Kansans driving into Texas, like they do in Oklahoma, going ten or more mph under the speed limit everywhere (I followed a guy for ten miles doing 35 on a highway before I could pass him. It wasn't an isolated incident.).
Texans crashing into said Kansans, because they drive 90 mph and have no idea how to operate a motor vehicle (Ever seen someone spin out on ice? I saw a Dallas driver do it on a street wet from someone's sprinkler. Complete 360 and into the curb.).
And there'd be 700 miles of I35 where nobody knew how to use a turn signal.
Now if we could just get Georgia into the mix somehow - they're worse drivers than Texans, believe it or not.
I've heard it claimed (having difficulty finding authoritative sources) that this is consequences of numerous artificial lakes changing the climate and that originally there were fewer trees.
Part of it's probably that. A lot of it, however, is due to farming and the dust bowl back in the '30s - especially in the western half of the state.
The prairie we had before we started farming was pretty good at preserving the soil. Wildfire kept the soil enriched and the trees down, and the grass kept the soil in place.
That all changed once we ripped up all the grass and started plowing. The wind here is pretty steady, and there weren't any trees to block it. Combine that with a severe drought, and the whole area became desolate and barren.
A lot of people left. Western Oklahoma is still very sparsely populated. But those who stayed planted trees to block the wind - mostly along creeks and between fields. Trees spread if you don't cut or burn them down.
It's not a forest out there by any means - most of the forested areas are closer to Arkansas. But there's certainly a lot more trees than there used to be, and the land has mostly recovered. I remember it being almost a desert when I was a kid - now it's mostly green.
I mean, life started out in the water, sure, but there was a lot between the first creatures to leave the sea and humans.
Unless you're referencing that theory that humans evolved near the ocean, hence our relative hairlessness and whatnot. I thought that theory was out of favor.
Linkedin kept sending me requests to join because some friend of a friend got my email address somehow and keeps trying to get me to "link" to him or whatever. I don't know the guy, and he's a musician and I'm not (at least, not professionally). So anything from Linkedin gets deleted automatically.
Some guy on Facebook put my email address in mistake, and I started getting all kinds of emails in what I think is Hindi. I sent an email to Facebook support asking them to rectify it, and they basically told me to fuck off. So anything from Facebook gets deleted automatically.
I do have a Google+ account, mostly to store my contacts for my phone (I was a truck driver for a few years and kept my deliery addresses and phone numbers on there - I lost 'em all when my iPhone hit the pavement at 75mph). A few family members are on there. All I see if I check it is crap like "So-and-so reccomends some crappy phone game!" twenty times in a row. It's wonderful how Google has gotten my own family to spam me. Oh well, at least it doesn't send me emails.
Twitter's not so bad, except during their signup process they try to get you to follow half the damn world. Once I figured out it wasn't actually required, I canned 'em all. I follow three people and pretty much never post. My only real bitch is that Twitter had some kind of issue a month or so back and had to email me fifty times to tell me I should log back in with my phone. I don't bother with twitter on my phone.
So if a poptential employer asks me why I'm not on , my answer is "because they're more trouble than they're worth."
Government does what it wants. The US just has more leverage, so they can actually pull it off. Most people wouldn't be deterred by pissing off, say, Albania.
There is a key difference here, and it's targeted toward non-goverment types. If some guy in Whogivesastan breaks into a bank and wires himself a lot of cash, there's not much the government can do about it other than what they're saying here.
If the Whogivesastan government breaks into a bank and wire themselves a lot of cash, it's a diplomatic incident. It won't be handled the same way.
The US isn't going to protect a script kiddie who breaks into a company in another country. If we have an extradition treaty, the US would most likely be happy to hand the little schmuck over. If we don't, they wouldn't care if said country did any asset seizure they could from where they are.
That's the key difference; they're saying it's OK for the government to do this stuff, but not individuals or non-government entities. If another government does this, they'll respond through diplomatic channels.
Oh I'm sure a free market will spring up to serve your needs in the future -- and people you identify with.
People I identify with? What people would that be? People in small houses? People whose energy bill could be lowered more by replacing the siding and adding insulation, instead of adding solar panels? People who happen to live on my street? People who like their trees?
And I'm not a libertarian. I don't share your faith in the free market.
If the trees have value -- which they do -- then some entrepreneur will figure out how to serve you.
Their value - to me - is that they look nice and partially block the view of my neighbor's hosue, which hasn't been painted since the Carter administration. I'm not going to pay "some entrepreneur" for the priveledge of keeping my own damn trees.
You should really be concerned with the average cost of energy, which everyone pays, regardless of the economic system. If the average cost is low, then the economy can only be good.
Which is why Venezuela has such a booming economy.
Look, I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me here. None of your points address the fact that trees block rooflines sometimes, and some owners are reluctant to remove the trees. Besides, solar poiwer in Oklahoma is silly. We've got enough wind to power half the country.
It's pretty flat. It's really flat in the panhandle (you can see the curvature of the earth, I swear). There's a decent amount of wind available.
Wind makes a lot of sense there. Drive along I20 west of Ft. Worth and you'll see huge stretches of wind turbines.
Thing about Texas - there's a lot of it. Most of the population is in the large cities. The state is largely conservative, so they don't worry so much about environmental regulations or trying to make the world a better place or anything. That means you can put down power plants pretty much anywhere, and hardly anyone will care. Texas doesn't need to import energy. The only reason the wind turbines are there is because they're profitable.
Ever been to California?
California's not exactly the greatest place for wind. Sure, there are flat areas that do get a lot of wind, but that's mostly in the south - which is desert, aka prime solar country. North Cali is is covered in mountains and trees. Not exactly good land for wind turbines.
California is largely progressive, which means they care about the environment and try to make the world a better place - through red tape. That means building power plants in California is a painful, expensive process. It also means they try to push energy efficiency as much as possible, so Californians actually use less electricity than, say, Texans.
California imports a lot of their electricity.
Now, add in the part of the article you apparently missed - ironically, the first line:
California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly.
The key words here are “more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation.” Considering they import a good chunk of their power, and use less electricity per person than the average Texan, it makes a lot more sense.
Only marginally related: you know why we get so much wind here in Oklahoma? Because Kansas sucks and Texas blows.
He brought up trees because many people have trees on their property that they'd have to cut down in order to put solar panels on their roofs.
I'd have to cut down about six or seven trees to uncover the south face of my roof. Since they're on the fenceline, I'd have to coordinate with my neighbor. It wouldn't be cheap - there's only about ten feet between our houses (post-WWII GI Bill neighborhood here, small lots and small houses) so extra care would be needed to keep the trees from damaging the houses.
It's enough that, had I the money to put solar on the roof (and if it was economically feasible - I have a small house), I wouldn't do it because I like the trees and don't want to remove them.
I don't keep anything in my vehicles that any cop would be interested in (I have neighbors who steal, so my cars are empty), but I still wouldn't say yes to a search.
They make a mess and don't clean it up. I swear, they do it for kicks.
If you tell them no, and they don't have a good reason to suspect you actually have something, they usually talk tough a bit and let you go. If they're pissed off enough they'll make you wait on a drug dog to sniff around in your car.
A friend of mine started doing this, and it never turned out bad for him. I never get pulled over anymore (I'm older and watch my speed) so I haven't had to face the situation in years.
Bear in mind, though, if you were doing something that might get you a ticket, pulling this stunt will definitely get you a ticket. Wasn't an issue for me or the aforesaid friend - we were getting pulled over because we were young guys with shitty cars and long hair.
The concrete used to create this wall is a drop in the bucket compared to the concrete used for making and maintaining roads.
Yeah, it's a big wall, but think on this: in the US, the concrete that makes up the interstate system is at least 11" thick. That's not counting any asphalt layer on top. Each lane is 10' wide. It's 47,714 miles long (as of 2012, according to wikipedia). Not counting shoulders, exits, bridges, etc. and assuming (incorrectly) that the interstate system is four-lane all the way, that's 331 cubic miles of concrete. And it gets completely rebuilt every few years.
The environmental impact from CO2 is going to be negligible.
(Offtopic: why doesn't slashdot support the <sub> tag? CO2 just looks wrong.)
US roads are fine, as far as highways go. I've driven about a million miles on them (literally).
Your expectations may be a bit high. Roads have a maintenance cycle. Yeah, they get kinda crappy toward the end of that cycle, but they're nowhere near as bad as they used to be.
City and county roads are a different matter, but that depends where you are.
Fuel stations for cars are relatively easy. There are plenty of unattended fuel stations in the US. The worst threat there is vandalism.
Trains are no problem at all. Use Diesel, have a fuel station every so many miles. One train pulling tank cars could go back and forth keeping everything filled. Theoretically, a train with a few tank cars could make the trip in one go (trains use a lot of fuel, sure, but those tank cars hold a lot of fuel).
The biggest problems I see are maintenance and banditry. It's expensive to keep the roads in good shape and clear of ice. And since much of that route is through large unpopulated areas, it's a great place for a gang to set up roadblocks and rob motorists.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it's a whole lot better than clearcutting forests.
So are snakes, which aren't particularly known for their walking abilities.
Just based on my personal experience, so the comment wasn't exactly scientific.
Most of my Georgia driving was around the Atlanta area. I've seen a lot of really stupid drivers over there.
Use furlongs for large measurements, rods and chains for small ones.
Metric? Is that one of those fancy newfangled yards?
You think so?
I can see it now...
Kansans driving into Texas, like they do in Oklahoma, going ten or more mph under the speed limit everywhere (I followed a guy for ten miles doing 35 on a highway before I could pass him. It wasn't an isolated incident.).
Texans crashing into said Kansans, because they drive 90 mph and have no idea how to operate a motor vehicle (Ever seen someone spin out on ice? I saw a Dallas driver do it on a street wet from someone's sprinkler. Complete 360 and into the curb.).
And there'd be 700 miles of I35 where nobody knew how to use a turn signal.
Now if we could just get Georgia into the mix somehow - they're worse drivers than Texans, believe it or not.
I've heard it claimed (having difficulty finding authoritative sources) that this is consequences of numerous artificial lakes changing the climate and that originally there were fewer trees.
Part of it's probably that. A lot of it, however, is due to farming and the dust bowl back in the '30s - especially in the western half of the state.
The prairie we had before we started farming was pretty good at preserving the soil. Wildfire kept the soil enriched and the trees down, and the grass kept the soil in place.
That all changed once we ripped up all the grass and started plowing. The wind here is pretty steady, and there weren't any trees to block it. Combine that with a severe drought, and the whole area became desolate and barren.
A lot of people left. Western Oklahoma is still very sparsely populated. But those who stayed planted trees to block the wind - mostly along creeks and between fields. Trees spread if you don't cut or burn them down.
It's not a forest out there by any means - most of the forested areas are closer to Arkansas. But there's certainly a lot more trees than there used to be, and the land has mostly recovered. I remember it being almost a desert when I was a kid - now it's mostly green.
Humans started out in the water?
I mean, life started out in the water, sure, but there was a lot between the first creatures to leave the sea and humans.
Unless you're referencing that theory that humans evolved near the ocean, hence our relative hairlessness and whatnot. I thought that theory was out of favor.
Linkedin kept sending me requests to join because some friend of a friend got my email address somehow and keeps trying to get me to "link" to him or whatever. I don't know the guy, and he's a musician and I'm not (at least, not professionally). So anything from Linkedin gets deleted automatically.
Some guy on Facebook put my email address in mistake, and I started getting all kinds of emails in what I think is Hindi. I sent an email to Facebook support asking them to rectify it, and they basically told me to fuck off. So anything from Facebook gets deleted automatically.
I do have a Google+ account, mostly to store my contacts for my phone (I was a truck driver for a few years and kept my deliery addresses and phone numbers on there - I lost 'em all when my iPhone hit the pavement at 75mph). A few family members are on there. All I see if I check it is crap like "So-and-so reccomends some crappy phone game!" twenty times in a row. It's wonderful how Google has gotten my own family to spam me. Oh well, at least it doesn't send me emails.
Twitter's not so bad, except during their signup process they try to get you to follow half the damn world. Once I figured out it wasn't actually required, I canned 'em all. I follow three people and pretty much never post. My only real bitch is that Twitter had some kind of issue a month or so back and had to email me fifty times to tell me I should log back in with my phone. I don't bother with twitter on my phone.
So if a poptential employer asks me why I'm not on , my answer is "because they're more trouble than they're worth."
As long as its immediate neighborhood is completely clear, anyway.
When matter falls into them you tend to get a lot of gamma rays.
They did the dihydrogen monoxide thing years ago. They try to mix it up a bit every year.
I miss OMG PONIES!
Government does what it wants. The US just has more leverage, so they can actually pull it off. Most people wouldn't be deterred by pissing off, say, Albania.
There is a key difference here, and it's targeted toward non-goverment types. If some guy in Whogivesastan breaks into a bank and wires himself a lot of cash, there's not much the government can do about it other than what they're saying here.
If the Whogivesastan government breaks into a bank and wire themselves a lot of cash, it's a diplomatic incident. It won't be handled the same way.
The US isn't going to protect a script kiddie who breaks into a company in another country. If we have an extradition treaty, the US would most likely be happy to hand the little schmuck over. If we don't, they wouldn't care if said country did any asset seizure they could from where they are.
That's the key difference; they're saying it's OK for the government to do this stuff, but not individuals or non-government entities. If another government does this, they'll respond through diplomatic channels.
Not saying it's right, but it's not hypocritical.
I have no idea what your point is.
Oh I'm sure a free market will spring up to serve your needs in the future -- and people you identify with.
People I identify with? What people would that be? People in small houses? People whose energy bill could be lowered more by replacing the siding and adding insulation, instead of adding solar panels? People who happen to live on my street? People who like their trees?
And I'm not a libertarian. I don't share your faith in the free market.
If the trees have value -- which they do -- then some entrepreneur will figure out how to serve you.
Their value - to me - is that they look nice and partially block the view of my neighbor's hosue, which hasn't been painted since the Carter administration. I'm not going to pay "some entrepreneur" for the priveledge of keeping my own damn trees.
You should really be concerned with the average cost of energy, which everyone pays, regardless of the economic system. If the average cost is low, then the economy can only be good.
Which is why Venezuela has such a booming economy.
Look, I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me here. None of your points address the fact that trees block rooflines sometimes, and some owners are reluctant to remove the trees. Besides, solar poiwer in Oklahoma is silly. We've got enough wind to power half the country.
Ever been to Texas?
It's pretty flat. It's really flat in the panhandle (you can see the curvature of the earth, I swear). There's a decent amount of wind available.
Wind makes a lot of sense there. Drive along I20 west of Ft. Worth and you'll see huge stretches of wind turbines.
Thing about Texas - there's a lot of it. Most of the population is in the large cities. The state is largely conservative, so they don't worry so much about environmental regulations or trying to make the world a better place or anything. That means you can put down power plants pretty much anywhere, and hardly anyone will care. Texas doesn't need to import energy. The only reason the wind turbines are there is because they're profitable.
Ever been to California?
California's not exactly the greatest place for wind. Sure, there are flat areas that do get a lot of wind, but that's mostly in the south - which is desert, aka prime solar country. North Cali is is covered in mountains and trees. Not exactly good land for wind turbines.
California is largely progressive, which means they care about the environment and try to make the world a better place - through red tape. That means building power plants in California is a painful, expensive process. It also means they try to push energy efficiency as much as possible, so Californians actually use less electricity than, say, Texans.
California imports a lot of their electricity.
Now, add in the part of the article you apparently missed - ironically, the first line:
California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly.
The key words here are “more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation.” Considering they import a good chunk of their power, and use less electricity per person than the average Texan, it makes a lot more sense.
Only marginally related: you know why we get so much wind here in Oklahoma? Because Kansas sucks and Texas blows.
He brought up trees because many people have trees on their property that they'd have to cut down in order to put solar panels on their roofs.
I'd have to cut down about six or seven trees to uncover the south face of my roof. Since they're on the fenceline, I'd have to coordinate with my neighbor. It wouldn't be cheap - there's only about ten feet between our houses (post-WWII GI Bill neighborhood here, small lots and small houses) so extra care would be needed to keep the trees from damaging the houses.
It's enough that, had I the money to put solar on the roof (and if it was economically feasible - I have a small house), I wouldn't do it because I like the trees and don't want to remove them.
I don't keep anything in my vehicles that any cop would be interested in (I have neighbors who steal, so my cars are empty), but I still wouldn't say yes to a search.
They make a mess and don't clean it up. I swear, they do it for kicks.
If you tell them no, and they don't have a good reason to suspect you actually have something, they usually talk tough a bit and let you go. If they're pissed off enough they'll make you wait on a drug dog to sniff around in your car.
A friend of mine started doing this, and it never turned out bad for him. I never get pulled over anymore (I'm older and watch my speed) so I haven't had to face the situation in years.
Bear in mind, though, if you were doing something that might get you a ticket, pulling this stunt will definitely get you a ticket. Wasn't an issue for me or the aforesaid friend - we were getting pulled over because we were young guys with shitty cars and long hair.
Maybe they'll all finally learn from SeaWorld and give this one horrible PR trick up for good.
I hope not. It'd make twitter a lot more boring.
I'm always logged in when I bash Texas.
If it wouldn't be horribly off topic, I'd be bashing them right now.
The concrete used to create this wall is a drop in the bucket compared to the concrete used for making and maintaining roads.
Yeah, it's a big wall, but think on this: in the US, the concrete that makes up the interstate system is at least 11" thick. That's not counting any asphalt layer on top. Each lane is 10' wide. It's 47,714 miles long (as of 2012, according to wikipedia). Not counting shoulders, exits, bridges, etc. and assuming (incorrectly) that the interstate system is four-lane all the way, that's 331 cubic miles of concrete. And it gets completely rebuilt every few years.
The environmental impact from CO2 is going to be negligible.
(Offtopic: why doesn't slashdot support the <sub> tag? CO2 just looks wrong.)
It does, actually, it just requires the right geography.
Here's one that hit Alaska back in the 50s.
Imagine what would happen if an earthquake in the north Atlantic caused a tsunami in Norway. You'd get insanely high waves in the fjords.
US roads are fine, as far as highways go. I've driven about a million miles on them (literally).
Your expectations may be a bit high. Roads have a maintenance cycle. Yeah, they get kinda crappy toward the end of that cycle, but they're nowhere near as bad as they used to be.
City and county roads are a different matter, but that depends where you are.
Fuel stations for cars are relatively easy. There are plenty of unattended fuel stations in the US. The worst threat there is vandalism.
Trains are no problem at all. Use Diesel, have a fuel station every so many miles. One train pulling tank cars could go back and forth keeping everything filled. Theoretically, a train with a few tank cars could make the trip in one go (trains use a lot of fuel, sure, but those tank cars hold a lot of fuel).
The biggest problems I see are maintenance and banditry. It's expensive to keep the roads in good shape and clear of ice. And since much of that route is through large unpopulated areas, it's a great place for a gang to set up roadblocks and rob motorists.
Everyday traffic does a good enough job of this already.
Ask any trucker what he thinks of going to NYC :)
Looks like Texas with snow.
Businesses are being hit. Quite a few are paying the ransom. They lose more money by not being able to work than they have to pay to the asshats.
Steve Gibson talked about it a lot on the Security Now! podcast a few months ago.
Iran doesn't need nuclear power to keep the lights on.
They've got... what was it? On the tip of my tounge... oh yeah - FUCKLOADS of oil.