I suspect every IT guy called Juan will quickly grow to hate this name...
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).
I can't tell you the time I've had to waste rereading something when some author exhibits his stupidity...
Or her stupidity...
It depends on the amount of space you want to heat and how strong your roof is, but large gas bottles (200-500kg) can be bought in my neck of the woods, and there are multiple services that travel to my place to fill them. If access is an issue then multiple smaller bottles may do the trick - it all depends on how long you will be without gas.
Oh, and insulate your place. Walls, ceiling, windows, even consider the floor.
I can imagine it now - you can buy a giant dial to fit to the right hand side of the monitor to get the authentic windows watch experience. Dial 2.0 will let you fit it to the right or left side of the monitor.
The incarceration rate is declining largely because crime has fallen significantly in the past generation. In addition, many states have relaxed harsh sentencing laws passed during the tough-on-crime 1980s and 1990s, and have backed rehabilitation programs, resulting in fewer low-level offenders being locked up. States from Michigan to New Jersey have changed parole processes, leading more prisoners to leave earlier. On a federal level, the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed to reduce sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Before 2010, the U.S. prison population increased every year for 30 years, from 307,276 in 1978 to a high of 1,615,487 in 2009. “This is the beginning of the end of mass incarceration,” says Natasha Frost. "People don’t care so much about crime, and it’s less of a political focus.""
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
As a STEM major, I am somewhat bias towards "strong" evidence side of the argument. However, the more I read literature from other somewhat related fields i.e. psychology, economics and climate science; the more I felt that they have little opportunity in repeating experiments, similar to counterparts in traditional hard science fields. Their accepted theories are based on limited historical occurrences and consensus among the scholars. Given the situation, should we consider "consensus" as accepted scientific facts ?"
Link to Original Source
In fact, "the single largest exchange between NSA and ISNU (Israeli SIGINT National Unit) is on targets in the Middle East which constitute strategic threats to US and Israeli interests," the leaked paper reveals. One of the "key priorities" of this cooperation is "the Iranian nuclear development program, followed by Syrian nuclear efforts, Lebanese Hizbullah plans and intentions, Palestinian terrorism, and Global Jihad." The paper talks about "targeting and exploiting" these. Greenwald goes on to list the occasions on which the US has been exposed as supplying arms to Israel;
the last such occasion was just before the start of the operation in Gaza, wherein a $1 billion stockpile of ammunition the US stored in Israel specifically for situations like these was used."
Ah, right, it was on a web site a few days ago but you can't provide a link? Are you sure you didn't make it up?
Regarding Hamas bringing children to the buildings designated for destruction: you should realize that their values are different than yours and mine. We value life, they value heaven.
So you actually believe you are doing them a favour by killing their children? That's why you do it?
I've heard some low-grade racism in my time, but this takes the cake. I'd like to see you offer a source for this "Palestinians bringing children into buildings designated for destruction" that doesn't come from the IDF's propaganda division.
Unguided missiles have no military value as they cannot be aimed at military targets, that is true.
Is that true? I recall several cases where Hamas rockets have hit the IDF bases around Sderot.
But regardless of your personal motivation, why would you want to traumatize your children by having them grow up in the midst of such fear and violence?
Because there is actually very little violence directed at them, as the vast majority is directed at the Palestinians. And they want the Palestinians gone. They get upset when the Palestinians fight back, but it happens so rarely that they don't leave Israel over it.
As an Israeli and a neighbour of Gaza I tell you: pity the Gazans.
But not enough to stop bombing them....