You can't restrict the free speech of a corporation without infringing on the free speech of the people that make it up.
All of those people in the corporation already have the same free speech rights that I do. How does granting them additional free speech rights through the corporation not infringe on me? I have worked for corporations and I own voting stock but I've never considered a corporation to speak for me and actively opposed some of the things my corporations were for.
To your first sentence, freedom of speech implies that the speaker is saying what they want to say, nothing more. If they choose to lie that's their free speech right but it's our free speech right to call them on their lie.
The problem with bribing scientists to falsify information is that most scientists are smart guys. They have to know if they deliberately disseminate false information some bright guy's going to come along down the road and put egg on their face. There is a true reality out there that they can't manipulate which keeps them (mostly) honest.
Funding for climate orthodoxy 10 times more? You must be including the cost of building and launching satellites, the cost of thousands of weather stations, over 3,000 Argo floats and all the other instrumentation used to study climate, the cost of gathering and collating all of that data, the cost of supercomputer time to help analyze it, etc, etc, etc. That's all basic science that you can't really attribute to one side or the other. You can argue that we're doing too much or too little of it but it needs to be done at some level. I guess you can argue that it's biased toward one side but I think the diversity of scientists and scientific institutions around the world make that extremely unlikely.
Unless you know something I don't there was one paper recently with 4 or 5 authors that found a climate sensitivity below 2. It is a useful addition to the literature but by itself doesn't overturn all of the other work that's been done. There are a number of methodologies for determining climate sensitivity and it's not clear which if any are best. It's an area that continues to receive a lot of attention.
If there aren't enough States in the compact to constitute an Electoral College majority for any particular election then I think they automatically drop back to their current method of doing it.
If this is based on even population in each of the new States wouldn't you have to adjust the State boundaries every census to account for demographic changes? What's the potential for gerrymandering there?
It sounds sensible but it can be seriously skewed by gerrymandering. Look at the House of Representatives where if the balance of power were to represent the number of people who voted for each side nationally it would be split 50-50 or the Democrats would hold a 1 vote advantage. (53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates received 53,402,643, a difference of +549,547 for the Democrats.) Instead Republicans hold a 232 - 200 vote edge (3 current vacancies).
I think the Senate was created to represent the States more than the people. Senators were originally chosen by the State governments.
My fix would be to transform the Senate into a somewhat parliamentary body. Hold a national vote where you vote for the party of your choice and give each party a senator for each 1% of the vote they get*. If that were in place we'd probably have 5 or 10 Libertarian senators, maybe 3 or 4 Green Party senators, etc. The Senate would then represent the political will of the country much better.
* In practice you'd have to account for the fact the totals won't line up with integer percentages so a party that got 0.9% of the vote would probably get 1 senator, etc.
I could link you to a number of peer reviewed papers on the subject that would mostly say similar things but I would like you to find even one that says New York City would be underwater by 2050. That's not impossible but it would be a result of some unexpected nonlinear event such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has a pretty low probability.
Nice bit if hyperbole. If you listen to what scientists actually say SLR will be perhaps 1 foot by 2050. That certainly leaves New York more vulnerable to storm surge but not under water. Perhaps you meant to say 2150.
I've never found Al Gore all that hypocritical. He buys carbon credits* for his travel, has renewable energy installed at his homes. I believe he's donated the money from the sale of Current TV to a nonprofit that advocates for global warming. I don't believe he's ever said you have to reduce your standard of living that much, just change it somewhat. I've never heard him be unrealistic about the time it will take us to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, plenty of time to transform the energy system to a new paradigm.
* Yes, I'm pretty cynical about the value of carbon credits too but he puts his money where his mouth is.
As fast as that thing was moving I don't think you'd have a chance of hitting it with a missile. I mean the whole video was only 49 seconds long. Even with the part of the meteor's path that wasn't in the video it undoubtedly lasted less than a minute. Checking Space.com it says the meteor entered the atmosphere as a speed of about 64,800 kph (40, 260 mph) and exploded over Chelyabinsk at an altitude of 15-20 km (50,000-65,000 feet). Pretty tough for a missile to catch I'd say.
I've never understood why it's fair for online businesses to have the advantage of not collecting the sale tax over brick and mortar stores. Maybe in the early days when things were developing but not now. If this bill comes to pass the online businesses should get together and set up a sale tax clearing house that has software to calculate the sales tax for any delivery location. You'd send it the delivery address, what your buying and how much and it returns the tax amount. The online business then adds it to the bill, pays the tax collected to the clearing house which distributes it to the various taxing districts. They could probably get the districts to let them skim a few percent off the top to pay for it all. Of course that's easy for me to say since I live in Oregon which doesn't have a sales tax.
3 feet of snow on the road would be difficult for any vehicle without high clearance. And not that easy for high clearance vehicles. I've done 2 feet before and you just kind of float along. It was a fun situation, I was the first vehicle after an overnight snowfall (pretty light snow) on the highway out of La Pine, OR headed for Lakeview. About 10 miles of level, straight unplowed road without another vehicle in sight. I was able to do a good test of my antilock brake system. The vehicle was a Chevy Tahoe.
When the outside air temperature is cold enough heat pumps don't work so well and have to be supplemented. (Unless there have been some recent developments I haven't heard about.)
One thing that might help the efficiency a bit would be to have the environmental system be able to run while the vehicle is plugged in. That way you start with the cockpit already comfortable and don't have to burn extra energy bringing it up/down from some extreme. If you could set the time it turns the system on even better. Set it to start 15 minutes before you leave for work. You would have to include the battery heater too. (Or does keeping the batteries on the charger keep them warm enough?)
The guy must have a pretty benign version of epilepsy if he had 2 episodes and was still able to steer the car at 125 mph. If he can do that I'm not sure it's necessary to deny him a drivers license.
They would be open for parts of the exhaust/intake stroke only, and still closed during compression stroke (thus compression braking the vehicle).
True but you recover most of the energy lost during the compression stroke as the air decompresses during the firing stroke. Exhaust valves usually open before bottom dead center on the firing stroke so you'd loose a little there.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't restrict the free speech of a corporation without infringing on the free speech of the people that make it up.
All of those people in the corporation already have the same free speech rights that I do. How does granting them additional free speech rights through the corporation not infringe on me? I have worked for corporations and I own voting stock but I've never considered a corporation to speak for me and actively opposed some of the things my corporations were for.
To your first sentence, freedom of speech implies that the speaker is saying what they want to say, nothing more. If they choose to lie that's their free speech right but it's our free speech right to call them on their lie.
The problem with bribing scientists to falsify information is that most scientists are smart guys. They have to know if they deliberately disseminate false information some bright guy's going to come along down the road and put egg on their face. There is a true reality out there that they can't manipulate which keeps them (mostly) honest.
go back to living in a cave while i keep living in my suburbia heated home with my giant SUV and boat and RV parked in the front lawn.
False dichotomy, it's not an either/or choice but a full continuum between the two where a good balance point can be found.
Funding for climate orthodoxy 10 times more? You must be including the cost of building and launching satellites, the cost of thousands of weather stations, over 3,000 Argo floats and all the other instrumentation used to study climate, the cost of gathering and collating all of that data, the cost of supercomputer time to help analyze it, etc, etc, etc. That's all basic science that you can't really attribute to one side or the other. You can argue that we're doing too much or too little of it but it needs to be done at some level. I guess you can argue that it's biased toward one side but I think the diversity of scientists and scientific institutions around the world make that extremely unlikely.
Unless you know something I don't there was one paper recently with 4 or 5 authors that found a climate sensitivity below 2. It is a useful addition to the literature but by itself doesn't overturn all of the other work that's been done. There are a number of methodologies for determining climate sensitivity and it's not clear which if any are best. It's an area that continues to receive a lot of attention.
If there aren't enough States in the compact to constitute an Electoral College majority for any particular election then I think they automatically drop back to their current method of doing it.
If this is based on even population in each of the new States wouldn't you have to adjust the State boundaries every census to account for demographic changes? What's the potential for gerrymandering there?
Where's the -1 Paranoid Delusions mod when you need it?
It sounds sensible but it can be seriously skewed by gerrymandering. Look at the House of Representatives where if the balance of power were to represent the number of people who voted for each side nationally it would be split 50-50 or the Democrats would hold a 1 vote advantage. (53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates received 53,402,643, a difference of +549,547 for the Democrats.) Instead Republicans hold a 232 - 200 vote edge (3 current vacancies).
No, 100% of the States do not have to agree to make this change, only enough to constitute more than half of the total electoral votes.
I think the Senate was created to represent the States more than the people. Senators were originally chosen by the State governments.
My fix would be to transform the Senate into a somewhat parliamentary body. Hold a national vote where you vote for the party of your choice and give each party a senator for each 1% of the vote they get*. If that were in place we'd probably have 5 or 10 Libertarian senators, maybe 3 or 4 Green Party senators, etc. The Senate would then represent the political will of the country much better.
* In practice you'd have to account for the fact the totals won't line up with integer percentages so a party that got 0.9% of the vote would probably get 1 senator, etc.
I could link you to a number of peer reviewed papers on the subject that would mostly say similar things but I would like you to find even one that says New York City would be underwater by 2050. That's not impossible but it would be a result of some unexpected nonlinear event such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has a pretty low probability.
Nice bit if hyperbole. If you listen to what scientists actually say SLR will be perhaps 1 foot by 2050. That certainly leaves New York more vulnerable to storm surge but not under water. Perhaps you meant to say 2150.
Compared to the heat the Sun drops in the ocean every day what New York could do is essentially zero.
I've never found Al Gore all that hypocritical. He buys carbon credits* for his travel, has renewable energy installed at his homes. I believe he's donated the money from the sale of Current TV to a nonprofit that advocates for global warming. I don't believe he's ever said you have to reduce your standard of living that much, just change it somewhat. I've never heard him be unrealistic about the time it will take us to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, plenty of time to transform the energy system to a new paradigm.
* Yes, I'm pretty cynical about the value of carbon credits too but he puts his money where his mouth is.
It really isn't possible to defend against a meteor this small at this time. They don't even bother to look for them.
At a speed of over 40,000 mph when it entered the atmosphere it was going a lot faster than any ICBM.
As fast as that thing was moving I don't think you'd have a chance of hitting it with a missile. I mean the whole video was only 49 seconds long. Even with the part of the meteor's path that wasn't in the video it undoubtedly lasted less than a minute. Checking Space.com it says the meteor entered the atmosphere as a speed of about 64,800 kph (40, 260 mph) and exploded over Chelyabinsk at an altitude of 15-20 km (50,000-65,000 feet). Pretty tough for a missile to catch I'd say.
I've never understood why it's fair for online businesses to have the advantage of not collecting the sale tax over brick and mortar stores. Maybe in the early days when things were developing but not now. If this bill comes to pass the online businesses should get together and set up a sale tax clearing house that has software to calculate the sales tax for any delivery location. You'd send it the delivery address, what your buying and how much and it returns the tax amount. The online business then adds it to the bill, pays the tax collected to the clearing house which distributes it to the various taxing districts. They could probably get the districts to let them skim a few percent off the top to pay for it all. Of course that's easy for me to say since I live in Oregon which doesn't have a sales tax.
3 feet of snow on the road would be difficult for any vehicle without high clearance. And not that easy for high clearance vehicles. I've done 2 feet before and you just kind of float along. It was a fun situation, I was the first vehicle after an overnight snowfall (pretty light snow) on the highway out of La Pine, OR headed for Lakeview. About 10 miles of level, straight unplowed road without another vehicle in sight. I was able to do a good test of my antilock brake system. The vehicle was a Chevy Tahoe.
When the outside air temperature is cold enough heat pumps don't work so well and have to be supplemented. (Unless there have been some recent developments I haven't heard about.)
One thing that might help the efficiency a bit would be to have the environmental system be able to run while the vehicle is plugged in. That way you start with the cockpit already comfortable and don't have to burn extra energy bringing it up/down from some extreme. If you could set the time it turns the system on even better. Set it to start 15 minutes before you leave for work. You would have to include the battery heater too. (Or does keeping the batteries on the charger keep them warm enough?)
The guy must have a pretty benign version of epilepsy if he had 2 episodes and was still able to steer the car at 125 mph. If he can do that I'm not sure it's necessary to deny him a drivers license.
Another suggestion, take the tin foil off your head and wrap it around the key fob.
(I'm not trying to imply anyone is wearing tin foil but it was too good a line to pass up.)
Pop the battery out of the key.
They would be open for parts of the exhaust/intake stroke only, and still closed during compression stroke (thus compression braking the vehicle).
True but you recover most of the energy lost during the compression stroke as the air decompresses during the firing stroke. Exhaust valves usually open before bottom dead center on the firing stroke so you'd loose a little there.