The state I live in gets half it's power from nuclear reactors, it's almost 9 million people and a bunch of industry... Good luck with those batteries.
The German experience with pebble bed reactors has been terrible, of course they're happy to sell it to China anyway:)
If we've seen the worst of Japan's current situation then I favor by a long way. Huge earthquake and tsunami smashing into the power plant and yet no Chernobyl style "end of the (local human) world". It's basically a worst case* scenario (for a natural disaster, not for human stupidity) and while the reactors are toast and they've dumped a bunch of radioactive material into the ocean it's nowhere near as bad as the anti-nuclear power folk present the risks of nuclear power in general.
* Well there's always the Hollywood style earthquake in which a huge crack opens in the ground and swallows the reactor whole, or the asteroid homing in on the reactor like a cruise missile.
And don't forget that 10,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami and almost double that are missing. The direct an indirect deaths from this won't make a significant difference to that total.
Unless a reactor goes all Chernobyl and shoots out chunks of core in an explosion - that still won't effect the death statistics too much but you have to count a pretty large cost for a Chernobyl style exclusion zone in a much more densely populated area. And that's not going to happen anyway.
Fighters already exceed the capability of the pilot in terms of maneveuring - it doesn't matter if you make the planes even better the pilot will still black out/die anyway.
but the meter for your time spend making long distance phone calls from you land line isn't. Neither is the meter tracking how much time you spend on a cell phone call.
So clearly certified meters at your home are not a universal method.
That's why they want to use both a tax on gas and tax on milage.
And how does a percentage tax on gas make a difference. If people are really using less gas then there's less demand and the price of gas will go down. So you both have less gas sold and it is sold at a lower price putting a double hit on the revenue from a gas tax.
But yes implementing it would seem to be complicated or privacy invading or not actually as targetted as claimed.
Deciding to add a 1% sales tax and keep the 10% income tax is double dipping and hence more evil than just doubling the income tax to 20%?
They want to raise $X in tax revenue what difference does it make if they increase an existing tax or add a new tax? If they can target the new tax better than any of the existing taxes (as is the case here) then surely that's a plus for adding a new one?
The Supreme Court made a ridiculous decision 20 years ago and decided that clear fourth amendment violations aren't fourth amendment violations if they publicize them first. So advance publicity is needed in order for the PD to fit in to the fourth amenedment exlusion zone created by the supreme court and so not to be sued into oblivion.
My mother owns a house that is worth far more than her yearly income. Just like there's more wealth on the planet than just what is produced in one year.
There are plenty of alternate currencies about that are perfectly legal
Given that the exact currency that has seen the guy being referenced convicted is in that list, what makes you so certain all the other ones aren't also going to be treated the same way by the government?
It's not really anything to do with out capabilities. It's whether we get out more energy that we put in. In we don't then it's "storage". If we do it's "fuel".
If we could dug up metallic aluminium (as opposed to oxides) then the suggested thing would be a fuel suddenly. But that's nothing to do with our capabilities that's just what exists on the planet.
* Goes off running to go show this to his creationist "friends"...*
In that context "creationist" can't mean anything but "young earth creationist". If you use any other meaning for "creationist" the post makes no sense at all, and so doing to is misrepresenting the statement.
That isn't what creationist means, in the context being used. It's short-hand for "young earth creationist, which is in turn short for "evolution didn't happen, God created everything in 6 days just like the bible says". Everyone knows that, well maybe you really are ignorant of context rather than just intentionally misinterpreting.
And there's only one rant in this thread, and it's not by anyone claiming religious types are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The state I live in gets half it's power from nuclear reactors, it's almost 9 million people and a bunch of industry... Good luck with those batteries.
The German experience with pebble bed reactors has been terrible, of course they're happy to sell it to China anyway :)
There's unknown risks in everything.
If we've seen the worst of Japan's current situation then I favor by a long way. Huge earthquake and tsunami smashing into the power plant and yet no Chernobyl style "end of the (local human) world". It's basically a worst case* scenario (for a natural disaster, not for human stupidity) and while the reactors are toast and they've dumped a bunch of radioactive material into the ocean it's nowhere near as bad as the anti-nuclear power folk present the risks of nuclear power in general.
* Well there's always the Hollywood style earthquake in which a huge crack opens in the ground and swallows the reactor whole, or the asteroid homing in on the reactor like a cruise missile.
And don't forget that 10,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami and almost double that are missing. The direct an indirect deaths from this won't make a significant difference to that total.
Unless a reactor goes all Chernobyl and shoots out chunks of core in an explosion - that still won't effect the death statistics too much but you have to count a pretty large cost for a Chernobyl style exclusion zone in a much more densely populated area. And that's not going to happen anyway.
You contradict yourself with A and C. The "energy issue" can't still need "cracking" if we can produce as much as we need of it.
Really?
I've never seen a bird break the sound barrier.
Fighters already exceed the capability of the pilot in terms of maneveuring - it doesn't matter if you make the planes even better the pilot will still black out/die anyway.
See which keyboards/track pads/screen/etc she prefers. Then buy whatever specs you need on that model.
of course, that's why I didn't say they have no reason to.
That they know isn't the issue. That they keep the data for longer than they need to route your calls and data is the issue.
They have no* need to know where your phone was 2 hours ago, let alone last Tuesday, or 4 months ago.
* Well for provisioning purposes they likely want to know usage rates on a location/time basis - but that can be aggregate data.
but the meter for your time spend making long distance phone calls from you land line isn't. Neither is the meter tracking how much time you spend on a cell phone call.
So clearly certified meters at your home are not a universal method.
Adderall might help though.
They're just using the astronomer's definition of metal.
That's why they want to use both a tax on gas and tax on milage.
And how does a percentage tax on gas make a difference. If people are really using less gas then there's less demand and the price of gas will go down. So you both have less gas sold and it is sold at a lower price putting a double hit on the revenue from a gas tax.
But yes implementing it would seem to be complicated or privacy invading or not actually as targetted as claimed.
How is that double dipping?
Deciding to add a 1% sales tax and keep the 10% income tax is double dipping and hence more evil than just doubling the income tax to 20%?
They want to raise $X in tax revenue what difference does it make if they increase an existing tax or add a new tax? If they can target the new tax better than any of the existing taxes (as is the case here) then surely that's a plus for adding a new one?
It's got nothing to do with entrapment.
The Supreme Court made a ridiculous decision 20 years ago and decided that clear fourth amendment violations aren't fourth amendment violations if they publicize them first. So advance publicity is needed in order for the PD to fit in to the fourth amenedment exlusion zone created by the supreme court and so not to be sued into oblivion.
Wow you suck understanding english words.
They didn't screw it up the first time, it was exactly what they wanted.
GDP is the equivalent of income not assets.
My mother owns a house that is worth far more than her yearly income. Just like there's more wealth on the planet than just what is produced in one year.
The announce the checkpoints because the Supreme Court said they have to, not because they want to.
Great ideas. Screw the consitution, that makes life much easier for the police.
That's not the only thing they charged him with though (I have no idea what things he actually got convicted of).
Given that the exact currency that has seen the guy being referenced convicted is in that list, what makes you so certain all the other ones aren't also going to be treated the same way by the government?
It's not really anything to do with out capabilities. It's whether we get out more energy that we put in. In we don't then it's "storage". If we do it's "fuel".
If we could dug up metallic aluminium (as opposed to oxides) then the suggested thing would be a fuel suddenly. But that's nothing to do with our capabilities that's just what exists on the planet.
Can you just not read or something?
Here's the OP In full:
In that context "creationist" can't mean anything but "young earth creationist". If you use any other meaning for "creationist" the post makes no sense at all, and so doing to is misrepresenting the statement.
That isn't what creationist means, in the context being used. It's short-hand for "young earth creationist, which is in turn short for "evolution didn't happen, God created everything in 6 days just like the bible says". Everyone knows that, well maybe you really are ignorant of context rather than just intentionally misinterpreting.
And there's only one rant in this thread, and it's not by anyone claiming religious types are wrong.
The rest of us know what "creationist" means, but don't let your ignorance get in the way of your ranting.