The Chinese did not have electricity nor does anyone claiming to be an acupuncturist use electricity.
Many, many moons ago I had picked up some books about the size of a Reader's Digest which had stories from various authors. I cannot remember the name of the publication but one story in them talks about this very subject.
In short, concerts of the day had people wearing headbands which drew upon the electrical energy from each person. This energy was then transmitted to the performers to power their equipment. The more energetic the fans, the more power.
The lead singer of a group eventually uses this energy to commit suicide by wrapping herself in a metal mesh. She discusses this with the other main character in the story.
If anyone knows the name of the story and/or what publication it was from, that would be great.
the death penalty is still needed. These acts aren't being done by some random, clueless junkie trying to sell copper to get their fix. The number and location shows someone, or someones, are deliberately cutting the fiber whether because they're t'rrists (unlikely), general vandals (possible) or some neo-luddite who thinks it's fun to screw around (possible).
As the article relates, the penalties aren't severe enough. Well guess what is. . .
It's funny. Having an abortion is wrong, in your eyes, yet people such as yourself have no problem with women smoking, drinking, doing drugs or being obese while pregnant.
Apparently it's a crime, in your eyes, to "kill" the fetus in one fell swoop, but slowly strangling or poisoning the unborn is perfectly acceptable.
When you and your kind start protesting around pregnant women who do/are any of the above, or work toward laws to force pregnant women to lead healthy lives to, you know, protect the life of the unborn, then we can talk.
The difference is the shooting in Sydney was one, isolated incident. Compare that incident to the daily shootings in the U.S.
The rinky dink city I live just outside of (less than 50K people) has had shootings almost every day this week.
One could argue any law won't stop someone from doing something (murder in general, theft, rape) but that does not mean we should get rid of all laws and let people do what they want.
What should happen is more strict enforcement of current laws and more severe punishment. That includes the death penalty for murder and rape. Once you start getting rid of the criminals on a regular basis, people will start to think twice about committing the crime, not to mention if you get them early enough they won't have a chance to reproduce and pass along their defective genes.
Reminds me of the argument for why I'm supposed to pay for someone else's medical bills because of their stupid decisions.
The smokers, the obese, drug users and alcoholics all want to continue doing what they're doing without having to enable conditions which are more suitable to a healthy life.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What someone does with the money they earn is their business. If they choose to give it to someone, that's fine, but the government forcing them to hand over money whether they want to or not is wrong. On many levels.
Considering how often people on here rail against government intrusion in their personal lives, it's amazing how those same folks have no problem with the government poking into people's private lives in this situation.
No, I'm not punishing anyone. The parents are the ones doing the punishing.
Unless of course you're suggesting it's up to everyone to watch out for everyone else in which case I get to yank cigarettes out of people's mouths since I'm footing their medical bills, get to post their faces at bars and liquor stores so the alcoholics can't but more and tie drug users down until they detox since, again, I'm the one footing their insurance and medical bills.
Or are you saying people should be forced to pay for the stupidity of others rather than making the people more responsible for their own actions? In essence, completely abandoning personal responsibility in favor of socialism.
No, don't touch the touch nor the child. By that I mean it was the choice of the parent(s) to not get their children vaccinated, it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.
Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted. If the kid survives they got lucky. If the kid survives but is disabled, the parents take care of everything. If they die that's one less we have to worry about and the parents will have to live with their decision for the rest of their life.
these are the programmers getting paid the big bucks because of their supposed skills.
People on here can whine all they want about companies not paying programmers more, but when you have situations like this it's clear why those companies aren't doing so.
In these matters the only certainty is that there is nothing certain. -- Pliny the Elder