Source: Innocence Project Fact Sheet.
I live in one of the 23 states that do not provide any compensation for the wrongly convicted.
The problem is that we have highly polarized points of view (like the AC post I'm responding to), and neither side feels they can budge without losing face.
Environmentalists demand that all energy is from renewable sources like wind or solar, without taking into consideration the cost or the environmental damage necessary to manufacture and operate the collection and distribution apparatus.
Industrialists demand high profits from any energy production.
Very few talk about reducing consumption.
Unfortunately, an ISP would likely require you to run some some closed source executable on your machine to do this "verification", and it would be very unlikely that they would support a version of said executable on the OS or distribution that you prefer (unless you prefer the latest version of Microsoft Windows). And it wouldn't take long before some ISPs would use this as an opportunity to install some toolbar that sticks their ads in your face.
If by WMDs, you mean nuclear weapons; then none.
If by WMDs, you include atomic weapons; then one (the United States of America).
If by WMDs, you include chemical or biological weapons; then (in no particular order) the US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and probably many more. I'm not sure if China used any chemical weapons in the Korean War - if not then they probably stand alone as a significant power that has not.
In the not so distant past the concept of precise strikes was unrealistic, so the idea that you might kill innocents while bombing an enemies manufacturing capacity was considered acceptable. It is only more recently that the West has tried to engage in "moral" warfare. However, weapons do not always work exactly as intended, so innocents still die.
However, the enemies being fought share no such concept of "moral" warfare. So applying your concept of morality to an enemy who doesn't have the capability to perform the types of attacks you consider acceptable is just nonsensical. You would have just as much success by asking them to turn themselves in so they can be shot.
I agree that ecologically intelligent business can out last competitors who are not, but your examples counter your point.
Hybrid vehicles do not have a higher margin, nor will they. The cost to manufacture them greatly outweighs the perceived benefits; and most importantly, the materials required to produce them are much more scarce than the oil used to produce gasoline. And these materials are definitely not renewable.
The material problem also applies to alternative energy. The solar panels and wind turbines require materials that are not available on a scale that would allow those sources of energy to ever meet our current needs, let alone future needs. Oil is abundant compared to what we need to make efficient solar panels and wind turbines.
These are things that the "tree huggers" have been fooled into becoming proponents of, even though the ecological damage that would result would be much worse than the pursuit of oil if we ever tried to scale those up to actually meet our energy needs.
The worse part of this is that reasonable alternatives like natural gas cars is taking a back seat to what the tree huggers imagine we should do. Granted, NG will run out someday too, but it would buy us a whole lot of time and decrease our dependance on foreign oil. The good news is that some ecologically intelligent companies aren't waiting for the political winds to change and are already using NG in their fleet cars.
But for some reason, I held onto a box of 8" floppy disks; even though I haven't had a drive that could use them in many, many years.
Right or wrong, when you get 100 resumes for a position you are trying to fill, an HR will filter out all the people without degrees. The hiring manager will never see them.