The Bear's Key

corrected

Well there are others from military around here who can back up or refute your claim/experiences. But if not, you might have to share some actual proof. Though what you say is feasible, it does require proof or fact-checking to be entered into the (unofficial) debunking list

I'm wondering something. How aware are Europeans of the U.S. conservative* attacks on them (and on Canada) for being enterprise-hating socialist liberals? Do you know it's a regular (and politically strategic) occurence? Well I'll forward you a couple of vids and/or radio-play of such typical media, listened to by millions in the U.S. continually, and you might glimpse some of the reasons we lack universal health. The root of the problem might be none of what you mentioned. Those attackers likely don't care if a real solution pops up -- and so they'd attempt to destroy it. *pundits mostly

Not wrong. Incomplete, rather. (see why below) Yes, when it changed faster than nature's able to offset/counterbalance a global change. For instance, with the astronomical collision that possibly forced the extinction of dinosaurs and countless species. A much worse event, but there you have it. Question answered.

True...government might not do "just fine" at running health care, but they can do just fine at providing access to it. Something the private industry lacks. But who's the guilty party responsible for the health crisis -- government, or private industry? (If you said government, you'd be half correct. Because mostly one party is responsible for thwarting every attempt at universal care -- even when it allows for private industry to continue merrily)

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1107938 As I'd love to have done the same at that age (for the same reason. )

I disagree totally. Even though Pelosi and Reid should buzz off, the White House needs to be more transparent. Really, even if Obama were a "saint" (definitely not), anything he proposes should hinge on the following question: would I be comfortable letting a Rove/Cheney/Bush gang do the same? For a lot of their power-grabs and secrecy for the White House has remained virtually untouched by Democrats, it would seem. Thus a future (Rove-prepped?) leader will find it easy to continue where they left off -- deep in unconstitutional territory, and neocons have the ball. Care for another eight years of that shit? If anyone can offer to show us where the checks and balances are to prevent government secrecy from morphing into political tyranny, I'm all ears.

niiiice... http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/RecordedCrimePer100k1950-2004.htm I stand corrected, only a bit though. In England/Wales, crime's been lowish from the 50s until the mid-70s, and up through the 80s climbed to the middle, and it became high in the 90s and stayed that way. So almost 20 years, instead of my guess of around 10. Yet in Wales, it's peaked in the mid-90s but has dropped since. http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/BCS1981-2004.htm My point remains.

The potential of him facing guns would prevent it, according to others' logic. I meant their guns weren't such an effective deterrent against your hypothesized scenario (of a crazy guy), not the police themselves. And so the need for bullet proof glass. Funny, there's an armed guard where I bank. Stands outside usually, and even guards my bike when I use it as transport. And so can news or magazine reports. First no one's shown that England indeed lets most crimes slide (as in bascule's first link). Plus even with the discrepancy accounted for in bascule's second link, England's murder rate by guns is still much lower than in the U.S. And your reasoning only works for the last 10 years or so. For England's crime rate's been high for a way shorter period than its comprehensive gun ban. How do you account for the other (previous) years of lower crime? My point is that gun control actually doesn't raise or lower crime, and neither do gun rights. I challenge both sides, and have pointed to a more solid root of crime. If you don't think a supply/demand illegal gold mine(rush) created by legislation is as good a root of crime as let's say, most forms of gun control, then let's hear your arguments. Fair enough. Though my comment was meant to avoid the simplicities of the causations of crime. It really is a bit more complex than politicians and media let on. Where'd I say it did? You noticed the humor I responded to John with: he made a comment about one taser incident, and I showed him there were even more incidents. And I didn't follow it up with any point. In fact, I dismissed it as timid people in uniform. Obviously, not a common thing. You're creating a fantasy situation to make a point that doesn't even fit John's original remark. The guy was unarmed, not wielding a chainsaw. That was the point. As it turns out, he was kidding us anyhow I'd do the video taping And you wouldn't be doing Army training, but simply preventing yourself from dropping to the floor in writhing agony. (I'll bring the Dave's Insanity Sauce and we'll do business And then we'll get a few beers, on me. In thanks for your service to the nation, and to science )

No offense, but I'd have to verify the spray's inability to take you down. Care to have me video it and show the results here? A sniper couldn't even attack in the first place. The bullet-proof glass is only inside the building, and the cops sit behind it. So the reality: police being armed is not reassuring deterrence. Also, the fact that people might do crazy stuff once inside the station means it's not a crime deterrent. Look at banks, too. They have armed guards, yet banks do get robbed. And since my examples are perceptibly more dangerous than ordinary citizens....if robbers have that much balls with armed police and guards, I don't see armed citizens being seen as more of a threat. Furthermore, even if you managed to defend yourself against a mugger, the crime still occured and gets reported (unless you simply walked away). Thus the crime stats won't be going down too noticeably anyway. Well, I don't know where you get your info. But that's why I mentioned how religious trespass into government is a likely root of crime. For even if you're atheist, much of the sentiment that humanity's inherently evil originates from religious sources. Mankind is sinful, it will perish, blah blah blah. However, to show how they're a root cause, let's go on to more concrete examples. Who's responsible for the Prohibition of Alcohol -- increasing demand, lowering supply -- but religion's nose into government? From then it was just simple economics: prices shot through the roof, attracting mafia for the illegal sales and a floursishing enterprise of crime, murder, and gang shootings. But ironically, considering how people then were armed, it didn't stop crime. See where I'm going yet? Marijuana Prohibition -- same effect. And once again, by religion's nose into government. Sometimes when I'm browing the market's produce isle, seeing the lettuces and herbs, I think wow, how incredible: the same bag of marijuana would cost 10,000 percent more, all because of its prohibition. And with such insanely lucrative prices (also they can't just open a store), the dealers resort to pushing kids to sell it. That would be impossible if marijuana's cost was say only 10% to 25% more than supermarket greens -- as would've been the case if the government had left it be. All of the above is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm saying they weren't even focused on gun control, but rather were saying that policy in England is to let most crimes slide. And yes, I was also insulting them a bit -- especially for not referencing the highly suspect claims. Maybe john cuthber, who seems to live there, can help us out. john, are you aware of the following happening in England? (obviously we'd be taking your word for it, but that still helps to further research later) This is the subject of an official Home Office directive to all British police forces. British police have now been told that instead of arresting a range of serious criminals, they can be let off with a caution. The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach. Other crimes including common assault, threatening behavior, sex with an underage girl or boy, and car theft should normally be dealt with by a caution, if the offenders admit their guilt but have no criminal record. What's new about that? In the U.S. the police also tasered a 72 year old woman, and an 11 year old kid. I think a few of the cops involved are likely timid people and so resort to such measures. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Funny you brought it up. I was just thinking about a diminutive foreign lady (about 4'5") who'd stroll the Big City at night after making door-to-door sales. Her chin up, walking defiantly through *bad* areas, she was unarmed -- yet no one bothered her. That's caused me to wonder ever since, if the people who look around a bit frightened or even unsure of themselves are the ones who appear most vulnerable -- and thus safer for the mugger to approach. For if a person would appear to simply *belong*, there's less a chance of getting bothered. lol :D

That is widely held misconception among both physicists and laymen alike. For this reason, Don Koks, the physicist who maintains the Relativity FAQ, updated the FAQ on relativistic mass to reflect the actual usage. proton, you do realize what Klaynos said is fairly true. Would you have agreed if Klaynos instead phrased it as "has mostly been removed"? From the link you posted... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html While rest mass is routinely used in many areas of physics, relativistic mass is mainly restricted to the dynamics of special relativity. The one mass is routine and widespread, yet the other's use is somewhat restricted. And... Because of this, a body's rest mass tends to be called simply its "mass". Obviously, even the FAQ maintainer you linked to agrees that rest mass is usally just labeled as "mass", and he doesn't counter its usage in that manner. Plus the older version of that FAQ (in the year 2001) had even implied the discountinued use of relative mass. http://web.archive.org/web/20011117161604/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days when physicists talk about mass in their research they always mean invariant mass. ........ In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass [math]M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2[/math] of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." The viewpoint above, emphasising the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest? All emphasis mine, of course. I think it's a great example by mooeypoo. However, if you rather another one, let's use something that's commonly familiar to most of us. When a doctor gets your weight on the scale, they'll ask you remove heavy clothing and shoes: they're not going to list different values for clothed/unclothed weights. And even if you transfered the paperwork to another doctor, they'd know the listed weight is unclothed, rather than unclothed.* In the same manner, it's easier to think of rest mass (perhaps "unclothed", or simply just the base mass without additions). *(But in special cases, not medically related, you'd probably have everything on you weighed -- clothes, backpack, etc)

A little background... To start, no one's even brought up sharing an ideological opinion. Maybe their criticism is simply an unconsious effort to reveal the politician for who they really are: either someone firmly of their word and principles, or someone constantly in disguise because they're exactly like the very people they condemn (a disguise earns religious votes, while the condemnations paint the opposition as spiritually-corrupt hooligans....two birds with one stone). The leaders in question have much to gain from any broadcast or local preachers who cast many of us in society as radicals drowning the nation in a cesspool of immorality and ruining the foundations of their pet religion. And the dogma becomes a politician's shiny armor -- they echo it by judging ordinary citizens who'd rather live-and-let-live and not have politicians butt-in, wielding their lawmaker powers in selfish/unconstitutional ways. Yet if held accountable for misdeeds while in their shiny armor, the politician can easily make you out to be their pre-defined radical who's attacking not them...but sanctity itself (and consequently, the people who aspire to it). Unless you're clever about it. And not every politician's that way. Many do have real, personal beliefs and don't wield faith as a political tool. But quite a bunch are that way, and have a nasty effect. The tactics of political/religious cons often have mutual synergy. Look, for example, at some (freakin crazy) quotes by a popular "religious" guy. And there you'll find keywords of the Republican Party, which villify "the Left", Supreme Court rulings, public education, liberal media, feminists, socialists, welfare, gun control, teachers strikes, nuclear freezes, marijuana decriminalization, Hollywood and a lot others. Not a coincidence, I'd wager. Plus there are many others like him across the nation. I grew up surrounded by religion, and his manner of distorting logic is recognizably the same as a con's: easily and on the fly. My link to an atheist website for the quotes might seem a bit ironic, as I'm faithful, but in truth I see nothing wrong by others' disbelief. In fact, I see the majority of it as a byproduct of the cons and politicians who twist faith -- and consequently push others away from it. And plenty of times I've witnessed (in real life) authoritarians who'd verbally ream a person (youngster/spouse) with the attitude of "do as I say not as I do". That angle of superiority, held over people who don't live according to scripture and/or politicized morals -- whose tenets btw conveniently doesn't apply to such preachers (but only when they can hide it successfully) -- is likely what's being attacked here. From what I can see, iNow and bascule are trying to put a nasty dent in their shiny armor. If so, I'd be more than happy to stand in line with the ding bat (and pun ). Yet, I'd use tact to grant it a more effective and powerful swing at their armor. Can iNow and bascule use more tact on the issue? Yes, I believe so. That's the point you might want to address. But really, if you read through the linked quotes and understand the damaging tactics used, who can really blame their leap to unveil a holier-than-thou politician's hypocricy? Not I. Exactly. If any other issue they stand for is really just an ideological weapon (say they continually betray it while falsely painting the opposition as doing so), then it's up to us to ensure it can anytime become a double-edged sword. Not entirely. A lot of it's also informed by strategic voter-base rallying methods, and they use scripture as just a tool to cement the strategy.

If true...well Zelaya f'd up (it seems), and tested his luck pushing the envelope. Yet he could've avoided the first two instances and just went directly to the people to begin with (instead of making it his third option). And Zelaya might've fared better responding as the military officer below.

I would. It needs to be done, else they're apt to slip into a comfortable routine of such failures. Yes, but we can't do nothing. However, Pangloss, I do agree with you that ostracizing is not the preferable route. It's too easy, and low-rate: a verbal punishing tool. A better approach is (possibly) to live in a way that earns respect/admiration for the qualities you put forth, then go strongly disapprove of a person's activities of degradation and superiority-laced hypocricy, but meanwhile you try not to hold a grudge of immaturity (or vendetta) against them, which lets the person know you detest what they do -- or might say -- and not them as a person. A smarter, reasonable approach is tons more efficient. Ostracizing works, much the same as oil does for the world's energy needs. On a small scale, it might work fine, but on a larger scale it's a fairly crude manner of handling things and often pollutes the social atmosphere with undesirable elements that'll probably come back to haunt us.

Military doesn't trump government in our land. Yet citizens trump government. But no one trumps law (which guides/details the consequences) -- not even the people.

I can agree in part, but it's not so ironic as you might think. Police in England generally don't carry firearms, so it's definitely a regional thing. Also, we must not forget to observe the reality (that's directly in our eyes). Claim: if mostly everyone has guns, that's supposed to deter crime. And really, it's an easy assumption (thus used by politicians): what robber is going to target someone potentially armed with deadliness? Reality: police stations in the U.S. have a 24/7 small arsenal of deadliness, yet many of them feel a need to have bullet-proof glass. Why? Their having guns should be all the protection they need. I usually laugh when visiting one, because the above claim's weakness is laid bare. Just so we're clear, here's my exact thoughts on the issue... http://www.wfsa.net/pdf/Cross_Sectional_Study.pdf The proposition that, "places with the highest rates of gun ownership and the most virulent opposition to gun control are the very places with the highest rates of gun deaths" is frequently advanced as if it were some immutable law of nature ........ If the proposition is valid it must hold good across many countries, and across time in any single country. It must also work in reverse and places or times with the fewest firearms must have the lowest level of gun deaths. The second part is the most crucial to my philosophies. And the first one works in regards to gun control too. The proposition that, "areas with the lowest rates of gun ownership and the most virulent opposition to guns are the very places with the highest rates of crime and/or gun deaths" is frequently advanced as if it were some immutable law of nature Even though it's just politician bread, I've agreed with the "guns don't kill people.....people do" mantra since I first heard it. Well, the question I've constantly asked myself is, then what leads people to kill? Curious, how would you know this? You are correct that one miss and you're screwed, but I'm sure that's easily fixable by technology.

Do you have any experience with these weapons? On people? No. And obviously the last (Dave's Insanity Sauce laced) is fictional. The only experience I've had is with air guns/rifles, paintball (both of which I can aim fairly dead-on by quick draw) and a bit of archery. But most of what I listed in your quote have been used by police successfuly. I don't see why not for citizens.

I. You'll notice I din't bring up tasers once in the quote above. Now cross-reference that with my reply to A Tripolation, and how you misplaced its context. What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? ..... The point is making guns illegal isn't going to get rid of murder. Even if you could get rid of every single gun in the entire world there will still be murder. People will find alternative means. ..... However, you aren't ever going to get rid of every gun in the world. Criminals already have lots of guns. Are we settled? . . . II. And now back to the present...sort of. A political tabloid lacking references isn't necessarily proof. http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik The big drop in virtually all types of crime in New York has generally been attributed to the zero-tolerance policy associated with Mayor Guiliani. Now Britain, far from adopting zero-tolerance, looks like it's adopting a policy of not prosecuting many serious crimes at all. First off, it's not even about gun rights. This is the subject of an official Home Office directive to all British police forces. British police have now been told that instead of arresting a range of serious criminals, they can be let off with a caution. The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach. Other crimes including common assault, threatening behavior, sex with an underage girl or boy, and car theft should normally be dealt with by a caution, if the offenders admit their guilt but have no criminal record. Secondly: if all true, it would be heinously stupid of lawmakers to make such policies. However, you defintely need to supply facts instead of tabloid articles. Better yet, I'm sure plenty of members (here from the UK) can verify or dispute this. Although, it's besides the point: lack of gun rights wasn't even highlighted. Furthermore, my references already showed (indirectly) that homicide criminals in England might not really have the easy access to guns implied previously in the thread. "This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilized, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not." As Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair ("tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime") succeeded in watering down the previous Conservative government's proposals (emphasis mine) I'd wager that's the crucial angle/impression to leave readers with: "vote conservative...otherwise bad'll happen" III. Yes blah blah blah correlation vs causation. The difference is in New York you can carry mace or pepper spray (among other nonlethal weapons). In London that's classified as an offensive weapon, and there you're seven times as likely to be attacked as you are in New York. Aren't you too hanging onto correlation vs causation? Yet the difference between ours is that I added the following... "Might just be coincidence, a pattern that means nothing." Did you acknowledge (or even hint at) the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong? (Now...on the point of gun rights as a mugging deterrent, I've countered that elsewhere and you didn't reply)

Nope. I wonder if by "someone" you're referring to the intruder. Obviously I was talking about the home owner using non-lethal alternatives. So this whole time you might've been countering against your misinterpretation of my statement. Look again. Not clearly whatsoever. The UK's ban isn't entirely new and it's progressed in steps. But compare to the U.S., which in two years had 18,985 gun homicides (pg. 11 of 252, table 2.9) in 2003-04 -- averaging 9,492 per year. At least 50% of all homicides in the U.S. were by guns. England in two years had 50 gun homicides in 2005-06 (pg. 7) -- averaging 25 per year. Nearly only 7% of all homicides in England/Wales were by guns. I'd say other variables might be at work. First let's pick something that's often a root of violence in the world: religion trespass into government. Now let's examine what's been happening in England since 2001... http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Politicians_Talk_God_Because_Faith_Works.aspx?ArticleID=2478&PageID=96&RefPageID=96 New research published by Theos reveals a growing use of religious rhetoric by party leaders in their conference speeches. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631819/Believers-are-away-with-the-fairies.html But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain. Might just be coincidence, a pattern that means nothing. But I would say the guns ban causing violence is a far weaker connection. I'll state again: I'm usually for U.S gun rights. I will however point out the flaws in the usually weak reasonings being fronted to keep and bear arms. Why not just stick with the valid reasons which suffice enough? Yeah, and I know very few people with golf clubs. So that image doesn't seem bad in reality. Heck, U.S. citizens probably have more guns on average. Easy solution: the Iranians need to become criminals, so they'll magically acquire guns. On an unrelated note (but on topic)... Finland supplies gun permits only for approved purposes, which self-defense isn't listed as one. http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/C72E58A5707DBF7CC2256C45003923A1?opendocument A permit may only be granted for a firearm or firearm component that is well suited for the purpose given by the applicant and is not excessively powerful or destructive. Switzerland grants permits...also without mentioning self-defense. http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/514_54/a8.html This part's in French so I used Google Translate and below is a quote from it http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.admin.ch%2Fch%2Ff%2Frs%2F514_54%2Fa8.html&sl=fr&tl=en Any person requesting a permit to acquire a firearm for a purpose other than sport, hunting or collection must justify its request. If anyone familiar with that neighborhood can shed light on whether they do allow for self-defense uses.

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere. I was referring to alternatives for home protection, and not a recipe for a safe nation. How well are people going to conceal those? The point is with concealed weaponry you have no idea the person nearby is dangerous. The reverse applies too with the people the mugger targets, but with one critical difference: the mugger is almost certainly going to draw first.

Or perhaps because of restrictive ownership, that guy didn't have a gun as well. An overly restrictive law is what you're talking about, as it would've kept your household from possessing a gun. I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual. Plus there's also rubber bullets (or plastic ones), eventually they could design meaner versions of wax bullets. There are flexible baton rounds (see pics), they can make super soaker versions for adults heavily laced with Dave's Insanity Sauce or an equally good (pun) alternative. However, often the best weapon is defensive in nature, such as a quality -- and piercingly loud -- alarm system. You hardly need a gun if the would-be intruder flees with the cops automatically on the way. Except in Hollywood's NYC You can't wield it at a safe distance as you can a gun, and throwing disarms you as a result. And in order to use on a crowd, you'd have to run to each person, where a gun a far more efficient. Going back to cars, you'd risk damaging it (where a gun's use as a weapon isn't likely to damage it permanently). And since you're unable to leave with a damaged car, thus leaving all manner of evidence behind, few people would ever use it as a weapon. But also, cars directly benefit society (in transportation). Only hunting guns can boast that (for limiting over-population of wild critters that lack natural predators). That's a very good point.

The usual talk is how government's fearful of armed citizens. Not..quite..reality. This government sure wasn't deterred by Iraqi guns. In fact, a more effective tactic by insurgents was roadside bombs. Perhaps U.S guns are more special than the Iraqis', thus making our superpowered government fear them so? Does the sight of U.S. guns make tanks go fleeing with its turret between its rollers? Plus, many with the view of gun as *oppression insurance* happen to vote for those who supply government the biggest and meanest weapons. In the future it can just blast a (troublemaker's) house from space with a mega-laser, and what can the gun owner do (but wave their gun hopelessly)? And I don't buy the "if guns were outlawed..." bit. For how does one reconcile such a view with the "they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers" people? That crowd is going to keep their arms. I'm for gun-ownership in nations that already had it long, even though the usual arguments for it have been weak. I'm for the hunting of legal sport game/critters. They're more dangerous when concealed (and you need a vehicle in order to counterattack someone attacking you with a vehicle) Then we can't ban explosives, otherwise just criminals will have them

Other greening cities (Two more from China) 1) Tianjin. In a joint venture with neighboring Taiwan. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6492604.html China and Singapore on Wednesday pledged a joint effort to build an eco-city here into an environmentally-friendly model of sustainable development. ........ The development, 40 km from downtown Tianjin and 150 km from Beijing, will be guided by Singapore's use of solar and wind power, and experience in rainwater recycling, as well as wastewater treatment and desalination of sea water. 2) Mianzhu. In eco-partnership with the Kansas town of Greensburg. http://www.hutchnews.com/Greensburg/hewitttday Hewitt, Greensburg school superintendent Darin Headrick and Greensburg/Kiowa County Chamber of Commerce President Steve Kirk will travel to Mianzhu, a small town in the Sichuan Province, to discuss an "Eco-partnership." Both cities sustained major damage from natural disasters - Mianzhu experienced an earthquake in May - and have shown interest in sustainable rebuilding efforts. The partnership will allow leaders from the two cities to share best practices, as well as obstacles. http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/dec/12/greensburg_delegation_visits_china_earthquake_zone/ A delegation from Mianzhu City plans to visit Greensburg next summer. Last year's news -- Greensburg already went, though Mianzhu City's people are to be visiting Greensburg this summer. (One in an oil place) Masdar City, within Abu Dhabi in the Middle East, is a planned city that'll house at least 45,000 people, and 1,500 businesses mostly dedicated to environmentally-friendly products, with over 60,000 workers commuting there. http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS408327034920090601 Abu Dhabi-based solar integrator Enviromena Power System has completed the Masdar 10-megawatts (MW) Solar Power Plant, which is currently the largest grid connected system in the Middle East. ........ Masdar City, is planned to be the world's first carbon neutral, zero waste city fully powered by renewable energy. The city's development is part of the Masdar Initiative, a multi-faceted Abu Dhabi initiative wholly owned by the Mubadala Development Company (Mubadala) to advance the development, commercialization, and deployment of renewable energy. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1553106120090115?sp=true Abu Dhabi's Masdar said on Thursday it is building the Middle East's largest solar power plant for the carbon-neutral Masdar City. ..... The $22 billion Masdar City -- the green city in the desert -- will be home to 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses. No cars will be allowed. http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12673433 Masdar’s managers say they will create an academic institution on a par with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a global manufacturing hub for technologies such as solar power and desalination, and a city of 40,000 people with no greenhouse-gas emissions and no waste—all while turning a profit. ........ No cars will be allowed. Instead, people will have to walk, or take “personal rapid transit”—small pods that will zoom around the city on tracks, akin to metro cars for individuals. Goods will be moved in the same way. The city will be walled, to keep out the hot desert wind. ........ All this, it is hoped, will allow the city to produce more energy than it consumes and ensure that less than 2% of the waste it generates ends up in landfills. Question is, how much will this offset the rest of Abu Dhabi's oily footprint? And though the city is planning to build the world's largest hydrogen power plant, maybe its eco-friendliness depends on what method they use to generate the hydrogen. I'll take a wait-and-see approach on Masdar, however it's one step in the right direction for them. Hopefully it spreads further into their neighboring areas. (And in Malmö, Sweden) http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/turning-torso Western Harbour is being promoted as a global leader in urban sustainability. For heating, Torso connects to power utility Sydkraft's system, which uses 100% locally renewable energy. This is obtained from a variety of sources, including solar power, wind, bedrock and water. The Turning Torso Residential Tower. ...with organic waste from the building ground down in kitchen waste disposal units, then transported though separate pipes for decomposition and biogas production at Malmö's waste incinerator and heat plant. http://www.turningtorso.com/html/faq_en.htm Organic waste will be ground in the kitchen waste disposal unit and transported through separate pipes for decomposition and biogas production. The rest of the waste will be sorted as usual in glass, metal, paper, etc. and recycled. The remaining waste will become energy for Malmö's district heating. Western Harbour (Bo01) There are futuristic buildings sporting massive glass windows and glinting solar panels. But turn a corner and you find a green courtyard with a little pond and some modest timber structures that remind you of Swedish villages. "I really like the diversity of houses - and they've made it easy here to live in a sustainable way," ........ A nearby 2MW wind turbine provides much of the electricity for Bo01, the rest coming from solar panels. Solar collectors on 10 of the buildings provide 15% of the heating, but a more important source is a heat pump connected to aquifers 90m (297ft) underground. The water in the limestone bedrock is used to provide heat in winter and cooling in summer.

Wow. No opinion, or everyone agreed with my two choices? Here's an interesting piece from Wired, although it's six years old and things have likely changed. Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting In addition to the public review, the commission hired an independent verification and validation company to audit the code, "specifically to prevent us, as a developer, from having any election-subverting code in there," Quinn said. ........ The machine does not include a voter-verifiable receipt, something critics of U.S. systems want added to machines and voting machine makers have resisted. ..... Green said the commission rejected the printout feature to keep expenses down. The system cost $125,000 to develop and implement. The printouts would have increased that cost significantly, primarily to pay for personnel to manage and secure the receipts and make sure voters didn't walk off with them. The *prohibitive* expense of handling receipts is nonsense, if you ask me. Or even if you don't. All they'd need to do is keep the printout attached on the machine, behind a protective glass cover, from where the voter can easily read it. Quinn, however, thinks all e-voting systems should offer a receipt. "There's no reason voters should trust a system that doesn't have it, and they shouldn't be asked to," he said. "Why on earth should (voters) have to trust me -- someone with a vested interest in the project's success?" he said. "A voter-verified audit trail is the only way to 'prove' the system's integrity to the vast majority of electors, who after all, own the democracy." As for the costs of securing and storing such receipts, Quinn said, "Did anyone ever say that democracy was meant to be cheap?" I second that. Ensuring the integrity of democracy is money well spent. Quinn also believes that voting systems must use open-source software. "The keystone of democracy is information," he said. ..... "Any transparency you can add to that process is going to enhance the democracy and, conversely, any information you remove from that process is going to undermine your democracy." Open government and processes are the enemy of tyranny and/or corruption. For any of us who likes smart budgets, reasonable taxes, more honest leaders, and pork-free government, I don't see how those are possible (or can last) without a fully open and transparent government/process. The issues of voter-verifiable receipts and secret voting systems could be resolved in the United States by a bill introduced to the House of Representatives last May by Rep. Rush Holt (D-New Jersey). The bill would force voting-machine makers nationwide to provide receipts and make the source code for voting machines open to the public. The bill has 50 co-sponsors so far, all of them Democrats. "If a voting system precludes any notion of a meaningful recount, is cloaked in secrecy and controlled by individuals with conflicts of interest, why would anyone buy it?," Seems like an easy question to me. Depends on the buyer. Quinn, who was working in Chicago for Motorola during the 2000 presidential election, says he is "gob smacked" by what he sees happening among U.S. electronic voting machine makers, whom he says have too much control over the democratic process. ..... "The only possible motive I can see for disabling some of the security mechanisms and features in their system is to be able to rig elections," Quinn said. "It is, at best, bad programming; at worst, the system has been designed to rig an election." With all the smart programmers out there in the world, it's gotta be easy to illustrate how a machine can decieve a person. It's not an intuitive thing, as shown with all the malicious code people routinely allow into their home computers, unsuspectingly but quite easily avoidable. "I can't imagine what it must be like to be an American in the midst of this and watching what's going on," Quinn added. "Democracy is for the voters, not for the companies making the machines.... Exactly. But if the voting machine industries can't handle the job, only able to turn a profit by hurting democracy's integrity, they must return election-counting duties back to our government -- who can definitely open the voting process/software without risk of profit-loss.

ecoli, thanks. I've learned so much reading the entries. I liked the revelations into how science operates, and the historical perspective between current and former knowledge. Brian Switek's and gg's did a nice job on those, and I found your's interesting on how simply the life/chance of epidemics is determinable with math. Sci's post on femal ejaculation (the link, btw) gets high marks for being very educational. And on a subject like that, who couldn't be drawn in? Overall, Ethan Siegel's post is the best in my opinion. Elegant, informative and quickly to the point. It supplies history, data, charts/pics, and experiments neatly without being crammed.