Meanwhile in Europe where one party's politicians don't spend as much effort trying to use global warming as a bludgeon against their political enemies (and an excuse to funnel public money to their friends) popular acceptance of "climate change is a real thing to worry about" seems to be higher. How about that, hmm?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Two problems: we need the oil the ME provides (since we're not developing EVs fast enough and we won't build SkyTran),
Things have changed in the past 5 years. Western Europe might need the oil the Middle East provides (or alternatively, Russia, if you want to pick alternate geopolitical foes)... but if I recall correctly, the US was the world's #1 oil producer in 2014. There has some retrenchment since November, due to lower prices and oversupply, but it's nothing that couldn't be reversed in a real crisis.
Developed areas currently cover around 1% of Earth's surface already. Switching to more-reflective materials -- asphalt mixed with recycled glass, roofs with light-colored shingles instead of dark, Mediterranean-style exterior color schemes -- not only increases albedo but can mitigate heat-island effects and reduce the need to expend energy on cooling.
3. Go to Guantanamo. Go directly to Guantanamo. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 billion.
In most assisted-suicide schemes, the burden of proof is on the "killer", not on the prosecution.
Methinks you trust Systems too much.
The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social "slippery slope," as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is "tired of living" is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.
-- Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls, J. Pereira, MBChB MSc. Current Oncology. 2011 Apr; 18(2): e38-e45.
You can thank the FDR administration for setting us down this path with New Deal legislation explicitly designed to make food production more like factories, with standardized, homogenized output -- to say nothing of the price-supports and other handouts to big agribusiness which continue to this day...
I mean, have you ever met a normal one? Case closed.
Good point! You need to teach these kids about socialization and how to interact with other people in the world around them. After all, you wouldn't want your children to grow up into judgemental assholes making invidious generalizations about some minority out-group of people they're barely familiar with, just because they're a little outside the mainstream.
hey wait a minute
Sorry to break it to ya, dude, but you're the "special little snowflake". Your points are just anecdotical. Not everyone is a miserable loser like you,
See, now, we need to send children to public school so that they'll be better socialized.
I mean, haven't you ever met a homeschooled kid? Your kid needs to be properly socialized in a structured environment.
Well, I take it by your friendly, social tone (*cough*) that you're offering yourself up as the example, here?
Science did not tell us to avoid natural fats in our diet, it was the: USDA, FDA, AMA, etc. etc. It was government and industry associations, sensational journalists who won't or can't deal with basic stats, not scientists.
... The jump to connecting this to climate change had zero supporting evidence in this article.
Psst. When most Americans hear about climate change, it's either policy proposals and advocacy from politicians in the government, or the EPA, solar industry, et cetera... or it's sensationalist news coverage, much like diet fads.
It's a testament to something that more people aren't skeptical/denialist given the sort of marketing that is involved, but I'm not sure what exactly.
Nah, when a citizen gets murdered, there's supposed to be a trial.
Okay. You're alleging racist treatments of minorities based on prosecutors failing to indict cops who kill black people.
There's supposed to get a trial when a prosecutor thinks that he can convict the guy of some crime. "Police officer shoots random innocent in what appears to be a tragic accident possibly involving negligence" is apparently not one of those cases, for some reason or another -- probably the cozy relationship between prosecutors and the police, which is dubious enough.
But I want to contend that it's not really racist: they really wouldn't hold a trial in a similar case if the guy shot was white, and if you keep playing at it for racial reasons you will fail to effect meaningful policy changes that will address the issue, which would be more unfortunate for minorities than it would for me or most Slashdot readers (because we're demographically less likely to come into contact with law enforcement, in part because we're fancy computer programmer types who make a lot of money and can afford to live in neighborhoods which aren't riddled with crime).
I love the concept in theory, but a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world. Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level.
Well, to be fair to the basic-income schemes people propose, they're supposed to turn the current levels of overall welfare spending into more effective levels of welfare by disintermediating the funds from the millions of government employees who are paid to manage it (and paid reasonably well, at that).