Gasoline and other petrofuel prices are going nowhere but up, up, up, until there isn't enough to use for fuel anymore (oil and natural gas, anyway). And the actual costs of pumping all that CO2 into the Greenhouse are hard to calculate: how much does Greenland melting the seas 20 feet higher cost?
The Technology Review article about the tech is more specific about the material's heat/electricity conversion efficiency. Evidently the current zT:0.87 material is about 6% efficient; the zT:1.5 material already achieved therefore is about 10% (about 10.3448276%) efficient. A zT:3.0 device is about 21% (about 20.6896552%) efficient.
10% of the 60% of gasoline's energy content wasted as heat is 6% of the gasoline's energy. If the car got the average 20% fuel efficiency, that extra 6 points would be 30% more than the original 20%. A zT:3.0/21% would be 12.6 points extra, or 63% more than 20% to 32.6%.
A 30MPG car today would get 39MPG tomorrow with the current version material. It would get 48.9MPG with the forecast zT:3 material.
What I'm really interested in seeing is how embedding the higher zT materials inside fuelcells boost their efficiency. Because fuelcells aren't heat engines, they're not limited to the Carnot Cycle's 40% max efficiency. They already get 50% efficiency or greater at "native" voltages (like 1.48V), where their max theoretical efficiency is 83%. But still, much of their 17%+ inefficiency is generating heat. So they can be even more efficient with heat reclamation, perhaps in practice actually approaching that 83% efficiency.
Not if they recycle it. The scientists point out that the heat reclaimer component, with no moving parts, will last the lifetimes of several cars. So it should be reused rather than disposed.
Besides, cars already contain lots of highly toxic materials, especially if you consider the toxic products when cars burn, which many do.
But quadrupling them would. The old max zT these researchers were improving was about 0.87. They've now got it to about 1.5. And are targeting about 3.0 in their current research.
Freon refrigerators have a zT of about 3.0. Which makes these new materials look directly competitive with them for cooling when they reach that efficiency. Since zT 1 materials are about 10% efficient, zT 3 will be able to reclaim about 30% of waste heat. That would be about 20 points of the ~60% of gasoline energy wasted as heat in car engines. Since car engines are about 20% efficient now, that would mean doubling their fuel efficiency.
If these materials can be made, deployed, and recycled with close to (or less than) the energy inputs required now to make the car radiators/manifolds/exhaust systems they'd probably mostly replace, the benefits would be revolutionary.
I don't know what the "rationale" for this law was, and I don't think laws really are ever primarily the product of a "rationale".
But I do think I can guess what the people who do have licenses think of it: that it protects their limited supply of space-based imagery. And I expect that the spooks who've long run NOAA's atmospheric imaging programmes to serve their "Star Wars" missile defense programmes think that it protects their ability to monopolize the availability of space-based imagery.
If this stuff can efficiently convert heat to electricity with very little energy input to manufacture it (compared to, say, steam engines), and can withstand high temperatures without being destroyed, what would it do to geothermal electric production?
Would it not only increase the efficiency of the plants, but perhaps also make accessible lots of geothermal that is expensive to reach with today's bulky mechanical probes? Could we just drill to hot depths, then snake cables down it, and "plug into the ground"?
This advance's benefits are all described in terms of an increased zT now up to 1.5, predicted to go up to 3 or so in the really perfected version of the material. But what does "zT" mean in actual efficiency?
In real terms, let's say that a car engine today consumes about 300KW total contained in its gasoline flow, converting about 20% of that into 60KW for forward motion, and about 60% of that into about 180KW of heat (out the exhaust, and heating the engine/radiator, car and road). If the zT 1.5 material were used at maximum effectiveness in capturing some of that 60%/180KW waste heat as electricity, how many KW of electricity would it put out, into, say, a battery?
Even though that article linked from the summary says that typical engines in cars get about 25% of the gasoline's energy content into car motion, it's actually about 20%. That's a lot of wasted energy: about 4:1 waste:use.
But lots of combined cycle plants (like CCGT gas turbines) reclaim a lot of their waste heat into more power. Taking a maximum mechanical power extraction of 60% of the gas' energy up to 85% by heating steam, which is an additional 25% of the original mechanical power.
CCGT reclamation tech is probably not practical for vehicles, so this new material is a welcome advance. Especially if the researchers get the zT from its new 1.5 high to its predicted 3.0 or so. But in fact DARPA has funded Trinh Vo at Lawrence Livermore National Labs to grow nanowires that already have a zT at 3.
More of that kind of material research is very welcome, because at zT 3, these materials can replace freon refrigerators with the same electrical efficiency. Since freon refrigerators require lots of energy to build, and then to recycle, replacing them with a simple material that can scale to any size (including very small, as in microelectronics), means a vast sector of modern industry, including transportation, could switch. If making the material is less energy intensive, and less reliant on a limited critical resource than the freon refrigerators or the CCGT reclamation systems, global energy efficiency could take a giant leap.
A leap that could be just around the corner, in Ohio.
The article at the Green Car Congress site titled New Approach to Developing Thermoelectric Materials Doubles Efficiency" has a lot more scientific details than that article linked from the summary, especially on the actual formula that determines "zT", which is the thermoelectric conversion efficiency coefficient:
The dimensionless zT for thermoelectric materials is calculated by the formula zT= T*(S2)/), where S is the thermoelectric power or Seebeck coefficient of the TE material, and are the electrical and thermal conductivities, respectively, and T is the absolute temperature.
And also detailed nanomaterials engineering analysis of the quantum structure of the quantum chemistry's thermoelectric effects.
Yes, that's what I said. It wouldn't matter if they used spectrum auction money or general fund tax money: that's all money that belongs to the people. Spent to subsidize the TV corps' business.
In return for which, the government should have extracted compliance with precisely what is the standard definition of 480i, "standard definition", 1080p, "high definition" etc.
There is already law in space. The spacefaring nations have all signed treaties that agree to rules negotiated in the 1960s-70s. They are binding in those countries within their borders.
This is indeed similar to maritime law, but it is a separate body of law with explicit rules for space.
NOAA does not have any jurisdiction over anyone taking pictures of anything, except subjects of photography that are located inside NOAA facilities and not viewable by the general public.
Show me where NOAA has the extraordinary power to prohibit photography by people who are legally standing somewhere they can see something. The only such powers are security powers, within the jurisdiction of security agencies, and even those are probably indefensible in court except where the judge can be shown proof of actual national security at stake.
The NOAA doesn't have any jurisdiction outside the US to require a license for anything done there. Spacecraft orbiting over the US are not part of the US, despite simpleminded interpretations of "air rights" regulation. Electromagnetic waves coming from the Earth's surface outside US boundaries are not subject to any NOAA jurisdiction. And NOAA doesn't have jurisdiction over electromagnetic waves coming from private property, or publicly viewable surfaces of any government property, whether publicly physically accessible like parks and roads or even the outside of NOAA buildings.
In fact, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where NOAA has any power to regulate anything, certainly not photography of objects viewable by people who are standing somewhere legally.
NOAA can take its license requirement and stick it up its... er, NOAA doesn't even have one of those.
The Federal government is spending lots of (our) money helping TV corps switch to HD. Including free digital adapters for analog TVs, and lots of TV advertising to promote it. And of course the spectrum monopolies that HD is broadcast on, and the cable/satellite franchises that suit the TV corps just fine.
Maybe that's all in the public interest. But our government should have used those subsidies to bargain for requiring stricter definitions of "HD" and other criteria on which consumers have to decide how to consume. Instead, TV corps get all the subsidies they want, and, as usual, no accountability.
Perhaps the TV corps' power in creating officials' public image, and keeping quiet inconvenient stories about official conduct, is what government officials get in return for the giveaways.
I've been advocating for publishing those archives for many years, since about 1991 when I met a NASA archivist at a Unix conference in San Jose, CA. I'm very pleased to see these archives opened for public use.
What I wanted since 1991 was to see NASA actually mail through the USPS a CD-ROM (later a DVD) once a year to every American household (minus those who mailed them back, postage free, opting out). A "greatest hits of 2008" etc, that would be collectible, useful for school assignments, and just a beautiful document. Free of charge - driving home the point that we'd all already paid for this work by NASA.
I'd have mailed them all to arrive just before the Income Tax Deadline, so people could see where their taxes were funding America's most inspiring work.
Maybe Archive.org can spur something similar, and at less cost. Like a "greatest hits contest", which lets the public make "playlists" of NASA content, judged by public voting influencing a celebrity panel or something (like American Idol). Then NASA or Archive.org could burn DVDs of the winners, selling them as "commemorative" to raise money for the project, or even proceeds earmarked to specific NASA projects the public wants to further subsidize.
So far my original idea now seems quite consistent with NASA's plans for its archives. Maybe my more specific ideas for them would also be timely and welcome.
The French money is now worth about double what it was when they unified during the Clinton Era. The US money that your boys running the country into the ground have controlled is conversely worth about half.
Oh, and Clinton was serious enough about Saddam in 1995 to disarm Iraq so we didn't have to go to war. Instead, Clinton won a war in Europe with zero American casualties. He was serious enough about the Cole to respond by briefing both the candidates to replace him in the next few months on who did it once his intel agencies figured it out. Your boys ignored those warnings, repeated warnings, because they wanted America to be attacked so they could blame Saddam. Instead, they tried flying planes over Iraq, bombing Saddam, to provoke him into war. Which has already got over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. While bankrupting America and turning us into into our enemies with illegal spying and torture.
And yes, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 attacks. Neither did the French.
The French are rightfully psyched to be French. You, on the other hand, are psyched to be just some dumbass.
The studies disprove individual hypotheses, not all of them. That's why they merely don't show a link, rather than show there's no link. Except perhaps to show that the link they proposed hypothetically isn't it. But they don't rule out every possible hypothesis.
The FDA's corruption and loss of credibility indeed is an implication, though largely just hyperbole, that there is something to worry about when it doesn't worry publicly.
Er, yes. Because there are rarely studies that examine all possible cases and disprove each possible correlation. Except ones that do specifically do that, and I didn't describe those.
The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
Facts that show X causes Y are not contrary to studies that don't show the causation. If the studies showed that X does not cause Y, that would be contrary. That's not how actual science works. Actual science takes a statement, like "X causes Y", then finds evidence that disproves it. If it doesn't find evidence that disproves it, scientists negate the sentence, "X does not cause Y", then find evidence to disprove that. If they don't, then all they've got are studies that don't find a link. They aren't studies that find that there is no link.
Now, Herberman's warning is contrary to a public lack of worry by the FDA. But that FDA is so hopelessly corrupt that its public lack of worry is actually evidence implying that we should be worried.
If the airline pilot were a fighter jet pilot who spent their career being briefed on top-secret fighter designs, because their job was to test them, then of course his saying that he'd been briefed on some alien aerospace tech would be credible, though of course still subject to debate. Not mere dismissal with an analogy that supports him.
Especially since this particular pilot was indeed an astronaut, who not only tested America's most advanced aerospace research, but was actually out in space, where the aliens come from.
And why do you think that the aliens he's saying are known to exist are too "stupid" to use camouflage? Maybe they don't mind being seen when they're seen. Maybe they use camouflage the rest of the time. Maybe they want to be seen. How can you pretend to know, and to be smarter than them when you know less than nothing about them?
This behavior has IPC and other features specific to encapsulation in the app, not in the OS.
But if you've got an OS widget that does it all, that would be interesting to try. In the meantime, I'm using the Firefox Split Browser addon, which demonstrates just why the app, not the OS, should be responsible. Though I'd love it even more if the OS included a window class with that kind of behavior. Or an OS that let me upgrade the default window class with a subclass that included Split "Browser" window functionality, so that all my apps could inherit that feature from that same upgrade. Until the OS does work like that, we need the apps to do it for themselves.
No we didn't. We heard that some few scientists in the 70s had mapped a cold spot in the longterm climate trends. Some cranks turned that into dire news about a "new ice age", but there was never anything close to a scientific consensus that an ice age was in the works.
In the 1990s, climate scientists reached a consensus that the atmosphere was overall warming, though there are also some cooling trends, in an overall increase in chaos and loss of moderation amidst an overall average warming. And scientists started to reach a consensus that the warming was due to human activity. More important, scientists reached an earlier consensus that controlling human activity could slow, stop or reverse the change. And that if we didn't, the change would cause tremendous damage across the world, probably not survivable by our current civilization or anything close to it,
Now, in the 2000s, we've already seen quite a bit of that damage already being done. Increased wildfires from changed patterns of rainfall (overgrowth), then drought (dryout) then increased lightning strike rates, on a mammoth scale. Increased and longer droughts some places (like Africa and Indonesia) with more intense and more frequent flooding storms (like North America).
The change is clearly already underway. The scientific consensus is now firmly established among real scientists, with the holdouts practically only those on oilcorp and related payrolls, and some rare statistically expectable contrarians. Both that the change is underway away from the climate our civilization is adapted to survive, and that we have the industrial choice to slow, stop or reverse it.
What we also learned in the 1970s was that industrial pollution was destroying the ozone layer. Corporatists and know-nothings (Republicans) like you also tried to deny the ozone hole and its threat to our health, even calling Al Gore "Mr Ozone". But scientists were right about the Ozone Hole, right about our pollution causing it, and right about stopping it by stopping the pollution. You faithy deniers were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
As for taxes, you people have been running the US government for 8 years, and running most of it for 14. Your refusal to pay taxes has left rich people and corporations out of their obligation to pay for all the services that keep them rich and powerful, though it's kept everyone else paying lots of taxes, but has cut the government services we all need and want. Oh, and you people also sent us to war for oil, which has not only cost us a $TRILLION, but will cost $TRILLIONS more both cleaning up the mess and paying the interest on all that debt. Because you people have spent us into the ground, as well as lying us into a war for oil that we're not getting, though it's drive oil profits up by TEN TIMES. And you people have run that war so wrong since before its beginning that it was doomed to fail, and has indeed been failing worse and worse for 6 years. Nevermind how you people have failed to properly fight the other war that was actually justified, in Afghanistan, so we've got all that catastrophe on top of the same problems that needed a whole war to address, but that war is now losing even worse.
During that time, you people have fostered the explosion of 14MPG SUVs and all kinds of other ways to waste unprecedented amounts of the oil we're running out of. The oil production has already peaked in plenty of places, and is artificially extended elsewhere - which makes the dropoff even more steep. We are going to see ever dropping supplies, while consumption continues to explode, if we keep doing what you people want us to do.
All of that catastrophe was you kneejerk "Conservative" people at work. Destroying the country at every turn. You've gotten everything wrong, including the Ozone Hole denial in the 1970s. We're not listening to you any more. You people deserve nothing, and owe everyone else a deep and sincere apology. You can start by getting out of the way of the grownups as we save your ass along with everyone else's, though you're too selfish to even save your own anymore.
Waiting for the millionaires to play with this stuff until it works isn't working. It's almost too late, and we don't have it courtesy of the millionaires.
That's why we need everyone to come together to pitch in to get it ASAP, like within 10 years or so. The way we do that is with the government.
The problem with the government doing it is that the government's funding doesn't include the millionaires' fair share. So we should also fix that, and tax the millionaires properly. By whom I mean their corporations, and their churches.
Energy, our economy and our government has come to a mammoth crisis because they're all related through that problem I described. Of course the millionaires all feel like you do: let someone else pay the costs, and they'll just show up when it's cheap enough - and then steal all the profits with their excessive political power.
We can't afford that, or waiting, so we have to all do it together now.
Slashdot Mirror
Cost compared to what?
Gasoline and other petrofuel prices are going nowhere but up, up, up, until there isn't enough to use for fuel anymore (oil and natural gas, anyway). And the actual costs of pumping all that CO2 into the Greenhouse are hard to calculate: how much does Greenland melting the seas 20 feet higher cost?
The Technology Review article about the tech is more specific about the material's heat/electricity conversion efficiency. Evidently the current zT:0.87 material is about 6% efficient; the zT:1.5 material already achieved therefore is about 10% (about 10.3448276%) efficient. A zT:3.0 device is about 21% (about 20.6896552%) efficient.
10% of the 60% of gasoline's energy content wasted as heat is 6% of the gasoline's energy. If the car got the average 20% fuel efficiency, that extra 6 points would be 30% more than the original 20%. A zT:3.0/21% would be 12.6 points extra, or 63% more than 20% to 32.6%.
A 30MPG car today would get 39MPG tomorrow with the current version material. It would get 48.9MPG with the forecast zT:3 material.
What I'm really interested in seeing is how embedding the higher zT materials inside fuelcells boost their efficiency. Because fuelcells aren't heat engines, they're not limited to the Carnot Cycle's 40% max efficiency. They already get 50% efficiency or greater at "native" voltages (like 1.48V), where their max theoretical efficiency is 83%. But still, much of their 17%+ inefficiency is generating heat. So they can be even more efficient with heat reclamation, perhaps in practice actually approaching that 83% efficiency.
Not if they recycle it. The scientists point out that the heat reclaimer component, with no moving parts, will last the lifetimes of several cars. So it should be reused rather than disposed.
Besides, cars already contain lots of highly toxic materials, especially if you consider the toxic products when cars burn, which many do.
"A thermoelectric material designed to replace a conventional Freon-gas refrigerator must have a ZT of at least 3."
But quadrupling them would. The old max zT these researchers were improving was about 0.87. They've now got it to about 1.5. And are targeting about 3.0 in their current research.
Freon refrigerators have a zT of about 3.0. Which makes these new materials look directly competitive with them for cooling when they reach that efficiency. Since zT 1 materials are about 10% efficient, zT 3 will be able to reclaim about 30% of waste heat. That would be about 20 points of the ~60% of gasoline energy wasted as heat in car engines. Since car engines are about 20% efficient now, that would mean doubling their fuel efficiency.
If these materials can be made, deployed, and recycled with close to (or less than) the energy inputs required now to make the car radiators/manifolds/exhaust systems they'd probably mostly replace, the benefits would be revolutionary.
I don't know what the "rationale" for this law was, and I don't think laws really are ever primarily the product of a "rationale".
But I do think I can guess what the people who do have licenses think of it: that it protects their limited supply of space-based imagery. And I expect that the spooks who've long run NOAA's atmospheric imaging programmes to serve their "Star Wars" missile defense programmes think that it protects their ability to monopolize the availability of space-based imagery.
If this stuff can efficiently convert heat to electricity with very little energy input to manufacture it (compared to, say, steam engines), and can withstand high temperatures without being destroyed, what would it do to geothermal electric production?
Would it not only increase the efficiency of the plants, but perhaps also make accessible lots of geothermal that is expensive to reach with today's bulky mechanical probes? Could we just drill to hot depths, then snake cables down it, and "plug into the ground"?
This advance's benefits are all described in terms of an increased zT now up to 1.5, predicted to go up to 3 or so in the really perfected version of the material. But what does "zT" mean in actual efficiency?
In real terms, let's say that a car engine today consumes about 300KW total contained in its gasoline flow, converting about 20% of that into 60KW for forward motion, and about 60% of that into about 180KW of heat (out the exhaust, and heating the engine/radiator, car and road). If the zT 1.5 material were used at maximum effectiveness in capturing some of that 60%/180KW waste heat as electricity, how many KW of electricity would it put out, into, say, a battery?
Even though that article linked from the summary says that typical engines in cars get about 25% of the gasoline's energy content into car motion, it's actually about 20%. That's a lot of wasted energy: about 4:1 waste:use.
But lots of combined cycle plants (like CCGT gas turbines) reclaim a lot of their waste heat into more power. Taking a maximum mechanical power extraction of 60% of the gas' energy up to 85% by heating steam, which is an additional 25% of the original mechanical power.
CCGT reclamation tech is probably not practical for vehicles, so this new material is a welcome advance. Especially if the researchers get the zT from its new 1.5 high to its predicted 3.0 or so. But in fact DARPA has funded Trinh Vo at Lawrence Livermore National Labs to grow nanowires that already have a zT at 3.
More of that kind of material research is very welcome, because at zT 3, these materials can replace freon refrigerators with the same electrical efficiency. Since freon refrigerators require lots of energy to build, and then to recycle, replacing them with a simple material that can scale to any size (including very small, as in microelectronics), means a vast sector of modern industry, including transportation, could switch. If making the material is less energy intensive, and less reliant on a limited critical resource than the freon refrigerators or the CCGT reclamation systems, global energy efficiency could take a giant leap.
A leap that could be just around the corner, in Ohio.
The article at the Green Car Congress site titled New Approach to Developing Thermoelectric Materials Doubles Efficiency" has a lot more scientific details than that article linked from the summary, especially on the actual formula that determines "zT", which is the thermoelectric conversion efficiency coefficient:
And also detailed nanomaterials engineering analysis of the quantum structure of the quantum chemistry's thermoelectric effects.
Or if they legally launched a camera into space that's legally standing where it takes photos.
What's your problem? We both know what I'm talking about. Who are you trying to fool with your absurd hairsplitting? Yourself?
Yes, that's what I said. It wouldn't matter if they used spectrum auction money or general fund tax money: that's all money that belongs to the people. Spent to subsidize the TV corps' business.
In return for which, the government should have extracted compliance with precisely what is the standard definition of 480i, "standard definition", 1080p, "high definition" etc.
There is already law in space. The spacefaring nations have all signed treaties that agree to rules negotiated in the 1960s-70s. They are binding in those countries within their borders.
This is indeed similar to maritime law, but it is a separate body of law with explicit rules for space.
NOAA does not have any jurisdiction over anyone taking pictures of anything, except subjects of photography that are located inside NOAA facilities and not viewable by the general public.
Show me where NOAA has the extraordinary power to prohibit photography by people who are legally standing somewhere they can see something. The only such powers are security powers, within the jurisdiction of security agencies, and even those are probably indefensible in court except where the judge can be shown proof of actual national security at stake.
The NOAA doesn't have any jurisdiction outside the US to require a license for anything done there. Spacecraft orbiting over the US are not part of the US, despite simpleminded interpretations of "air rights" regulation. Electromagnetic waves coming from the Earth's surface outside US boundaries are not subject to any NOAA jurisdiction. And NOAA doesn't have jurisdiction over electromagnetic waves coming from private property, or publicly viewable surfaces of any government property, whether publicly physically accessible like parks and roads or even the outside of NOAA buildings.
In fact, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where NOAA has any power to regulate anything, certainly not photography of objects viewable by people who are standing somewhere legally.
NOAA can take its license requirement and stick it up its... er, NOAA doesn't even have one of those.
The Federal government is spending lots of (our) money helping TV corps switch to HD. Including free digital adapters for analog TVs, and lots of TV advertising to promote it. And of course the spectrum monopolies that HD is broadcast on, and the cable/satellite franchises that suit the TV corps just fine.
Maybe that's all in the public interest. But our government should have used those subsidies to bargain for requiring stricter definitions of "HD" and other criteria on which consumers have to decide how to consume. Instead, TV corps get all the subsidies they want, and, as usual, no accountability.
Perhaps the TV corps' power in creating officials' public image, and keeping quiet inconvenient stories about official conduct, is what government officials get in return for the giveaways.
I've been advocating for publishing those archives for many years, since about 1991 when I met a NASA archivist at a Unix conference in San Jose, CA. I'm very pleased to see these archives opened for public use.
What I wanted since 1991 was to see NASA actually mail through the USPS a CD-ROM (later a DVD) once a year to every American household (minus those who mailed them back, postage free, opting out). A "greatest hits of 2008" etc, that would be collectible, useful for school assignments, and just a beautiful document. Free of charge - driving home the point that we'd all already paid for this work by NASA.
I'd have mailed them all to arrive just before the Income Tax Deadline, so people could see where their taxes were funding America's most inspiring work.
Maybe Archive.org can spur something similar, and at less cost. Like a "greatest hits contest", which lets the public make "playlists" of NASA content, judged by public voting influencing a celebrity panel or something (like American Idol). Then NASA or Archive.org could burn DVDs of the winners, selling them as "commemorative" to raise money for the project, or even proceeds earmarked to specific NASA projects the public wants to further subsidize.
So far my original idea now seems quite consistent with NASA's plans for its archives. Maybe my more specific ideas for them would also be timely and welcome.
The French money is now worth about double what it was when they unified during the Clinton Era. The US money that your boys running the country into the ground have controlled is conversely worth about half.
Oh, and Clinton was serious enough about Saddam in 1995 to disarm Iraq so we didn't have to go to war. Instead, Clinton won a war in Europe with zero American casualties. He was serious enough about the Cole to respond by briefing both the candidates to replace him in the next few months on who did it once his intel agencies figured it out. Your boys ignored those warnings, repeated warnings, because they wanted America to be attacked so they could blame Saddam. Instead, they tried flying planes over Iraq, bombing Saddam, to provoke him into war. Which has already got over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. While bankrupting America and turning us into into our enemies with illegal spying and torture.
And yes, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 attacks. Neither did the French.
The French are rightfully psyched to be French. You, on the other hand, are psyched to be just some dumbass.
The studies disprove individual hypotheses, not all of them. That's why they merely don't show a link, rather than show there's no link. Except perhaps to show that the link they proposed hypothetically isn't it. But they don't rule out every possible hypothesis.
The FDA's corruption and loss of credibility indeed is an implication, though largely just hyperbole, that there is something to worry about when it doesn't worry publicly.
You, asshole, are a stupid asshole.
Er, yes. Because there are rarely studies that examine all possible cases and disprove each possible correlation. Except ones that do specifically do that, and I didn't describe those.
Facts that show X causes Y are not contrary to studies that don't show the causation. If the studies showed that X does not cause Y, that would be contrary. That's not how actual science works. Actual science takes a statement, like "X causes Y", then finds evidence that disproves it. If it doesn't find evidence that disproves it, scientists negate the sentence, "X does not cause Y", then find evidence to disprove that. If they don't, then all they've got are studies that don't find a link. They aren't studies that find that there is no link.
Now, Herberman's warning is contrary to a public lack of worry by the FDA. But that FDA is so hopelessly corrupt that its public lack of worry is actually evidence implying that we should be worried.
If the airline pilot were a fighter jet pilot who spent their career being briefed on top-secret fighter designs, because their job was to test them, then of course his saying that he'd been briefed on some alien aerospace tech would be credible, though of course still subject to debate. Not mere dismissal with an analogy that supports him.
Especially since this particular pilot was indeed an astronaut, who not only tested America's most advanced aerospace research, but was actually out in space, where the aliens come from.
And why do you think that the aliens he's saying are known to exist are too "stupid" to use camouflage? Maybe they don't mind being seen when they're seen. Maybe they use camouflage the rest of the time. Maybe they want to be seen. How can you pretend to know, and to be smarter than them when you know less than nothing about them?
-1 Redundant.
This behavior has IPC and other features specific to encapsulation in the app, not in the OS.
But if you've got an OS widget that does it all, that would be interesting to try. In the meantime, I'm using the Firefox Split Browser addon, which demonstrates just why the app, not the OS, should be responsible. Though I'd love it even more if the OS included a window class with that kind of behavior. Or an OS that let me upgrade the default window class with a subclass that included Split "Browser" window functionality, so that all my apps could inherit that feature from that same upgrade. Until the OS does work like that, we need the apps to do it for themselves.
No we didn't. We heard that some few scientists in the 70s had mapped a cold spot in the longterm climate trends. Some cranks turned that into dire news about a "new ice age", but there was never anything close to a scientific consensus that an ice age was in the works.
In the 1990s, climate scientists reached a consensus that the atmosphere was overall warming, though there are also some cooling trends, in an overall increase in chaos and loss of moderation amidst an overall average warming. And scientists started to reach a consensus that the warming was due to human activity. More important, scientists reached an earlier consensus that controlling human activity could slow, stop or reverse the change. And that if we didn't, the change would cause tremendous damage across the world, probably not survivable by our current civilization or anything close to it,
Now, in the 2000s, we've already seen quite a bit of that damage already being done. Increased wildfires from changed patterns of rainfall (overgrowth), then drought (dryout) then increased lightning strike rates, on a mammoth scale. Increased and longer droughts some places (like Africa and Indonesia) with more intense and more frequent flooding storms (like North America).
The change is clearly already underway. The scientific consensus is now firmly established among real scientists, with the holdouts practically only those on oilcorp and related payrolls, and some rare statistically expectable contrarians. Both that the change is underway away from the climate our civilization is adapted to survive, and that we have the industrial choice to slow, stop or reverse it.
What we also learned in the 1970s was that industrial pollution was destroying the ozone layer. Corporatists and know-nothings (Republicans) like you also tried to deny the ozone hole and its threat to our health, even calling Al Gore "Mr Ozone". But scientists were right about the Ozone Hole, right about our pollution causing it, and right about stopping it by stopping the pollution. You faithy deniers were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
As for taxes, you people have been running the US government for 8 years, and running most of it for 14. Your refusal to pay taxes has left rich people and corporations out of their obligation to pay for all the services that keep them rich and powerful, though it's kept everyone else paying lots of taxes, but has cut the government services we all need and want. Oh, and you people also sent us to war for oil, which has not only cost us a $TRILLION, but will cost $TRILLIONS more both cleaning up the mess and paying the interest on all that debt. Because you people have spent us into the ground, as well as lying us into a war for oil that we're not getting, though it's drive oil profits up by TEN TIMES. And you people have run that war so wrong since before its beginning that it was doomed to fail, and has indeed been failing worse and worse for 6 years. Nevermind how you people have failed to properly fight the other war that was actually justified, in Afghanistan, so we've got all that catastrophe on top of the same problems that needed a whole war to address, but that war is now losing even worse.
During that time, you people have fostered the explosion of 14MPG SUVs and all kinds of other ways to waste unprecedented amounts of the oil we're running out of. The oil production has already peaked in plenty of places, and is artificially extended elsewhere - which makes the dropoff even more steep. We are going to see ever dropping supplies, while consumption continues to explode, if we keep doing what you people want us to do.
All of that catastrophe was you kneejerk "Conservative" people at work. Destroying the country at every turn. You've gotten everything wrong, including the Ozone Hole denial in the 1970s. We're not listening to you any more. You people deserve nothing, and owe everyone else a deep and sincere apology. You can start by getting out of the way of the grownups as we save your ass along with everyone else's, though you're too selfish to even save your own anymore.
Waiting for the millionaires to play with this stuff until it works isn't working. It's almost too late, and we don't have it courtesy of the millionaires.
That's why we need everyone to come together to pitch in to get it ASAP, like within 10 years or so. The way we do that is with the government.
The problem with the government doing it is that the government's funding doesn't include the millionaires' fair share. So we should also fix that, and tax the millionaires properly. By whom I mean their corporations, and their churches.
Energy, our economy and our government has come to a mammoth crisis because they're all related through that problem I described. Of course the millionaires all feel like you do: let someone else pay the costs, and they'll just show up when it's cheap enough - and then steal all the profits with their excessive political power.
We can't afford that, or waiting, so we have to all do it together now.