I know you're being funny, even without the sarcasm tag...but true story:
My fiance's father asked me, on the subject of increasing fuel economy, why we couldn't just put generators on our axles to charge the battery instead of the alternator. Free energy! Then use an electric motor to move the vehicle instead of gasoline, free travel!
In the name of security we have the TSA, I am sure you are familiar with their current situation. If not, Google. And allow me a moment to give you a brief overview: strip-searching old women, patting down an 4 year old girl, targeting female passengers with full-body scans, smuggling...all in the name of fighting terrorism while at the same time providing the largest terrorist threat: insecure security checkpoints.
TSA needs to be shut down, they accomplish nothing but necessitating a ridiculously large crowd that is easy for a bomber to target. Since these crowds don't get bombed, there is no significant terrorist threat, and the TSA is uselss. But I digress.
In the name of security we now have the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). The goal again being a more secure internet. What we don't need is a more secure internet, the internet is secure enough for those who care enough (encryption via PGP, VPN's, E-mail anonymizers, etc.). What we do need is privacy. This bill threatens privacy too much; it is also too similar in scope to SOPA. I sent you a letter about SOPA, and though it wasn't in your consideration, you said you would keep these views in mind "should legislation regarding internet regulation come before the House of Representatives" (Letter to REDACTED, Jan 19, 2012). You also state "It is imperative that we recognize the need to balance the freedom promised by the Internet with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers and businesses."
You have failed.
The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which I am sure you swore an oath to uphold, states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." CISPA is in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights.
There are better ways that the goals of CISPA can be achieved, and they do not involve disclosure of private data to determine online threats. If you are unaware of these better ways, then you have no reason to be voting on such issues until you become better informed.
One of the goals of CISPA is to assist in reporting/detecting cybersecurity. That is all well and good, and can be done with ONLY IP Addresses and does not need to contain personal information of any sort.
In the name of security we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into abandoning our rights and allowing the government to strip us of our rights and convenience so that we can be safer. Catchall phrases such as "to protect against terrorism," "for the children," and "for national security" have been used all too much to justify blatant abuses of the government's power.
In the name of security our country has maintained the USA PATRIOT act, an act originally intended to be short-lived.
In the name of security we have become absurdly inconvenienced when traveling, had our privacy dissolved, and many basic rights washed away. This needs to end.
In the name of security we have allowed the terrorists to win: we have a government consistently and continually crushing our rights and eroding our freedoms, and this once-great nation is now the laughing stock of the free world because we are a disturbingly pitiful former shadow of ourselves.
As a US Marine Corps infantry machinegunner, I am ashamed of our government.
I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Emphasis mine. People forget the Constitution limits FEDERAL powers, but that
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)
So a state, not being specifically forbidden from limiting free speech, may in fact do so. They shouldn't, but they can.
and by the way, if you can't steer your car without power steering assist you're a pussy who should stay in the basement. parallel parking with a broken power steering belt is merely annoying
...saith the guy who obviously doesn't drive a diesel pickup.
Seriously though, dead power steering is worse than no power steering...but with a heavier vehicle, it become exceedingly difficult. It takes all 180 pounds of me to turn the wheel of a HMMWV with dead power steering, and that can only be done when it's moving, and I'm far from a pussy, though some days it would be nice to stay in a basement. My Dodge Ram, on the other hand...well, I'm sure that's just as difficult, but I haven't had my power steering pump die. But in a simple passenger car, yes, you are entirely correct.
I'd hate to die in a huge interstate pileup because some dipshit decided to push the overclocking on his car too far and it blue-screened on him at 80 mph.
Of course, many will point out that people have been tinkering with cars since they were invented, and that's true. But generally in the past, it took at least a modicum of skill to work on a car. Letting any douchebag with a computer plug in and play with any aspect of his car's functions is a little more scaring than a grease monkey putting in new headers on his 66 Mustang.
I'd hate to die in a huge interstate pileup because some dipshit decided to change the tires on his car and didn't tighten the lug nuts properly and the wheel fell off at 80 mph.
True story: My dad's wheel fell off his car doing 75mph north on I-25 outside of Colorado Springs in rush hour traffic. The reason: a cotter pin wasn't placed through the axle nut BY A PROFESSIONAL MECHANIC. These things happen every day, even those we trust fuck stuff up, we know this.
Your analogy of tweaking a car's computer to replacing headers is bogus. Headers are simple. Tweaking the computer takes much more technical savvy than does replacing headers, even factoring in the more technical aspect of a computer. People tweak their computers every day, ever see ads for a performance chip?
Yes there's a danger, but that's easily mitigated by using specialized connectors and interfacing to the system. The amount of people with the ability to fuck up changing wheels on a car compared to the amount that actually do is very minimal, and still most that can still have a professional do it.
There would undoubtedly be options to flash the car back to its original state, possibly requiring a dealership to do so. And other safeguards would be put in to ensure that a catastrophic failure does not occur: Oops, your software tweaks destroyed your valves, this isn't going to affect your brakes. Trying to make your brakes more efficient by turning up the generator that does your regenerative braking and fuck it up? I'm sure that particular safeguard is already in place. Some other unforeseen problem that could escalate to a catastrophic failure? Firmware kicks in and puts the car into limp mode
Overall, I say go for it. It might not be the best idea, but since when has the auto industry worked on best ideas?
I, an American Citizen and veteran of the Marine Corps where I served an an infantry machine gunner, and filling billets including intelligence analyst and company clerk, sincerely apologize for this.
Although this isn't my fault (for I was not allowed to vote while I was in the service. This is my opinion, I found it too much of a coincidence that my ballot and that of a friend from the same state arrived exactly 1 month to the day after it was supposed to be postmarked for return. Twice.), you can bet I will vote this round, and will not be voting for anyone that is currently in office, for they all allow these things to happen, which is an embarrassment to us all.
I'm E-mailing my senators and congressman now. I have other concerns to raise with them anyway, like why my state charges sales tax on private sales of vehicles (double taxation) and why they want to charge tax on the Real Market Value of said vehicle even though it was sold for 1/3 that price (taxing money not spent).
Sincerely,
Troubled American Citizen
P.S. Are you guys still open for citizenship? At times it's more prudent to abandon a sinking vessel rather than continue trying to fix what is so severely broken.
I will be a chrome user as soon as I can find an add-on that supports Opera-style tabs.
The only reason I turned away from Opera was becaues it's so standards-compliant it breaks a lot of the webpages I need to use. And that isn't a dis on Opera...
There are many places such as irrigation channels where you can place micro turbines that will have no ill environmental effect as these do not support aquatic life. It looks like this was not included in the report.
Irrigation canals DO support aquatic life. Where do you think they get the water from? Rivers.
It isn't necessarily vital aquatic life, but then where do you draw the line on vital vs. non-vital life?
The canals in Eastern Washington provide me with some of the best bow-fishing for carp in the region. Even the wasteways (surplus water from agricultural processes) have plentiful fish. And not just carp.
They're basically diverted rivers. That being said, turbines placed in irrigation canals will have less impact than those placed in full rivers. But even the impact of a full hydroelectric facility is manageable. Take the Columbia River, we still have record salmon runs from time to time.
One other hurdle with hydroelectric is that it is not considered renewable, so if there are mandates to require x% of electricity from renewable sources, hydro ain't gonna fit the bill due to lame liberals that deem is non-renewable.
Being a fan of hydroelectric power, I'm well aware of the issues on both sides of the argument, and still favor it. But I think what you pointed out on the latter portion of your post needs to be made more public, as it is an even better solution.
How do you get such a slanted view of things? I have no problem walking up to an officer with a rifle. No one I know would be hesitant to walk up to a police officer bearing a firearm. Rifles aren't dangerous when walking up to a police officer, they have time to react, so they aren't terribly worried. I have a loaded gun in my truck at all times and both times I've been pulled over I told the officer I had a loaded gun in the truck (concealed) and neither of them cared much or asked to see it. The only way your statement could be generally true is if you walked up to law enforcement with a rifle in a threatening manner, which is just plain dumb.
Maybe in a big city your claim that "If you come too close to law enforcement with something resembling a rifle, be prepared to be in a very sticky situation," might have some validity, but people in cities are uptight panicky assholes.
Yes, I know more than half our country's population lives in cities...that explains our political situation as well.
That's where the cracking and polymerization come into play. That's what modern distillation gives us, the ability to do that. It still costs more energy to do so, and would be more efficient to not do so.
Diesel engines weren't originally intended to run on vegetable oil. They were invented using kerosene (mostly). One of Rudolph Diesel's dreams was to have them available to farmers which ran on peanut oil. One of his demonstrations was running the engine on peanut oil to prove that it could use vegetable oil.
Petroleum was cheaper, so the diesel engine was modified for tighter clearances that petroleum diesel fuel allowed, and the engine became too "tight" for vegetable oil.
The engine wasn't DESIGNED or originally intended to run on vegetable oil, but it was one of the desired fuels for the engine after it was created.
Switching to biodiesel is a great step forward. Biodiesel reduces ALL harmful emissions of a diesel engine except possibly NOx. NOx can go up if cylinder temperatures get too high, but if cylinder temperatures are kept in check (which is a good thing to do, because high cylinder temperatures = high exhaust gas temperatures, and high EGT is bad for a turbocharger) then the NOx is about the same as conventional diesel. I'm not sure about the exhaust of straight vegetable oil, however.
I hope this won't be used to fuel the hysteria against diesel.
For some reason, tree-huggers driving huge waste-emitting SUVs (so they can drive to the forest to hug those trees) seem to think diesel is the Devil's fume.
A properly tuned modern diesel engine is sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other vs. gasoline. Some emissions are better, some worse. The Euro Standards have done a lot to reduce them.
And if you're riding a bicycle, you might have some standing. But please don't preach about diesel sitting in your gasoline-guzzler.
p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.
I've done research, and it would be better for our economy to use more diesel. Better for the economy, better for oil consumption, better for the environment. The reason is this: in a barrel of oil, x% of it gets easily refined into gasoline, y% into diesel (I don't have the numbers handy on this computer, but a quick Google search can turn them up for the intrigued mind). Our country fuel use is >x% gasoline, y% diesel. We make up the difference in gasoline need by cracking heavier oils and polymerizing lighter oils. This takes more energy. It can easily be seen that if we got out fuel use to more closely match the ratio that gasoline and diesel are easily refined, we would have significant energy savings. Thus more diesel engines, raise the demand for diesel, get closer to that y%, and cost of fuel will probably drop because we are meeting the supply more directly. Then again, prices will probably rise anyway, just because they can and we'll pay.
I don't really know what's there to tune on a modern Diesel engine. Care to elaborate? There are no adjustments, if it doesn't work right then something is worn out -- say, injectors, fuel pump, air mass sensor, rings,...
Tune how much fuel is injected, how many injections per cycle, how long the injections take place. You can get higher-performance injectors, pumps, increase the airflow through the engine...there's all sorts of things to tune in a diesel engine.
A properly tuned diesel won't emit black soot, runs cooler than a comparable gas engine thus has higher energy efficiency. An improperly tuned engine (injecting too much fuel, or at the wrong time) can emit tons of black soot.
Mythbusters covered this. Not for the recoil, but for accuracy. If I remember correctly, the recoil was in line with what nedlohs (1335013) said below:
Except of course the guns center of gravity is unlikely to be exactly in line with that force and so you get torque. Also you are holding the gun below where that force is being applied providing a pivot for the same conversion into torque.
This doesn't cause the gun to be driven upward, it causes it to rotate. If you were to holsd the gun sideways that same pivot would now cause the gun to rotate sideways.
I noticed that holding the gun sideways did cause it to rotate in the same direction as when it was fired upright, respective to its orientation (in other words, fired upright, it rotates up; fired sideways, it rotates sideways).
I think the teacher's union would have more credibility if teachers were ever fired for poor performance. If there appeared to be any kind of performance-based accountability, the public might not care about this.
In a union you can't be fired for poor performance, the union will go on strike. Unless everyone in the union doesn't like you (which doesn't have anything to do with job performance). Straight from my buddy in the electrical union: if a worker sucks, he gets laid off from his current employer and put back on the list for employment. He never gets fired because the union will strike UNLESS he is an asshole and the union doesn't like him.
Obviously this won't be true for all unions, but it is true for every one I've looked at. Unions kill productivity and the companies.
I think the teacher's union would have more credibility if teachers were ever fired for poor performance. If there appeared to be any kind of performance-based accountability, the public might not care about this.
That's the core of the argument, but the part the union is fighting. This is the kind of fight which erodes the union's credibility.
Back when I lived in Michigan the auto workers unions were busy blaming the car companies for their eroding market share, quality of cars, etc. Then an amazing magazine, as part of the Detroit Free Press, was published containing several accounts by former auto workers, who seemed to be lacking a lot of guile or simply felt there was nothing to lose, confessing how overstaffed the assembly lines where - because the union would never back down. At the least little action by companies the workers would go on strike, so they hamstrung the automakers. Now it's a different generation of auto workers and a leaner, more competitive several auto companies. The excesses forced upon the manufacturers have taken decades to undo, nearly bringing GM and Chrysler to the end in 2008, because they were still saddled with retirement and benefit plans, negotiated decades before, which were crushing the companies.
It did the same to Ford. They just brought in a new CEO, Alan Mulally, who was from outside the industry. He noticed how screwed up everything was and mortgaged practically everything Ford had to stay afloat.
Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.
On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.
Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.
The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov./ Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for the justices, but I can speak for my elected representatives!
My congressman and both senators don't know what the 4th Amendment is: http://slashdot.org/my/journal
I know you're being funny, even without the sarcasm tag...but true story:
My fiance's father asked me, on the subject of increasing fuel economy, why we couldn't just put generators on our axles to charge the battery instead of the alternator. Free energy! Then use an electric motor to move the vehicle instead of gasoline, free travel!
Unfortunately, he wasn't kidding.
Such as..?
Honest question.
Rough draft. Edited to protect MY privacy:
In the name of security we have the TSA, I am sure you are familiar with their current situation. If not, Google. And allow me a moment to give you a brief overview: strip-searching old women, patting down an 4 year old girl, targeting female passengers with full-body scans, smuggling...all in the name of fighting terrorism while at the same time providing the largest terrorist threat: insecure security checkpoints.
TSA needs to be shut down, they accomplish nothing but necessitating a ridiculously large crowd that is easy for a bomber to target. Since these crowds don't get bombed, there is no significant terrorist threat, and the TSA is uselss. But I digress.
In the name of security we now have the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). The goal again being a more secure internet. What we don't need is a more secure internet, the internet is secure enough for those who care enough (encryption via PGP, VPN's, E-mail anonymizers, etc.). What we do need is privacy. This bill threatens privacy too much; it is also too similar in scope to SOPA. I sent you a letter about SOPA, and though it wasn't in your consideration, you said you would keep these views in mind "should legislation regarding internet regulation come before the House of Representatives" (Letter to REDACTED, Jan 19, 2012). You also state "It is imperative that we recognize the need to balance the freedom promised by the Internet with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers and businesses."
You have failed.
The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which I am sure you swore an oath to uphold, states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." CISPA is in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights.
There are better ways that the goals of CISPA can be achieved, and they do not involve disclosure of private data to determine online threats. If you are unaware of these better ways, then you have no reason to be voting on such issues until you become better informed.
One of the goals of CISPA is to assist in reporting/detecting cybersecurity. That is all well and good, and can be done with ONLY IP Addresses and does not need to contain personal information of any sort.
In the name of security we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into abandoning our rights and allowing the government to strip us of our rights and convenience so that we can be safer. Catchall phrases such as "to protect against terrorism," "for the children," and "for national security" have been used all too much to justify blatant abuses of the government's power.
In the name of security our country has maintained the USA PATRIOT act, an act originally intended to be short-lived.
In the name of security we have become absurdly inconvenienced when traveling, had our privacy dissolved, and many basic rights washed away. This needs to end.
In the name of security we have allowed the terrorists to win: we have a government consistently and continually crushing our rights and eroding our freedoms, and this once-great nation is now the laughing stock of the free world because we are a disturbingly pitiful former shadow of ourselves.
As a US Marine Corps infantry machinegunner, I am ashamed of our government.
I'm E-mailing my congressman now (Hastings). I'll E-mail my Senators too, for good measure.
And come election time, I am voting for absolutely no one that currently holds a federal political position. We need to purge the system.
Interesting, I stand corrected. Thanks; once again, the money paid to educate me through public education and college has been for naught...
Learning this actually makes me sort of happy that I'm wrong.
The first amendment doesn't apply here anyway.
I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Emphasis mine. People forget the Constitution limits FEDERAL powers, but that
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)
So a state, not being specifically forbidden from limiting free speech, may in fact do so. They shouldn't, but they can.
Gasoline engines are only 15-20% efficient.
Gasoline engines are 20-30% efficient, up to 35%. Diesel engines are higher, up to 50% thermal efficiency.
Gasoline: 47.2*.25 = 11.18Z
Diesel: 47.02*.35 = 16.52
and by the way, if you can't steer your car without power steering assist you're a pussy who should stay in the basement. parallel parking with a broken power steering belt is merely annoying
...saith the guy who obviously doesn't drive a diesel pickup.
Seriously though, dead power steering is worse than no power steering...but with a heavier vehicle, it become exceedingly difficult. It takes all 180 pounds of me to turn the wheel of a HMMWV with dead power steering, and that can only be done when it's moving, and I'm far from a pussy, though some days it would be nice to stay in a basement. My Dodge Ram, on the other hand...well, I'm sure that's just as difficult, but I haven't had my power steering pump die. But in a simple passenger car, yes, you are entirely correct.
I'd hate to die in a huge interstate pileup because some dipshit decided to push the overclocking on his car too far and it blue-screened on him at 80 mph.
Of course, many will point out that people have been tinkering with cars since they were invented, and that's true. But generally in the past, it took at least a modicum of skill to work on a car. Letting any douchebag with a computer plug in and play with any aspect of his car's functions is a little more scaring than a grease monkey putting in new headers on his 66 Mustang.
I'd hate to die in a huge interstate pileup because some dipshit decided to change the tires on his car and didn't tighten the lug nuts properly and the wheel fell off at 80 mph.
True story: My dad's wheel fell off his car doing 75mph north on I-25 outside of Colorado Springs in rush hour traffic. The reason: a cotter pin wasn't placed through the axle nut BY A PROFESSIONAL MECHANIC. These things happen every day, even those we trust fuck stuff up, we know this.
Your analogy of tweaking a car's computer to replacing headers is bogus. Headers are simple. Tweaking the computer takes much more technical savvy than does replacing headers, even factoring in the more technical aspect of a computer. People tweak their computers every day, ever see ads for a performance chip?
Yes there's a danger, but that's easily mitigated by using specialized connectors and interfacing to the system. The amount of people with the ability to fuck up changing wheels on a car compared to the amount that actually do is very minimal, and still most that can still have a professional do it.
There would undoubtedly be options to flash the car back to its original state, possibly requiring a dealership to do so. And other safeguards would be put in to ensure that a catastrophic failure does not occur: Oops, your software tweaks destroyed your valves, this isn't going to affect your brakes. Trying to make your brakes more efficient by turning up the generator that does your regenerative braking and fuck it up? I'm sure that particular safeguard is already in place. Some other unforeseen problem that could escalate to a catastrophic failure? Firmware kicks in and puts the car into limp mode
Overall, I say go for it. It might not be the best idea, but since when has the auto industry worked on best ideas?
Dear Australia,
I, an American Citizen and veteran of the Marine Corps where I served an an infantry machine gunner, and filling billets including intelligence analyst and company clerk, sincerely apologize for this.
Although this isn't my fault (for I was not allowed to vote while I was in the service. This is my opinion, I found it too much of a coincidence that my ballot and that of a friend from the same state arrived exactly 1 month to the day after it was supposed to be postmarked for return. Twice.), you can bet I will vote this round, and will not be voting for anyone that is currently in office, for they all allow these things to happen, which is an embarrassment to us all.
I'm E-mailing my senators and congressman now. I have other concerns to raise with them anyway, like why my state charges sales tax on private sales of vehicles (double taxation) and why they want to charge tax on the Real Market Value of said vehicle even though it was sold for 1/3 that price (taxing money not spent).
Sincerely,
Troubled American Citizen
P.S. Are you guys still open for citizenship? At times it's more prudent to abandon a sinking vessel rather than continue trying to fix what is so severely broken.
I will be a chrome user as soon as I can find an add-on that supports Opera-style tabs.
The only reason I turned away from Opera was becaues it's so standards-compliant it breaks a lot of the webpages I need to use. And that isn't a dis on Opera...
Because I can shoot them with a bow. That's pretty much it.
There are many places such as irrigation channels where you can place micro turbines that will have no ill environmental effect as these do not support aquatic life. It looks like this was not included in the report.
Irrigation canals DO support aquatic life. Where do you think they get the water from? Rivers.
It isn't necessarily vital aquatic life, but then where do you draw the line on vital vs. non-vital life?
The canals in Eastern Washington provide me with some of the best bow-fishing for carp in the region. Even the wasteways (surplus water from agricultural processes) have plentiful fish. And not just carp.
They're basically diverted rivers. That being said, turbines placed in irrigation canals will have less impact than those placed in full rivers. But even the impact of a full hydroelectric facility is manageable. Take the Columbia River, we still have record salmon runs from time to time.
One other hurdle with hydroelectric is that it is not considered renewable, so if there are mandates to require x% of electricity from renewable sources, hydro ain't gonna fit the bill due to lame liberals that deem is non-renewable.
Being a fan of hydroelectric power, I'm well aware of the issues on both sides of the argument, and still favor it. But I think what you pointed out on the latter portion of your post needs to be made more public, as it is an even better solution.
How do you get such a slanted view of things? I have no problem walking up to an officer with a rifle. No one I know would be hesitant to walk up to a police officer bearing a firearm. Rifles aren't dangerous when walking up to a police officer, they have time to react, so they aren't terribly worried. I have a loaded gun in my truck at all times and both times I've been pulled over I told the officer I had a loaded gun in the truck (concealed) and neither of them cared much or asked to see it. The only way your statement could be generally true is if you walked up to law enforcement with a rifle in a threatening manner, which is just plain dumb.
Maybe in a big city your claim that "If you come too close to law enforcement with something resembling a rifle, be prepared to be in a very sticky situation," might have some validity, but people in cities are uptight panicky assholes.
Yes, I know more than half our country's population lives in cities...that explains our political situation as well.
What?
You lost me at "big breasted."
Where do I sign up?
Now now, we know that prior art doesn't matter anymore. Remember our awesomely wonderful patent reform? http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/09/0042242/patent-reform-bill-passes-senate. Amazon is the first to file, so obviously they retain all the rights!
Of course I didn't RTFAs
The Black Company by Glen Cook.
That's where the cracking and polymerization come into play. That's what modern distillation gives us, the ability to do that. It still costs more energy to do so, and would be more efficient to not do so.
Diesel engines weren't originally intended to run on vegetable oil. They were invented using kerosene (mostly). One of Rudolph Diesel's dreams was to have them available to farmers which ran on peanut oil. One of his demonstrations was running the engine on peanut oil to prove that it could use vegetable oil.
Petroleum was cheaper, so the diesel engine was modified for tighter clearances that petroleum diesel fuel allowed, and the engine became too "tight" for vegetable oil.
The engine wasn't DESIGNED or originally intended to run on vegetable oil, but it was one of the desired fuels for the engine after it was created.
Switching to biodiesel is a great step forward. Biodiesel reduces ALL harmful emissions of a diesel engine except possibly NOx. NOx can go up if cylinder temperatures get too high, but if cylinder temperatures are kept in check (which is a good thing to do, because high cylinder temperatures = high exhaust gas temperatures, and high EGT is bad for a turbocharger) then the NOx is about the same as conventional diesel. I'm not sure about the exhaust of straight vegetable oil, however.
I hope this won't be used to fuel the hysteria against diesel.
For some reason, tree-huggers driving huge waste-emitting SUVs (so they can drive to the forest to hug those trees) seem to think diesel is the Devil's fume.
A properly tuned modern diesel engine is sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other vs. gasoline. Some emissions are better, some worse. The Euro Standards have done a lot to reduce them.
And if you're riding a bicycle, you might have some standing. But please don't preach about diesel sitting in your gasoline-guzzler.
p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.
I've done research, and it would be better for our economy to use more diesel. Better for the economy, better for oil consumption, better for the environment. The reason is this: in a barrel of oil, x% of it gets easily refined into gasoline, y% into diesel (I don't have the numbers handy on this computer, but a quick Google search can turn them up for the intrigued mind). Our country fuel use is >x% gasoline, y% diesel. We make up the difference in gasoline need by cracking heavier oils and polymerizing lighter oils. This takes more energy. It can easily be seen that if we got out fuel use to more closely match the ratio that gasoline and diesel are easily refined, we would have significant energy savings. Thus more diesel engines, raise the demand for diesel, get closer to that y%, and cost of fuel will probably drop because we are meeting the supply more directly. Then again, prices will probably rise anyway, just because they can and we'll pay.
I don't really know what's there to tune on a modern Diesel engine. Care to elaborate? There are no adjustments, if it doesn't work right then something is worn out -- say, injectors, fuel pump, air mass sensor, rings, ...
Tune how much fuel is injected, how many injections per cycle, how long the injections take place. You can get higher-performance injectors, pumps, increase the airflow through the engine...there's all sorts of things to tune in a diesel engine. A properly tuned diesel won't emit black soot, runs cooler than a comparable gas engine thus has higher energy efficiency. An improperly tuned engine (injecting too much fuel, or at the wrong time) can emit tons of black soot.
Except of course the guns center of gravity is unlikely to be exactly in line with that force and so you get torque. Also you are holding the gun below where that force is being applied providing a pivot for the same conversion into torque.
This doesn't cause the gun to be driven upward, it causes it to rotate. If you were to holsd the gun sideways that same pivot would now cause the gun to rotate sideways.
I noticed that holding the gun sideways did cause it to rotate in the same direction as when it was fired upright, respective to its orientation (in other words, fired upright, it rotates up; fired sideways, it rotates sideways).
I think the teacher's union would have more credibility if teachers were ever fired for poor performance. If there appeared to be any kind of performance-based accountability, the public might not care about this.
In a union you can't be fired for poor performance, the union will go on strike. Unless everyone in the union doesn't like you (which doesn't have anything to do with job performance). Straight from my buddy in the electrical union: if a worker sucks, he gets laid off from his current employer and put back on the list for employment. He never gets fired because the union will strike UNLESS he is an asshole and the union doesn't like him. Obviously this won't be true for all unions, but it is true for every one I've looked at. Unions kill productivity and the companies.
I think the teacher's union would have more credibility if teachers were ever fired for poor performance. If there appeared to be any kind of performance-based accountability, the public might not care about this.
That's the core of the argument, but the part the union is fighting. This is the kind of fight which erodes the union's credibility.
Back when I lived in Michigan the auto workers unions were busy blaming the car companies for their eroding market share, quality of cars, etc. Then an amazing magazine, as part of the Detroit Free Press, was published containing several accounts by former auto workers, who seemed to be lacking a lot of guile or simply felt there was nothing to lose, confessing how overstaffed the assembly lines where - because the union would never back down. At the least little action by companies the workers would go on strike, so they hamstrung the automakers. Now it's a different generation of auto workers and a leaner, more competitive several auto companies. The excesses forced upon the manufacturers have taken decades to undo, nearly bringing GM and Chrysler to the end in 2008, because they were still saddled with retirement and benefit plans, negotiated decades before, which were crushing the companies.
It did the same to Ford. They just brought in a new CEO, Alan Mulally, who was from outside the industry. He noticed how screwed up everything was and mortgaged practically everything Ford had to stay afloat.
Dear Mr.[redacted],
Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.
On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.
Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.
The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov./ Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/