Citizen, next time you will refer to propoganda material as the blueprint not a fantasy!

It's a fact that coal plants pollute and those pollutants result in increases of disease and a decrease of the health of a population downwind.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

There's my citation. Maybe you'd care to share yours?

You're a bit too literal. "Noise pollution," "heat pollution," and "light pollution" also involve an excess of something that naturally occurs in the environment.

That does not mean that, for instance, the effects to the environment are not detrimental. Which is why, despite the fact that in a natural ecosystem animals make noises, NYC fines drivers who honk their horn excessively. And why there are rules about when you can land your airplane because it's not nice to wake up residents within a hundred miles of the airport.

So it's a bit naïve to claim that just because something naturally occurs in the environment, an excess won't be bad for society (and shouldn't be controlled).

Not there only if you don't price externalities in to energy prices.

Think of it this way, if I produce something and dump super toxic byproducts into a river, it's great for me. I don't pay to handle the toxic byproducts. However, while I save money, the families down stream who all get cancer are much worse off.

So, as a society, we don't allow chemical plants to save money by poisoning others.

Coal plants also have poisonous byproducts, but they are not required to care. They kill people, but they are not charged the true cost.

Solution is to charge everyone the true cost of what they're doing.

I'm a little confused. When there's a story on /. about shining lasers on a cockpit, everyone who's ever looked at a flight simulator starts talking about how distracting it is to not be able to see out your window. Now you are saying they don't need to look out the window?

Logically would this mean I can shine all the lasers I'd like at aircraft?

If that was really true then why does this article exist?

It's clear something is encrypted because you have to have it clear the file system should not overwrite and the markers make it quite clear that it's not just random noise. Even more clear is if you open up a computer you know should be working but it asks for a password to decrypt the hard drive.

Bollocks. The only difference between today and the past is that you can easily see an encrypted file, you can know it's encrypted, surmise it's probably got something juicy, and just be unable to break in.

It has the exact same effect as a lot of low tech stuff. For instance, memorizing a secret note than burning it would also leave no trail for law enforcement to follow. As would a secret conversation a thousand years ago you can't overhear because there was no listening devices around back then.

Therefore, I would suggest that actually finding encrypted files law enforcement cannot break into is actually an improvement.

It is and it isn't simple steps.

On the one hand, you can make a huge improvement quickly if you do some very simple things like shaving your neck beard, updating your wardrobe, and turning off the computer and going out to speed dating, singles night, or some place where you are guaranteed to meet women looking for a man. Put simply, you can't hunt for deer in the desert, and if you're not making the chance for yourself then it can't happen, ever.

On the other hand it can also be a lot of hard work. You may need to also start dieting and exercising, and really working on your social skills if it doesn't come naturally. In that case while we may be able to state a principle simply enough, it might require a lot of work. For instance, fit guys with six packs get more women, but to become one you can expect six months in the gym every day eating nothing but protein. Easy to say, hard to implement.

Pick up "gurus" who give you tips tend to fall into the latter category of easy to state but work to implement. For instance, they'll tell you to talk to women. This is true, as you simply cannot ever get anywhere with women if you can't even talk to them. But, some guys get very panicky, and this is a HUGE difficulty for them. The solution for this is to start small, and work up your social skills (maybe by learning to first meet new male friends so you don't feel like you need to set up a date or something).

Are they worth it? Dunno. Some people are able to figure out how to talk to women on our own. But I think if a guru, or a dating for dummies book, or another source helps you, you should take advantage.

Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.

But at the same time, a lot of it is conditioning. All their lives, women are taught they are sluts if they initiate. So they will go up right next to you in the bar, flash their eyelashes, and hope you start.

So if you are interested in getting with women, you do have to man up and learn to be the one who comes over and starts the conversation. Doesn't have to be fancy, can just be "hi," but as a man you must initiate.

Although this sounds like it is meant to be funny and not insightful, were it a serious comment:

"Getting laid" is a skill like programming, hitting a baseball, playing a musical instrument, or building things. While some people may be born with a natural talent, it is still something you can learn.

The first step is to get a bit more mature. You are not "getting laid" you are making love and if you come across as desperate for sex and only wanting one thing, you will not get anywhere.

The second step is to develop your social skills. As a snarky AC pointed out, that means logging off the computer and going out into the real world and learning to interact with people.

And the third step is to make sure you are desirable to people. No girl wants to mate with a neckbeard. You need to take care of yourself so she thinks you'll take care of her.

There are many books / courses / resources on this (so called PUA). Try Richard La Ruina's The Natural. He is a bit less skeevy than some of the others who focus in just on how you get your twig wet and actually focuses in on how you need to help yourself.

Part of the problem is the appearance of legality. If it's unenforceable, but you think it's enforceable, you will act as if it's valid

The problem is the leverage. Whatever your employer puts in your contract you're basically bound to accept, if most employers do. Same with the terms of your credit card agreements, and all the other little fine print you are legally bound to.

The solution is for our legislature to make it illegal to force people into agreements that put them at a massive disadvantage.

In many jurisdictions that is the only way a non-compete is enforceable. For instance, in the EU this is the ONLY legal way to have a non-compete.

The problem is morons don't remove themselves from the gene pool. They cause accidents that remove others from the gene pool, strengthening the concentration of morons in an already shallow pool

...is they try to fix human behavior via engineering, but people can't really be engineered.

For example, in my home town we had a roundabout from hell. Five highways came into a loop via offramps. Literally once a week there would be an accident and once a month it was a fatal one.

So some brilliant traffic engineers tried to solve the problem by creating off ramps for each other highway. At highway A you could choose to offramp to highway B, C, or D. But the "offramps" used the roundabout, which now had concrete dividers about curb height. The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save.

Well, turns out the only thing more dangerous then five highways going into a giant roundabout is five highways going into a roundabout with concrete dividers to slalom around. Accidents became a daily occurrence and fatalities went up.

As it turns out, people are stupid. Sure, if you are new to town and take the time to slow down to read the sign, and drive carefully, you can figure out where you're going. But people zip in at highway speeds, apply the brakes quickly, and try to swerve over.

The problem is not one of engineering, but one of behavior. Modifying the behavior (via police enforcement) would be more effective then a fancy solution.