What you're describing is the co-opting of science to support a malicious philosophy.
In other words, exactly what the earlier poster was claiming they never heard of before.
This is why science is guided by ethics
Except when it isn't, of course.
Are you, perhaps, unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "ideology" or is your reading comprehension just poor in general?
One could ask the same of you. Keep in mind that this thread started because the original post asked what genocide and such has been done in the name of science? That doesn't imply that actual science need occur in the commission of the atrocities in question.
what makes you think it would stop someone from calling because somebody is having a heart attack?
Because they don't want to pay the fines?
True... but with a phone with an active account, the caller can be held accountable for making a non-emergency call to 911.
That's not going to happen because otherwise people will stop calling 911 for real emergencies. You don't want people to wonder if the heart attack they are witnessing is enough of an emergency that they should risk calling 911.
... and then compare the cost of living between those countries.
Why don't you do that then? And be prepared to apologize when you return?
Perhaps the overhead involved at the district, county and state levels needs to be looked at very carefully. Ask yourself, where are the nicest premises that any school district has? Probably it's the district offices.
My point here is that we already have ample evidence that we need to drain the swamp, not merely throw more money at it.
admitting that teachers are underpaid.
One would also need to admit that the US spends more per pupil than all but a small handful of countries. And that one could improve the underpaid situation by spending more on teachers and improving their work environment and less on stuff that doesn't do that.
Because that reactivity is far lower in even common alloys, even when magnesium composes more than 95% of the alloy...
That sounded interesting, but when I read up on it, I saw that those alloys didn't actually have significantly lower reactivity. They have significantly lower surface reactivity, which is a good thing, but when they burn, they burn hot. The problem is that when it starts to burn in reaction with air in an environment well over both the melting points and ignition points of the alloy, it's 95% or more magnesium and that generates a lot more heat per unit volume (and mass) than steel would.
This is where the observation that a considerable portion of your material is ceramic spheres with pressurized nitrogen or halogen gases becomes relevant.
I've never heard of mass killing done in the name of science, no.
There's also the Belgium Free Congo State and the eugenics movement. And I think it's only a matter of time before some environmentalist themed group decides to try involuntary population reduction on people they don't like.
And yet there are many magnesium alloys with ignition temperature above their melting point and above the boiling point of pure magnesium.
Which isn't relevant when you have fires with temperatures hotter than these temperatures. A warship would have (or have inflicted on it) a variety of means to achieve these elevated temperatures. I don't see here direct discussion of the actual concern, the high reactivity of magnesium.
I get that the original poster was being bombastic, but I still don't buy that magnesium alloys are as stable in hot fires as you imply. It's worth noting in particular that warships have, and have inflicted on them, a variety of means for achieving temperatures hotter than what you mention.
And that is without getting into the fire retardant nature of metal foams that use ceramic beads in the cells.
Which is where most criticism of idontgno started. I already had read some of that before I had posted the first time.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.