Neither, I actually do valuable research, I'm a good manager.

Do you have any idea how many lawsuits are filed by "idiotic environmental groups" over non-nuclear plants? We had a massive fight in our community (Fond du Lac, WI) over wind turbines because whack jobs were complaining they caused anything from depression to post traumatic stress disorder. Additionally they were to be placed less than 2 miles from a national wildlife refuge used by migratory birds. Fortunately after a few siting changes to move them further from the refuge and change in the law in Wisconsin, it's been approved and mostly completed. The local paper continues to have letters filled with people saying how we've ruined their "pristine" countryside with "ugly" and "harmful" wind turbines. There have been fights and lawsuits in our state over expanding coal plants, hydroelectric plants and any other kind of power plant you can think of.

I'm not saying you're wrong but make sure you don't assume there aren't considerable legal costs involved with other types of power generation. They may not be to the level of nuclear power but they're not insignificant either.

Why would they? It's not a problem.

As an aside, even with Visual Studio, the compilers are available free of charge to anyone and you SHOULD be able to compile the code without paying for Visual Studio.

I don't know the details but I think the parent said the better ones are more expensive. I may just be a cost issue. Also totally guessing here but perhaps the higher amounts of pollution in a urban area would have an effect on the sensors?

I think the stockholders of GM were taught a lesson; they don't have stock anymore.

Poison ivy covers such massive areas that I don't think humans, short of a scorched earth campaign, could do much about it. In that case though, I think the collateral damage would far outweigh any benefit.

God damn, you are a prick. You must be delightful at parties.

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

I live halfway between Green Bay and Milwaukee and we very rarely get the kind of snow that obscures traffic lights. We also don't get lake effect snow though.

I think terrorists that attack western countries are middle class or well off. I don't think you could say the same of the suicide bombers attacking Israel. No I don't have evidence of that, just anecdotes.

Only one country in the world considers that the "proper" reading of the treaty and that's Israel.

The Geneva Conventions were originally about wars between countries. The additions apply also to military actions against non-state actors.

Additionally, the humanitarian requirements apply anytime military force is used to invade territory not belonging to the invader. Israel was defined by UN Mandate by its pre-1967 borders. Israel may claim that they can annex areas outside pre-1967 borders but that doesn't make it legitimate. Your basic argument as I see it is because Israel claims territory outside pre-1967 border the Geneva Conventions no longer applies. That's ludicrous though because then any invader can take over land, claim it as their own and be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

Claiming occupied territory as part of your country is not considered acceptable now and has not been considered acceptable for much of the last 50 years. Whether it may have been in the past isn't relevant.

Treaties are international law.

So you can get around Article 49 simply by claiming occupied territory as part of your country? What is the tortured logic you have that makes that acceptable?