Don't be daft. We're talking about America, the country where law enforcement is funded by taking property, and not just ships (a type of property) like the founders passed laws allowing the government to confiscate but most property. It's simple, the government sues the property, accusing it of doing something illegal and gets to keep the property unless the property shows up in court and proves its innocence. Perfectly constitutional according to the Supreme Court, as it is punishing the property rather then a person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
BTW, you should look up what letters patent are. Here's the first paragraph from the wiki,
Letters patent (always in the plural) are a type of legal instrument in the form of a published written order issued by a monarch, president, or other head of state, generally granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or corporation. Letters patent can be used for the creation of corporations or government offices, or for the granting of city status or a coat of arms. Letters patent are issued for the appointment of representatives of the Crown, such as governors and governors-general of Commonwealth realms, as well as appointing a Royal Commission. In the United Kingdom they are also issued for the creation of peers of the realm. A particular form of letters patent has evolved into the modern patent (referred to as a utility patent or design patent in United States patent law) granting exclusive rights in an invention (or a design in the case of a design patent). In this case it is essential that the written grant should be in the form of a public document so other inventors can consult it to avoid infringement and also to understand how to "practice" the invention, i.e., put it into practical use.
We're talking about a capitalist market, how you going to raise the capital to out bid the pharmaceutical companies to get the control of the FDA to gut it? Capitalism means following the golden rule, whoever has the gold, makes the rules, and they aren't going to make rules that fuck themselves.
You really think that drinking pure alcohol has the same affect as drinking it with water (which counteracts the dehydration) or drinking it with caffeine (which keeps you more awake) or drinking it with pure sugar (which makes the liver work harder) or drinking it with a touch of methyl hydrate or methanol not to mention tannin (relaxes you)?
Yes, every area is going to be quite different when it comes to planting forests. There's also the question of what varieties sequester the most carbon and whether you even want maximum growth. Beyond my knowledge.
I live in a conifer forest. When I did some forestry work when i was young, it was 8 foot spacing at panting and thinned down to 12 foot., which looks about the spacing in the forest I live in. Conifers make good lumber which is more likely to sequester the carbon then firewood, though it's closer to 70 years between planting and harvest or a few hundred years to a mature forest. For fast growth, there are some really fast growing popular hybrids, but they're mostly good for paper and they rot really quick. Bamboo might be the best to grow if you want to sequester carbon.
Tree planting conifers, it was planting at 8 ft, and then thinning them down to 12 ft. This was with a harvest every 60 or 70 years. The ideal would have been thinning as the canopy closed. It really depends on what your growing for and the type of forest that will grow in your locality. Here, it is mostly conifer forests, which are ideal for being turned into lumber. The lowlands, popular, of which there are some really fast growing hybrids, but is mostly good for pulp. Lumber is probably better for carbon sequestration then paper. Might be best to grow bamboo if the goal is maximizing turning carbon into organic material.
There are trees that pull (actually have symbiotic bacteria that pull) nitrogen from the air. Alders where I live. As the sibling post mentions, there are other nutrients and micro-nutrients that a forest needs. Harvesting and burying trees would eventually deplete most soils.
You do know we are not CREATING new carbon, don't you?
Actually, new carbon, as in new to the biosphere, is constantly being released from the Earths interior through volcanic actions. Countering this is that carbon is constantly being sucked into the Earth through plate tectonics as continents slide under other continents. Currently this is balanced but lots of times in geological history there has been massive volcanic activity that upped the CO2, sometimes drastically. I was just reading about the Ordovician, at one point massive volcanic activity boosted the CO2 levels to 4200 ppm, over 10 times current levels with an ocean temperature of about 45C. Then the weathering of new silicate rocks decreased the carbon, which along with continental drift, resulted in a deep ice age. All in a short 40 million years. The carbon cycle is complicated, even without the effects of life, which complicates it more. Then there's the gradual warming of the Sun, perhaps 25% in the Earth's history.
Do you have any idea how many toddlers died from eating grilled cheese sandwiches 400 years ago? You're talking about the people that were tough enough to survive to adulthood, which meant about 5 years of eating the stuff you're talking about.
What percentage of the population would have regularly eaten white flour in the 1600's? At that, how much flour was ground from wheat, rather then rye etc.
The main reason to keep them for at least a couple years is if questions come up about the legitimacy of the election. 6 weeks is before the new guy is even in office. Once the ballots are destroyed, it would be much easier for a bad actor to change the totals. With an election, you have to always assume the worst which is that the people doing the certifiying and/or making the voting machines are potential bad actors.
I don't understand how the totals could be changed after everyone stands around and watches the counting, agree on the totals and they're certified and made public. It is possible that the voter lists show inconsistencies, eg voters voting twice and it has happened that elections have been declared invalid by the courts and been redone, though it is rare. Canada is different from the States. We usually vote for one government at a time (Federal, Provincial or Municipal) and using the Parliamentary system, we vote for Legislative members and the government is formed by which ever party(s) can control the legislature. It's even possible to change governments without an election and election dates are not set Constitutionality, rather the Constitution just gives maximums (5 years). Municipalities, not being sovereign, are different and similar to yours.
Never really thought about the logistics of storing all those machines. Another negative with voting machines. Is there really any reason to keep the ballots after the election results have been certified? Generally the first count is enough to result in a clear winner with a few disputes that don't really affect the overall result. When it does matter, such as our last Provincial election, most of the ridings (districts) had a clear winner, the close ones went through automatic recounts including digging out all the advance voting ballots and the closest counted a few times. 6 weeks and it was all over, which was longer then usual but once over, why keep the ballots?
Around here, the polling places are usually school gyms or churches. Don't know if it would be practical to store the ballots permanently there. Of course our elections are simple enough that the common man can hang out all day and witness the voting and counting if they choose. The weakness is the absentee votes, which should be stored like you say, at least until the final count is done. Last election here (BC), it took 6 weeks to finalize that it was basically a tie, 43-41-3 and weeks more for the legislature to kick the government out (41+3 beats 43, but the 43 get first chance). At the end the election was decided in one very close riding and while the absentee votes just increased the margin of victory, it could have been the opposite.
Perhaps that should be changed. Here in Canada, we have a Federal system with a country made up of sovereign Provinces (and non-sovereign territories). We have an election for the Federal government and we have a different election for our respective Provincial government, each Province being in charge of their elections. Then municipal elections happen on a different day. When I vote federally, I pick one name from a short list of usually 6-12 names. Likewise when I vote provincially. Municipal are more complicated, but only affect a small area. Advantages include that each election is clearly for one government. The federal one is fought over federal issues, likewise with the provincial and municipal. We actually often have different parties at the federal and provincial levels and don't even have parties at most municipalities, at least here in BC. You guys are just overwhelmed at election time. How many people really think about all the positions they're voting on? Seems your Presidential election over shadows everything else. Decide to vote one way for President, might as well vote the same way across the ticket while the dog catcher should obviously not be that guy who has the same party affiliation.
Is it that science is wrong, or that people are wrong? Science is science. People have foibles, flaws, misinterpretations, lack of imagination and hidden agendas.
Science is a process that depends on amongst other things, correct data. A famous example is the ether theory. Made perfect sense as light obviously had the properties of waves and in the experience of people, waves need a medium to travel in. Eventually the measurements got better and showed that light traveled at the same speed no matter what, which was unlike anything people had experienced. After checking and rechecking their measurements, the theory of ether was thrown out. The science was limited by the data the tools gathered and the limitations of people. The important thing was that the science improved, though it took a genius to think far enough out of the box to come up with relativity. People are limited and our tools are limited. Now climate science is much simpler in some ways, trap more energy in a system, temperatures, on average will raise and the arguments are more like arguing about the shape of the Earth. The flat Earthers are wrong, and so are the round Earthers, but one of them is much less wrong then the other.
It is called business. Business is there to make money. If someone offered 5x the price and is willing to pay, then you would be a fool not to. If you were a salesperson, and sold something for $200 when it could be sold for $500, you would get fired.
If someone wants to sell something for $200 instead of $500 to people who can only afford $200, they should have the right. Not everyone is interested in only maximizing profit.
Perhaps for labour where the price should be set by the market but with concerts, often the performers are not interested in maximizing profits. The Canadian example the other year was when the leader of the Tragically Hip announced he had terminal brain cancer and they were going to do a farewell tour. Their interest was in sharing with regular people, not getting richer and set their ticket prices accordingly. Of course the shows sold out in under a second and tickets were going for thousands which did not please the band. Unluckily the bands usually don't have enough control and Ticketmaster is basically a monopoly, otherwise a lottery would be the way to go.
Two things, competition for the stadium where they play and wanting to visit multiple cities on their tour. The second is probably the biggest. Want to visit 300 cities in about a year, no time for spending 10 nights per city.
I spent a couple of months in jail a long time back. Never met anyone who claimed to be innocent. Seemed to be two types, those who admitted to doing something stupid, usually while drunk and those who didn't talk about why they were in there. This was a low security jail in Canada, the type where the fence is to keep people (wives, drug dealers) out.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be daft. We're talking about America, the country where law enforcement is funded by taking property, and not just ships (a type of property) like the founders passed laws allowing the government to confiscate but most property.
It's simple, the government sues the property, accusing it of doing something illegal and gets to keep the property unless the property shows up in court and proves its innocence.
Perfectly constitutional according to the Supreme Court, as it is punishing the property rather then a person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
BTW, you should look up what letters patent are. Here's the first paragraph from the wiki,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We're talking about a capitalist market, how you going to raise the capital to out bid the pharmaceutical companies to get the control of the FDA to gut it?
Capitalism means following the golden rule, whoever has the gold, makes the rules, and they aren't going to make rules that fuck themselves.
You really think that drinking pure alcohol has the same affect as drinking it with water (which counteracts the dehydration) or drinking it with caffeine (which keeps you more awake) or drinking it with pure sugar (which makes the liver work harder) or drinking it with a touch of methyl hydrate or methanol not to mention tannin (relaxes you)?
Yes, every area is going to be quite different when it comes to planting forests. There's also the question of what varieties sequester the most carbon and whether you even want maximum growth. Beyond my knowledge.
I live in a conifer forest. When I did some forestry work when i was young, it was 8 foot spacing at panting and thinned down to 12 foot., which looks about the spacing in the forest I live in. Conifers make good lumber which is more likely to sequester the carbon then firewood, though it's closer to 70 years between planting and harvest or a few hundred years to a mature forest.
For fast growth, there are some really fast growing popular hybrids, but they're mostly good for paper and they rot really quick.
Bamboo might be the best to grow if you want to sequester carbon.
Tree planting conifers, it was planting at 8 ft, and then thinning them down to 12 ft. This was with a harvest every 60 or 70 years. The ideal would have been thinning as the canopy closed.
It really depends on what your growing for and the type of forest that will grow in your locality. Here, it is mostly conifer forests, which are ideal for being turned into lumber. The lowlands, popular, of which there are some really fast growing hybrids, but is mostly good for pulp. Lumber is probably better for carbon sequestration then paper.
Might be best to grow bamboo if the goal is maximizing turning carbon into organic material.
Hard to say, he doesn't seem to understand that dead trees rot and return much of the carbon they absorbed back to the atmosphere.
There are trees that pull (actually have symbiotic bacteria that pull) nitrogen from the air. Alders where I live.
As the sibling post mentions, there are other nutrients and micro-nutrients that a forest needs.
Harvesting and burying trees would eventually deplete most soils.
And at 12 foot spacing, 200 per acre, we'd be looking at something like 5 million square miles of new forest.
You do know we are not CREATING new carbon, don't you?
Actually, new carbon, as in new to the biosphere, is constantly being released from the Earths interior through volcanic actions. Countering this is that carbon is constantly being sucked into the Earth through plate tectonics as continents slide under other continents. Currently this is balanced but lots of times in geological history there has been massive volcanic activity that upped the CO2, sometimes drastically.
I was just reading about the Ordovician, at one point massive volcanic activity boosted the CO2 levels to 4200 ppm, over 10 times current levels with an ocean temperature of about 45C. Then the weathering of new silicate rocks decreased the carbon, which along with continental drift, resulted in a deep ice age. All in a short 40 million years.
The carbon cycle is complicated, even without the effects of life, which complicates it more. Then there's the gradual warming of the Sun, perhaps 25% in the Earth's history.
Do you have any idea how many toddlers died from eating grilled cheese sandwiches 400 years ago? You're talking about the people that were tough enough to survive to adulthood, which meant about 5 years of eating the stuff you're talking about.
What percentage of the population would have regularly eaten white flour in the 1600's? At that, how much flour was ground from wheat, rather then rye etc.
You eat the roosters pretty early as they fight and take resources away from the hens. A couple of roosters is all that is needed.
Or even worse, an American agent.
As for critical thinking, people use their intelligence to rationalize why their gut feelings are correct.
The main reason to keep them for at least a couple years is if questions come up about the legitimacy of the election. 6 weeks is before the new guy is even in office. Once the ballots are destroyed, it would be much easier for a bad actor to change the totals. With an election, you have to always assume the worst which is that the people doing the certifiying and/or making the voting machines are potential bad actors.
I don't understand how the totals could be changed after everyone stands around and watches the counting, agree on the totals and they're certified and made public.
It is possible that the voter lists show inconsistencies, eg voters voting twice and it has happened that elections have been declared invalid by the courts and been redone, though it is rare.
Canada is different from the States. We usually vote for one government at a time (Federal, Provincial or Municipal) and using the Parliamentary system, we vote for Legislative members and the government is formed by which ever party(s) can control the legislature. It's even possible to change governments without an election and election dates are not set Constitutionality, rather the Constitution just gives maximums (5 years). Municipalities, not being sovereign, are different and similar to yours.
Never really thought about the logistics of storing all those machines. Another negative with voting machines.
Is there really any reason to keep the ballots after the election results have been certified? Generally the first count is enough to result in a clear winner with a few disputes that don't really affect the overall result.
When it does matter, such as our last Provincial election, most of the ridings (districts) had a clear winner, the close ones went through automatic recounts including digging out all the advance voting ballots and the closest counted a few times. 6 weeks and it was all over, which was longer then usual but once over, why keep the ballots?
Around here, the polling places are usually school gyms or churches. Don't know if it would be practical to store the ballots permanently there. Of course our elections are simple enough that the common man can hang out all day and witness the voting and counting if they choose.
The weakness is the absentee votes, which should be stored like you say, at least until the final count is done. Last election here (BC), it took 6 weeks to finalize that it was basically a tie, 43-41-3 and weeks more for the legislature to kick the government out (41+3 beats 43, but the 43 get first chance). At the end the election was decided in one very close riding and while the absentee votes just increased the margin of victory, it could have been the opposite.
Perhaps that should be changed. Here in Canada, we have a Federal system with a country made up of sovereign Provinces (and non-sovereign territories). We have an election for the Federal government and we have a different election for our respective Provincial government, each Province being in charge of their elections. Then municipal elections happen on a different day.
When I vote federally, I pick one name from a short list of usually 6-12 names. Likewise when I vote provincially. Municipal are more complicated, but only affect a small area.
Advantages include that each election is clearly for one government. The federal one is fought over federal issues, likewise with the provincial and municipal. We actually often have different parties at the federal and provincial levels and don't even have parties at most municipalities, at least here in BC.
You guys are just overwhelmed at election time. How many people really think about all the positions they're voting on? Seems your Presidential election over shadows everything else. Decide to vote one way for President, might as well vote the same way across the ticket while the dog catcher should obviously not be that guy who has the same party affiliation.
Is it that science is wrong, or that people are wrong? Science is science. People have foibles, flaws, misinterpretations, lack of imagination and hidden agendas.
Science is a process that depends on amongst other things, correct data.
A famous example is the ether theory. Made perfect sense as light obviously had the properties of waves and in the experience of people, waves need a medium to travel in.
Eventually the measurements got better and showed that light traveled at the same speed no matter what, which was unlike anything people had experienced. After checking and rechecking their measurements, the theory of ether was thrown out.
The science was limited by the data the tools gathered and the limitations of people. The important thing was that the science improved, though it took a genius to think far enough out of the box to come up with relativity.
People are limited and our tools are limited.
Now climate science is much simpler in some ways, trap more energy in a system, temperatures, on average will raise and the arguments are more like arguing about the shape of the Earth. The flat Earthers are wrong, and so are the round Earthers, but one of them is much less wrong then the other.
It is called business. Business is there to make money. If someone offered 5x the price and is willing to pay, then you would be a fool not to. If you were a salesperson, and sold something for $200 when it could be sold for $500, you would get fired.
If someone wants to sell something for $200 instead of $500 to people who can only afford $200, they should have the right. Not everyone is interested in only maximizing profit.
Perhaps for labour where the price should be set by the market but with concerts, often the performers are not interested in maximizing profits.
The Canadian example the other year was when the leader of the Tragically Hip announced he had terminal brain cancer and they were going to do a farewell tour. Their interest was in sharing with regular people, not getting richer and set their ticket prices accordingly. Of course the shows sold out in under a second and tickets were going for thousands which did not please the band. Unluckily the bands usually don't have enough control and Ticketmaster is basically a monopoly, otherwise a lottery would be the way to go.
Two things, competition for the stadium where they play and wanting to visit multiple cities on their tour. The second is probably the biggest. Want to visit 300 cities in about a year, no time for spending 10 nights per city.
I spent a couple of months in jail a long time back. Never met anyone who claimed to be innocent. Seemed to be two types, those who admitted to doing something stupid, usually while drunk and those who didn't talk about why they were in there.
This was a low security jail in Canada, the type where the fence is to keep people (wives, drug dealers) out.
The executives all got large bonuses, the workers got screwed along with anyone who bought something with a warranty.
The city and their stockholders, I mean residents, are happy to make 1% or less profit. What private company is going to be happy with that?