Huh I just assumed they had a workshop full of 1800s-ish equipment filling up air tanks somewhere.
But yeah you can't get that much energy out of air tanks that a person could carry. If some idiot with a death wish wanted to try to recreate the "3D maneuvering gear" IRL, their best bet would be to use electric motors and lipo batteries with a gauss gun mechanism for firing the grapples.
The correct solution is to drive them underground. This makes it a little harder to monitor them, but a whole lot harder for them to recruit and radicalize new people, it's an excellent tradeoff.
Because you define everyone from evangelical Christians to actual nazis as being "conservative" so that you can pick and choose bits of various often conflicting ideologies as it suits you to defend "conservatism," in this case picking evangelical positions to distract from the inclusion of nazis.
Horseshit, they haven't been careful about evaluating change in the Trump era, they plowed ahead with changes at a speed the left could only envy. That's because conservatism is actually about the domination of society by an aristocracy. This can be mistaken for resistance to/caution toward change in a society that was recently or is dominated by an aristocracy if you don't look too closely.
The DoJ can't exactly raid their headquarters and arrest their CEO. You should note that they also haven't dismantled more deadly and centralized protest groups on the right, such as the Proud Boys which are openly running "security" for Trump's rallies these days.
The continuous natural carbon sequestration is far too slow to have any meaningful effect, when trees die almost all of the CO2 is released into the atmosphere again. So when that acre of forest is grown to the point that its carbon intake plateaus, it would have to be cut down and stored out of the biosphere via some artificial means to actually sequester a meaningful amount of that CO2.
Farmland would have to be used to plant trees, because there's nowhere else to plant them. And it's still not enough. The idea that planting trees alone can counteract climate change in any meaningful way flies in the face of mainstream science.
These stats don't conflict with what I posted. 1 acre of forest would have to be stored underground before another acre could grow to absorb 18 average Americans' CO2 output. How many decades would that take? And those are average Americans who pollute far less than the world's wealthiest people.
Nope, throw all the manpower you want at it, we're releasing fossil carbon far faster than nature can stow it, especially considering that the land available for growing trees is less than it used to be.
I'd guess that the story is true and the affected megacorps are trying to cover it up. I'd guess that these megacorps are cooperating with the TLAs investigating the issue, and don't want the story made public because they'd rather not go public about a data breach (at least not individually and earlier than necessary), which the TLAs would also prefer in this case. So the media would be both compromising the investigation and bringing bad PR to the victims by reporting on this.
In a couple years we'll probably hear that it was all true and the affected companies will jointly disclose the data breach.
Small aircraft could run on batteries just like cars. Large boats could use a combination of nuclear and wind power...costs wouldn't be a problem vs. already-expensive fossil fuels that could be even more expensive and have carbon taxes added to them, but sadly politics could be...
Interesting, where exactly did you see this? The ocean is already really good at taking CO2 from the air - at one time a popular denialist theory centered around ignoring the unexpectedly high uptake of atmospheric CO2 into the oceans. If it's cheap to extract CO2 from the ocean and directly counteract particularly dangerous ocean acidification at the same time, that would be a great approach.
Internal combustion engines piss away 3/4 to 1/2 of the energy you put into them as waste heat, while EVs turn 90%+ of the electrical energy you put into them into kinetic energy. We can't afford to waste that energy for no good reason. And the incredibly wasteful infrastructure for delivery of liquid fuels is not an advantage.
Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels only make sense for vehicles where electric or nuclear power can't work yet, such as on large aircraft and small boats.
He means energy-inefficient and/or time-inefficient, not money-inefficient...although in the medium/long term, letting the planet get wrecked due to insufficiently fast carbon capture is money-inefficient too.
I've been thinking the same thing, where are they getting the money for these boats and UTVs? These aren't cheap things, most middle-class people would struggle to afford them.
For years now I've been secretly looking forward to eventually being promoted to Lord-Emperor of All Capitalism with my rare superpower of having conscious control over where my boner and hands go. It's only a matter of time until my ascendancy.
Fear not, for I will be a kind and generous god, I will build a humane prison system for the teeming masses of men serving jail time for sex crimes, and fund scientific efforts to develop some drug or gene therapy to allow them to gain control over their hands and boners as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hipsters don't live on the Florida panhandle, those are some of the people this kind of behavior most recently "impacted," you denialist jackass.
Huh I just assumed they had a workshop full of 1800s-ish equipment filling up air tanks somewhere.
But yeah you can't get that much energy out of air tanks that a person could carry. If some idiot with a death wish wanted to try to recreate the "3D maneuvering gear" IRL, their best bet would be to use electric motors and lipo batteries with a gauss gun mechanism for firing the grapples.
The correct solution is to drive them underground. This makes it a little harder to monitor them, but a whole lot harder for them to recruit and radicalize new people, it's an excellent tradeoff.
Because you define everyone from evangelical Christians to actual nazis as being "conservative" so that you can pick and choose bits of various often conflicting ideologies as it suits you to defend "conservatism," in this case picking evangelical positions to distract from the inclusion of nazis.
Horseshit, they haven't been careful about evaluating change in the Trump era, they plowed ahead with changes at a speed the left could only envy. That's because conservatism is actually about the domination of society by an aristocracy. This can be mistaken for resistance to/caution toward change in a society that was recently or is dominated by an aristocracy if you don't look too closely.
The DoJ can't exactly raid their headquarters and arrest their CEO. You should note that they also haven't dismantled more deadly and centralized protest groups on the right, such as the Proud Boys which are openly running "security" for Trump's rallies these days.
You're also free to install applications from outside the official app store on Android. You can sideload Gab client .apks all day long.
African or Asian elephants?
The continuous natural carbon sequestration is far too slow to have any meaningful effect, when trees die almost all of the CO2 is released into the atmosphere again. So when that acre of forest is grown to the point that its carbon intake plateaus, it would have to be cut down and stored out of the biosphere via some artificial means to actually sequester a meaningful amount of that CO2.
Farmland would have to be used to plant trees, because there's nowhere else to plant them. And it's still not enough. The idea that planting trees alone can counteract climate change in any meaningful way flies in the face of mainstream science.
These stats don't conflict with what I posted. 1 acre of forest would have to be stored underground before another acre could grow to absorb 18 average Americans' CO2 output. How many decades would that take? And those are average Americans who pollute far less than the world's wealthiest people.
Would shareholders be able to sue if the megacorps were legally compelled to keep quiet by a Patriot act request?
http://www.anthropocenemagazin...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...
https://uanews.arizona.edu/sto...
Nope, throw all the manpower you want at it, we're releasing fossil carbon far faster than nature can stow it, especially considering that the land available for growing trees is less than it used to be.
Which could be a very real possibility...
I'd guess that the story is true and the affected megacorps are trying to cover it up. I'd guess that these megacorps are cooperating with the TLAs investigating the issue, and don't want the story made public because they'd rather not go public about a data breach (at least not individually and earlier than necessary), which the TLAs would also prefer in this case. So the media would be both compromising the investigation and bringing bad PR to the victims by reporting on this.
In a couple years we'll probably hear that it was all true and the affected companies will jointly disclose the data breach.
Small aircraft could run on batteries just like cars. Large boats could use a combination of nuclear and wind power...costs wouldn't be a problem vs. already-expensive fossil fuels that could be even more expensive and have carbon taxes added to them, but sadly politics could be...
Interesting, where exactly did you see this? The ocean is already really good at taking CO2 from the air - at one time a popular denialist theory centered around ignoring the unexpectedly high uptake of atmospheric CO2 into the oceans. If it's cheap to extract CO2 from the ocean and directly counteract particularly dangerous ocean acidification at the same time, that would be a great approach.
Internal combustion engines piss away 3/4 to 1/2 of the energy you put into them as waste heat, while EVs turn 90%+ of the electrical energy you put into them into kinetic energy. We can't afford to waste that energy for no good reason. And the incredibly wasteful infrastructure for delivery of liquid fuels is not an advantage.
Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels only make sense for vehicles where electric or nuclear power can't work yet, such as on large aircraft and small boats.
Also it's too slow to be helpful, that's another problem...
He means energy-inefficient and/or time-inefficient, not money-inefficient...although in the medium/long term, letting the planet get wrecked due to insufficiently fast carbon capture is money-inefficient too.
I've been thinking the same thing, where are they getting the money for these boats and UTVs? These aren't cheap things, most middle-class people would struggle to afford them.
Now you have grass-fed beef instead.
For years now I've been secretly looking forward to eventually being promoted to Lord-Emperor of All Capitalism with my rare superpower of having conscious control over where my boner and hands go. It's only a matter of time until my ascendancy.
Fear not, for I will be a kind and generous god, I will build a humane prison system for the teeming masses of men serving jail time for sex crimes, and fund scientific efforts to develop some drug or gene therapy to allow them to gain control over their hands and boners as well.
I was reminded of reiserfs when I saw the news...
Yes it is, they're using fancy American military tech with the support of American military personnel.