Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:the Swiss don't need you (Score 2, Informative) 109

As far as I remember they had similar pattern of domestic violence that Kosovo has. I.e. instead of knives, or small arms most wounds were high energy ballistic (caused by high power assault rifles), which are far more serious in nature.

It's not that they had a lot of it. It's that the pattern of this particular form of crime, which usually takes form of "most accessible weapon" was significantly more fatal than that in neighboring countries. By removing easy access to ammo, domestic violence cases went to more traditional "knives, flying pans and small arms" that gives victims a much higher chance of survival.

Comment Re:the Swiss don't need you (Score 1) 109

This "Oclahoma pig fucker" actually comes from the only other nation in Europe with universal conscription - Finland.

As far as I know, you have rules for ammunition that are fairly similar to ours. Have a permit or you're breaking the law. The only difference is that you choose to keep your reservist guns at homes, while we keep them buried in the ground or stored in army storage all over the country..

Comment Re:the Swiss don't need you (Score 4, Informative) 109

Buy ammunition, get arrested, go to jail.

Many people don't know that beyond the weird NRA-based claims of "armed nation", swiss men have assault rifles at home disassembled and with no ammunition. Assembling the rifle and taking it out of your home without special permission is a crime. Having ammunition for it without special permission is also a crime. They brought down their mainly assault rifle based gun crime down hard with that policy.

That said, their army has excellent plans on how to distribute ammo in event of threat of war.

Comment Re:FTFY (Score 1) 329

I'll just quickly run my take on why I think that free market will remain an opponent of any improvement of status quo:

Free market will always push for path of least resistance to maximize short and medium term profits. Right now, that is coal. Representatives of free market, swimming in money pervert the political system to ensure that whatever limits come out, they will not be hit by them to the extent where profits will be endangered. A good example of this is the carbon tax/quota trading scheme in Europe, that was basically diluted to uselessness by massive lobbying (read: corruption) by large power companies who want their cheap and profitable coal.

Green movement isn't helping here either. Their ideological, borderline religious anti-nuclear bend, combined with apparent lack of understanding the difference between "power" and "base power" results in things like Energiewiende, which once again results in coal build-up.

Then there's the whole "oil producers financing green terrorism to attack nuclear power generation from all possible angles" elephant in the room. Various power generation companies compete, and being huge conglomerates (not to mention entire states in some cases, such as Saudi Arabia) they have few qualms with using underhanded methods of competing.

Problem is, all these elements do in fact represent the current "free" market. As infrastructure build up involves a huge investment, that particular market will never be truly free, its strategic importance will ensure that it will always have to be tightly regulated, and the amount of money involved will be too great to not use underhanded means to take over if it becomes unregulated. And about the only way to stop the current massive perversion of it is a strong government intervention. Of course, Energiewiende is also a good example of what happens when government intervention gets ideological instead of practical, and guided by ideologists instead of engineers.

So in my opinion, we need a group of experts in energy generation, with proven experience, preferably from all over the world (so we don't get the "let's use hydro" etc) to work on a solution, that will then be implemented on governmental level. So far, there's zero political desire for this, even though the need is dire, and subject goes beyond national borders for many regions such as Europe.

Comment Re:FTFY (Score 1) 329

Incorrect. You once against went to simplify a complex issue to derive a conclusion.

That is the main tool of people known as "populists". It usually stems from the fact that most people are incapable of understanding the actual depth and complexity of the issue. As a result, simplifying an issue may cause a severe error in logic, even though it will look logical because factors that cause the error are erased from the issue by the process of simplification.

Example: US incarcerates largest portion of its inhabitants in the world. Therefore US is the least free state in the world.

By simplifying the original exceptionally complex issue (concept of freedom) I draw a patently false conclusion. There are many countries in the world that are observably much less free than US, even though they have a lower incarceration rate.

You are doing the exactly same thing. You are simplifying a very complex process that is leading to current global warming to draw a conclusion that CO2 is a pollutant. You do this by eliminating details that conflict with your opinion though simplification, and then drawing a patently false conclusion based on your simplification.
That is populism. Populism is one of the biggest if not the biggest enemy of actually understanding and beginning to combat issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?