster A needed held to account then do so - but two wrongs don't make a right. What Poster A needed was to be ignored. The post wasn't modded up, it was drawing no attention until you used it as a springboard for your totally offtopic ranting about taxes in general. If anything you gave it the credence you were attempting to deny it.

And despite your chest-inflating portrayal of the situation as the poor misguided bearer of light into this quagmire of no proof and faulty assumptions as to which arguments I "like", you really have no idea.

I can't help that my OT rant was modded up +2, but then again somehow so was yours. /. has become the land of easy OT karma it appears.

Your bullshit would be more compelling if only more concrete.

A lot of argument already suggests the taxes are disproportionate to any impact.

A lot of argument suggests the morning after pill causes abortions. A lot of argument suggests homosexuality is a choice. A lot of argument doesn't make it so.

Are the taxes disproportionate to impact or not? Say something real.

I assume they only do that when behind schedule, same as the GE jet final assembly plant in Peebles, Ohio does. Truck or rail if on schedule, big honking cargo jet if behind.

You don't need to buy Micros to get your hands on that data!

(Hint: Micros has suffered some really bad breaches in the past, basically hanging their customers out to dry.)

Your understanding of history is so terribly flawed that I don't even know where to start.

I myself don't have a single USB 3 host device.

I purposefully bought one of the cheap USB 3 Kingston keys after reading the reviews. Been very happy with it: It often operates at close to the theoretical USB 2.0 transfer rates, and there have been instances where my USB 2.0 host is plainly the bottleneck. It was the right drive for the right price on that particular day, perfectly in the corner of the price/performance curve.

Meanwhile, none of this is news: If you buy an ATA/66 hard drive in 1997, you already know that you don't necessarily get 66 megabytes per second from it because the spinning rust can only transfer things so fast. The speed of the physical interface has typically nothing to do with the rate at which data is transferred, and it never has.

The only thing new here is your own flawed perception.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

That's a bad security model in that it relies on the assumption that the local network is physically secure, which is never a good assumption to make.

NetBEUI over the Internet impossible? What are you going to tell me next, that I can't watch TV over the Internet either because the IP doesn't know how to deal with ATSC?

A small SBC running OpenVPN in tap mode will work just fine in a "it's not a router, it's an Ethernet bridge!" sort of way. And...done: NetBEUI, over the Internet, with every bit of untraceable clusterfuck that NetBEUI ever had.

And all you might notice is one or two new MAC addresses lurking around.....if the attacker is sloppy AND if you're paying attention. Which you aren't, or you'd realize that the model is unsound to begin with.