I DID join the military, and I HAVE said similar statements.
'I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Personally, I'd rather kill the enemy to protect our rights; dying doesn't actually tend to do much.
Thus, I'll actually defend Phelps - but I think he's a complete a**wipe for what he's done, including before he decided to start protesting military funerals. Previously he'd protest at gay funerals; I guess it didn't get him enough media coverage.
By the same token, I'll defend the right of the bikers to protest phelp's protest.;)
On the other hand - I believe in the 'high road'. This does not mean that there can't be dissent. It merely means people should remain polite in their dissent. This is just common sense - being a screaming tard isn't going to gain you converts. A polite, reasoned discussion can.
What does the amount of ambient natural light have to do with whether someone breaks into your home or not?
Nothing. In texas, though, if somebody tries to steal your car(for example) at night you're allowed to use lethal force - if it's during the day you can't.
Don't ask me the logic - Ask the texas legislatures that passed it.
The closest I can think of is that Texas, of the time of the passing of the law, had a real issue with theft - maybe not the rate, but the seriousness of it. Insurance was rare back then, and people depended on their equipment and cattle to survive. It could literally cost somebody their life if their cattle was stolen*. Now, on the other hand, if something is stolen during the day, and you witness it, you can identify the perpetrator. During the night, not so much (laws predate extensive artificial lighting). Thus the line.
Compared to the AWB, it's downright logical.;)
*Thus the extremely harsh penalties you'll see in the midwest for cattle theft.
Warning: I am NOT a lawyer. I am just a self defense advocate and gun collector who has read multiple state laws on self defense and firearm laws.
It really depends on your state and jurisdiction, even in the USA.
It varies. Today, many states have an automatic 'fear for life/SBH' for an intruder in your house. In Texas, during hours of darkness, felony theft on your property may be responded to by deadly force. If they're in your house, you may respond with deadly force at any time.
This is varied a bit in that some liberal cities within the state don't like that, and aren't particularly caring if they follow the law - you get a fair number of self defense cases that they'll push all the way to court, even knowing it doesn't have a snowball's chance. Heck, look back at texas and the incidents in one county where the police entered bars and arrested patrons for public drunkeness. No fights, no noise complaints. Premeditated raid to do this. Their stated goal was to reduce drunk driving - yet they arrested even people who had rooms in the attached hotel.
Thus, I figure anything but the most blatant act of self defense will cost over $30k, possibly quite a bit more.
In my town - somebody breaks in and I shoot them. Likely result: A pat on the back. Texas rural - same deal Texas, Dallas - some runaround. Lincoln or Omaha, NE - probably a few days in jail until they find that they don't have any real evidence that it wasn't self defense. In Chicago or DC - murder and wrongful death charges, showy trial leading to aquital. After tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of lawyers bills. Or they'll drop charges after holding me in jail for six months without bail.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am a serious advocate of self defense, concealed carry, and all. By the same token - taking a human life is serious. Therefore I don't mind if somebody who has to drop the hammer on an intruder is arrested. What I DO want is a thorough investigation followed by a quick release when it's determined to be self defense.
Baen, after all, manages to run a quite profitable website selling ebooks for, on average, $3-6. Personally, I tend to buy the monthly ebooks, gaining me 6 for $25. The books themselves are under 10 megabytes.
Many sites can afford to allow more megabytes available for download for free.
Some here cite tough love, but there is at time and place for everything.
Agreed, I'm Mr Tough Love, but I'll point out something. When I say 'tough love', I mean a system where a kid is punished for doing wrong. If I did something wrong, I knew I would be punished. If I didn't do something wrong, my parents stood up for me 100%. To the point that at least one teacher stopped teaching because of me.
I KNEW that if I did something illegal that my parent's wouldn't bail me out. I've never been arrested, and now hold a high security job.
I have a cousin who's mother bailed him out of everything she could. He's cost her at least tens of thousands of dollars, in bail, lawyers fees, various fines and all that. For what use? He's just gotten out of prison, after spending time in jail a half dozen times before that. I see it as a final result of him never receiving the consequences of his actions when a child - Momma always got him out of it.
The kid got caught, detained, jailed, and is facing a maximum sentence that surpasses your life expectancy. The kid already has no future, is scared to death, and will have no life for whatever his sentence turns out to be.
Not mine. I have longer than that left. As I mentioned, it's incredibly unlikely that he'll be sentenced to that length of a sentence, much less serve it. He can also still turn his life around, though the statistics are against him, I'll admit. I'd recommend learning a trade while in prison. An electrician or a plumber can make good money.
He hurt so many people's... feelings. He exposed the system for being what it is, err insecure. Cheating in the US is such an atrocious crime. It's like... taking steroids in the Major League.
First, as others mentioned, he did more than hurt other's feelings. There's a very real possibility that students didn't get into colleges because their rankings dropped - for every person he inserted into the top 10%, one who'd actually earned the position lost it. This can have the result of them not making it into the college of their choice. Second, he was no whitehat. A whitehat wouldn't have changed the grades, he'd have reported the vulnerability. Third, cheating IS a serious crime. How serious? Well, think about what the IRS does when people cheat on their taxes. When an accounting firm 'cheats' on their calculations. When a investment broker cheats... The consequences of a third grader cheating might not seem to be a big issue initially, but it establishes a pattern. Fourth - Major league steroids? It's actually a big issue. Look at the olympics - people have lost their medals over it. Congressional hearings have been held. Etc...
If the parents couldn't afford bail, then I would sympathize. But if they really are just trying to be part of a lesson, then maybe they are part of why this kid fell off the deep end in the first place.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents got a lawyer BEFORE bailing the kid out, and the lawyer recommended against it. Remember, time served in jail can count towards the sentence. Why spend thousands of dollars to merely delay when the kid gets out of prison?
Well, as stated the 38 years is the maximum he can get, much like how the maximum for murder is generally life or execution.
This sort of stuff tends to happen when you commit two dozen or so different felonies, each with a maximum sentence of up to a couple years. It only applies if he's found guilty on every count and the judge/jury assigns the maximum penalty for every crime. They don't normally do this, saving 'throwing the book' for worse cases than this.
I figure he'll end up with 5-10 years and a hefty parole period after.
No parent wants their kid to spend time in freakin' lockup.
You didn't have the joy of 'tough love' parents then. If I'd screwed up this bad, I'd have been declining bail.
Other than that, it's a matter of finances in some cases. That $5k of 'real dollars' to the bail bondsman is forfeit even if the kids shows up in court. If they're 'newly' arrived, they're likely low on funds, lack credit history, all that.
So the question becomes 'do we bail him out or spend the $5k on a lawyer to keep him out of prison?'.
Personally, I'd probably end up going for the lawyer. $5k there can help reduce the sentence in a case like this much more so than getting out of jail for a few weeks before the trial. Assuming he's guilty as heck, he's going to spend some time in jail or prison anyways - in which case the confinement before the trial counts as 'time served'.
Sounds a lot like a cult to me. Interesting. Of course, I'm a small e environmentalist. Not to mention small 'l' libertarian.
My house is 90% florescent lit. Good quality ballasts and bulbs, mind you. For the CFLs, they're also good quality. I've installed extra insulation, and a programmable thermostat. When I put my last couple computer systems together they got 80+ power supplies.
I'm looking into getting a motorcycle(poss electric) for commuting, rather than take my truck. I have a truck because I actually use it as a truck around once a week. With a little planning, the rest of the time a motorcycle would be sufficient.
One of the things the big 'E' enviromentalists don't seem to realize is that there's only so much 'power' you can get out of efficiency. By some reports, efficiency requirements are the reasons our appliances, such as refrigerators don't last as long as they used to. This is a big issue.
I don't know about Canada, but here in the USA 99.9% of that stuff is leftovers from early research and the nuclear weapons program - which wasn't really concerned about safety or environmental protection. Another large source, actually exceeding nuclear power in volume is medical waste.
I think it's pretty funny, personally, that the annual maximum allowable radiation dose for a nuclear power plant worker is exceeded in about 30 seconds with many treatment/diagnostic options that use radioisotopes.
Mining wise, well, have you ever been next to a coal mining operation? Or any other mining operation, for that matter? None of them are all that clean.
Well, I assume you're talking about intrinsically-safe for breeder reactors, there's a number of more traditional reactors that have reached that standard.
Besides, I don't actually require perfect safety - I work in a business that can be considered very risky at times. We're to eliminate or mitigate any risks we can, not take any unnecessary ones. But the job still needs to get done.
The way I look at it is that coal power is actually far more deadly on average than nuclear - that gets it a big bonus in my book. We're talking about safety levels so high that a single fatality in wind power at this point, perhaps a fall with an improperly fastened safety harness - and suddenly wind power will be worse than nuclear power.
And it's not like we can't just stop generating power - far more lives are saved and made better with the availability of electricity.
Of course, I support the building of new reactors of modern non-breeder designs at the moment. Still, additional research into breeder technology wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't object to a test plant or two. There's a couple different design methodologies, after all.
I was under the impression that if anything, the rebates were going down, not up.
It depends, but in general, the problem with rebates/subsidies such as this is that the money is limited. It's like the rebates for hybrid cars - as they make more financial sense, more people buy them. This means more rebate money out the door. If the program only has X million dollars, they have to reduce rebates to continue to give them to everyone.
Only the most minor of rebates can be used where it still makes financial sense to the majority of people.
I was particularly angry that I didn't not get one red cent of tax credit, deduction, or anything from the federal government, though I did get a nice credit for State taxes.
You got 70% of the system paid for by somebody else, even more for state taxes, and you still wanted more?
Question, is that 8 year payback figuring cost of capital? Did you figure in the savings from state taxes?
By the sounds of it, your system was probably subsidized to the tune of 70% by the power company and another 5-10% by the state.
That means for every dollar you invested, others invested 4 for you. That's a pretty massive subsidy, isn't it?
For the *RAW* cost of your system, per watt, we could put up enough nuclear power to provide 4 times the annual kwh.
You're not kidding, though I've seen some examples of installs and how many rebates. It wasn't unusual to see a solar install that wouldn't ever make it's money back at 5% cost of capital for the homeowner, even when the various rebates were paying for 50-75% of the system!
Solar makes sense in some situations, but I think that it needs a few more breakthroughs before it can compete with nuclear.
It's actually very efficient, if not as efficient as using the direct steam from the plant. Still, the region you can service that way is limited.
Beyond that, I'd suggest geothermal heat pumps to keep electricity costs down. The current efficiency of a geothermal heat pump is that it produces something like 3-4 units of heat per unit of electricy used.
That alone would significantly cut the amount of rewiring you need to do.
To me, at least, it's a bit like looking at a Model T to determine the safety of today's automobiles.
The state of technology has changed quite a bit, and the equations have changed due to our relative intolerance of pollution today. Acid Rain, Global warming, mercury and lead emissions, etc...
How do you power civilization at night then? How do you charge all the electric cars that are supposed to be coming? Even in a decade I don't see batteries dropping in cost by an order of magnitude.
Solar already has the highest amount of subsidies going, we could have had a couple nuclear plants for the cost.
Furthermore, I've been seeing a lot of 'worst case scenario' for the cost and time needed for a nuclear plant. I've seen estimates that could have a nuclear plant done in 2 years, though 3-5 is more likely. $10B for a GW sized plant, when the estimates I've seen say $2-3B. $3B for the first plant, $2B for subsequent plants.
If we can cut through the red tape enough, they'll be able to be built much faster and cheaper, and that changes the equations quite a bit.
Solar water heating makes a lot of sense down south. Solar electric panels on Minot AFB doesn't. We'd be better off putting in a small nuclear reactor where the old steam plant used to be. Renovate the steam pipes going to all the buildings and we'd be able to have the base operate independantly of the grid.
The problem with using Chernobyl as an example for a nuclear disaster is that in a multitude of ways it wasn't built as safe as reactors elsewhere.
For example, you wouldn't get a Pripyat in the USA because all of our reactors are already contained in pre-constructed pressure buildings. Often it's a dome. It's designed to act as a second containment vessel in case the primary is breached.
Well, there's still the question of whether new plants can make enough money to cover their construction costs; those weren't figured in the cost of making the oil. The making/losing money was for operating expenses.
Still, at $130/barrel, the process makes a whole lot more sense, especially if future plants can also get the $1/gallon subsidy* for a guaranteed period of time.
I also didn't see mention of them selling the other byproducts of the process.
*I don't actually support this, unless the NEW plant is also experimental in some regard. First 'full size' plant, perhaps? Then again, I see the tech as being 'right sized' for the most part, sized to handle the feedstock sources expected for the local area.
You were clear enough, I just wanted to express a point to others.
For the deer - well, the other option is that the deer gets to suffer until it dies from internal injuries/bleeding or until the state police or somebody with a weapon* comes along. I don't like unnecessary suffering, so I simply shot the deer.
But then again, that argument means that "just in case" becomes a blanket reason why everyone should be carrying firearms with them, regardless of living on a ranch or in the city.
I do. I'm a holder of a CCW permit. The biggest animal I've ever killed is the aforementioned deer. I also carry unusually well equiped first aid kit in the car, a can of gasoline, road flares. I have two fire extinguishers at home - both are medium commercial/industrial sized. I'm going to add one to my vehicle once I find one with a good mounting so it doesn't roll around. Preferably mounted out of the way. I normally carry a cell phone. I'm trained in CPR and bleeding control. I have around a month's worth of food at home, and spare potable water.
On the other hand, I don't think that everyone should be carrying - preferably only those who care enough to practice occasionally and be aware of the consequences of the usage of a firearm. You don't want to carry, I'm not going to force you. He feels that people should be educated, so that they do not give him the unwanted attention he is facing. That smells of passing off the responsibility. If he wants that attention reduced, he is just as responsible for the reduction as are the people he wants to pay attention to him less.
On the practical side, I'll agree that he's responsable. On the other side, what he does IS legal, and why should displaced Californians get to dictate what and how he carries? Personally, I'm going to wait until I retire before I start making waves with stuff like this. But it's his decision, and by the sounds of it, it's less than a percent that has a serious problem with what he does, panics and calls 911.
Open carry is easier and more comfortable than concealed.
I'll admit to getting some stuff mixed together, but when I was talking about the trays I was refering to algae being used to create feedstock before it goes into the bioreactor.
For example: UK Burglary rate is ~2X USA (13.8 vs 7.1) Australia WTF: 21.7 Assault: US wins by a hair, 7.6 vs 7.5. Canada 7.1, Australia 7.0. On the other hand, South Africa is the winner at 12.1 Assault victims: UK 2.8%, Australia 2.4%, Canada 2.3%, USA 1.2% Car Theft: UK 5.6, USA 3.9, Australia the leader at 6.9. Canada has more than the USA, at 4.9 Murder: Colombia 'wins' at.62, South Africa(.50), Russia(.20), and Mexico(.13) in running. USA at #24 at.043, Australia #43 at.015, Canada is #44 at.015, UK #46 at.014. USA has ~3X the murder rate of the other major english speaking countries, Mexico has 3X the murder rate of the USA. Rapes: South Africa, 1.2. Australia.77, Canada.73, USA.30, UK.14* Rape Victims: 1% of female Australians have been raped,.9% of UK,.8% Canada,.4% USA. New Zealand, unfortunate winner at 1.3%. Total crime: UK, 86 per 1000, US 80, Canada 75, Australia not listed.
Now, looking at the victim % rates(what percent of the population has been victimized by a particular crime), I come to the conclusion that, in the USA at least, being the victim of a crime like assault or rape once is a very good indicator that you'll be a victim of it again. Not necessarily a good thing, but fits in with my theory that we have regions of high crime that tend to fubar our statistics a bit. Stay out of those areas and you're very unlikely to end up part of the statistics, stay in them and you're much more likely to be in there multiple times.
*Odd that UK has half the rapes per capita, but twice the population reports that they've been raped.
but you are assuming that the point of algae-produced octane, on land, on sea, whatever, that the goal is to completely replace current consumption levels
Not especially. I was just dinging the 'individual jug' methodology.
Personally, I see in the future something like plug in hybrids for everybody, thus eliminating liquid fuel use for the first 40 or so miles of travel. After that, then you use the expensive gasoline or gasoline substitute. That'd drop our gasoline usage by at least half alone.
"hey, i'm making $200 a year with these 100 jugs of seawater, and there's no end in sight to demand. so why can't i go the bank to get the tiny bit of seed money i need for 10,000 more jugs and make $20,000 a year?"
labor, space costs, etc... Eventually you run out of roof or backyard space. Automated tray systems reduce the profit of individual jugs to 'not worth the effort'.
Note, I am in favor of expansion. It's just that you very quickly will eliminate the middle man and relatively inefficient 'jug' system of production, instead moving to professional high production, low labor methods that can produce the product cheaper and faster.
It's currently getting a $1/gallon subsidy, which works out to $42/barrel, 500 barrels a day oil production. $7.7 million a year.
In '06, that allowed them $4 profit per barrel. In '06 oil hadn't broken $70/barrel yet. Reportably they sell their oil for somewhat under market(probably a penalty for the type of oil or the fact that it's a small source). Regardless, they should be able to sell their oil for almost double now - $60/barrel more.
So, as long as the price of turkey guts and such doesn't go up again($20-30/ton), they should be able to make a profit even without subsidies.
Note-I'm mostly libertarian and therefor against subsidies, but I don't mind subsidizing test plants a bit. I say this because advancing technology is a very good thing. Right now I wouldn't be subsidizing traditional corn type ethanol plants, but I'd consider subsidizing a cellulostic plant, or one looking to commercialize this one.
Last I heard, back when oil was around $80/barrel, the turkey plant decided that they would charge for the waste. This kinda wrecked their profitability for a while. They went from a minor profit to a minor loss, even with a number of subsidies because they were a test plant. Besides that, the test plant has had numerous issue with stench complaints, which they spent a lot of effort working on. Last I'd heard they had solved the stench problem, and $130/barrel oil should have fixed the profitability issue. Not necessarily bad for a test plant - these issues are the reasons you build test plants in the first place.;)
From the article, they built the test plant with the assumption that processing the waste turkey parts into animal feed would be banned over mad cow stuff. This would mean that they'd be able to get the turkey/chicken parts for free. The benefit to the butterball plant would be that they wouldn't have to pay for disposal. That turned out to be untrue, giving the turkey plant a potentially profitable waste disposal method - so they started charging.
So the main issue is now profitability. They need to locate the plants in areas where they have a constant, reliable and cheap source of organic waste, and preferably in an area not mindful of the occasional stink. Or spend the extra money to clean it out of their stacks.
It also doesn't come close to satisfying our need for oil. Consider, the average American goes through at least a gallon of gasoline a day - assuming the bottle produces a gallon of gasoline, every american would need to have a 100 or so bottles.
It'd be more realistic to have big trays(kilometers long) set up in the desert, and use some automatic process to filter the algae down to the end of the tray. Some get recycled back up to the top of the tray, while the rest get processed.
From the article - 1 Barrel a week from a 1000 liter vessel. 264 gallon tank to produce 42 gallons of oil in a week. 40 square feet of space.
Slashdot Mirror
I DID join the military, and I HAVE said similar statements.
'I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Personally, I'd rather kill the enemy to protect our rights; dying doesn't actually tend to do much.
Thus, I'll actually defend Phelps - but I think he's a complete a**wipe for what he's done, including before he decided to start protesting military funerals. Previously he'd protest at gay funerals; I guess it didn't get him enough media coverage.
By the same token, I'll defend the right of the bikers to protest phelp's protest. ;)
On the other hand - I believe in the 'high road'. This does not mean that there can't be dissent. It merely means people should remain polite in their dissent. This is just common sense - being a screaming tard isn't going to gain you converts. A polite, reasoned discussion can.
What does the amount of ambient natural light have to do with whether someone breaks into your home or not?
Nothing. In texas, though, if somebody tries to steal your car(for example) at night you're allowed to use lethal force - if it's during the day you can't.
Don't ask me the logic - Ask the texas legislatures that passed it.
The closest I can think of is that Texas, of the time of the passing of the law, had a real issue with theft - maybe not the rate, but the seriousness of it. Insurance was rare back then, and people depended on their equipment and cattle to survive. It could literally cost somebody their life if their cattle was stolen*. Now, on the other hand, if something is stolen during the day, and you witness it, you can identify the perpetrator. During the night, not so much (laws predate extensive artificial lighting). Thus the line.
Compared to the AWB, it's downright logical. ;)
*Thus the extremely harsh penalties you'll see in the midwest for cattle theft.
Warning: I am NOT a lawyer. I am just a self defense advocate and gun collector who has read multiple state laws on self defense and firearm laws.
It really depends on your state and jurisdiction, even in the USA.
It varies. Today, many states have an automatic 'fear for life/SBH' for an intruder in your house. In Texas, during hours of darkness, felony theft on your property may be responded to by deadly force. If they're in your house, you may respond with deadly force at any time.
This is varied a bit in that some liberal cities within the state don't like that, and aren't particularly caring if they follow the law - you get a fair number of self defense cases that they'll push all the way to court, even knowing it doesn't have a snowball's chance. Heck, look back at texas and the incidents in one county where the police entered bars and arrested patrons for public drunkeness. No fights, no noise complaints. Premeditated raid to do this. Their stated goal was to reduce drunk driving - yet they arrested even people who had rooms in the attached hotel.
Thus, I figure anything but the most blatant act of self defense will cost over $30k, possibly quite a bit more.
In my town - somebody breaks in and I shoot them. Likely result: A pat on the back.
Texas rural - same deal
Texas, Dallas - some runaround.
Lincoln or Omaha, NE - probably a few days in jail until they find that they don't have any real evidence that it wasn't self defense.
In Chicago or DC - murder and wrongful death charges, showy trial leading to aquital. After tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of lawyers bills. Or they'll drop charges after holding me in jail for six months without bail.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am a serious advocate of self defense, concealed carry, and all. By the same token - taking a human life is serious. Therefore I don't mind if somebody who has to drop the hammer on an intruder is arrested. What I DO want is a thorough investigation followed by a quick release when it's determined to be self defense.
Don't overestimate it either.
Baen, after all, manages to run a quite profitable website selling ebooks for, on average, $3-6. Personally, I tend to buy the monthly ebooks, gaining me 6 for $25. The books themselves are under 10 megabytes.
Many sites can afford to allow more megabytes available for download for free.
Some here cite tough love, but there is at time and place for everything.
Agreed, I'm Mr Tough Love, but I'll point out something. When I say 'tough love', I mean a system where a kid is punished for doing wrong. If I did something wrong, I knew I would be punished. If I didn't do something wrong, my parents stood up for me 100%. To the point that at least one teacher stopped teaching because of me.
I KNEW that if I did something illegal that my parent's wouldn't bail me out. I've never been arrested, and now hold a high security job.
I have a cousin who's mother bailed him out of everything she could. He's cost her at least tens of thousands of dollars, in bail, lawyers fees, various fines and all that. For what use? He's just gotten out of prison, after spending time in jail a half dozen times before that. I see it as a final result of him never receiving the consequences of his actions when a child - Momma always got him out of it.
The kid got caught, detained, jailed, and is facing a maximum sentence that surpasses your life expectancy. The kid already has no future, is scared to death, and will have no life for whatever his sentence turns out to be.
Not mine. I have longer than that left. As I mentioned, it's incredibly unlikely that he'll be sentenced to that length of a sentence, much less serve it. He can also still turn his life around, though the statistics are against him, I'll admit. I'd recommend learning a trade while in prison. An electrician or a plumber can make good money.
He hurt so many people's... feelings. He exposed the system for being what it is, err insecure. Cheating in the US is such an atrocious crime. It's like... taking steroids in the Major League.
First, as others mentioned, he did more than hurt other's feelings. There's a very real possibility that students didn't get into colleges because their rankings dropped - for every person he inserted into the top 10%, one who'd actually earned the position lost it. This can have the result of them not making it into the college of their choice.
Second, he was no whitehat. A whitehat wouldn't have changed the grades, he'd have reported the vulnerability.
Third, cheating IS a serious crime. How serious? Well, think about what the IRS does when people cheat on their taxes. When an accounting firm 'cheats' on their calculations. When a investment broker cheats... The consequences of a third grader cheating might not seem to be a big issue initially, but it establishes a pattern.
Fourth - Major league steroids? It's actually a big issue. Look at the olympics - people have lost their medals over it. Congressional hearings have been held. Etc...
If the parents couldn't afford bail, then I would sympathize. But if they really are just trying to be part of a lesson, then maybe they are part of why this kid fell off the deep end in the first place.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents got a lawyer BEFORE bailing the kid out, and the lawyer recommended against it. Remember, time served in jail can count towards the sentence. Why spend thousands of dollars to merely delay when the kid gets out of prison?
Well, as stated the 38 years is the maximum he can get, much like how the maximum for murder is generally life or execution.
This sort of stuff tends to happen when you commit two dozen or so different felonies, each with a maximum sentence of up to a couple years. It only applies if he's found guilty on every count and the judge/jury assigns the maximum penalty for every crime. They don't normally do this, saving 'throwing the book' for worse cases than this.
I figure he'll end up with 5-10 years and a hefty parole period after.
No parent wants their kid to spend time in freakin' lockup.
You didn't have the joy of 'tough love' parents then. If I'd screwed up this bad, I'd have been declining bail.
Other than that, it's a matter of finances in some cases. That $5k of 'real dollars' to the bail bondsman is forfeit even if the kids shows up in court. If they're 'newly' arrived, they're likely low on funds, lack credit history, all that.
So the question becomes 'do we bail him out or spend the $5k on a lawyer to keep him out of prison?'.
Personally, I'd probably end up going for the lawyer. $5k there can help reduce the sentence in a case like this much more so than getting out of jail for a few weeks before the trial. Assuming he's guilty as heck, he's going to spend some time in jail or prison anyways - in which case the confinement before the trial counts as 'time served'.
Sounds a lot like a cult to me. Interesting. Of course, I'm a small e environmentalist. Not to mention small 'l' libertarian.
My house is 90% florescent lit. Good quality ballasts and bulbs, mind you. For the CFLs, they're also good quality. I've installed extra insulation, and a programmable thermostat. When I put my last couple computer systems together they got 80+ power supplies.
I'm looking into getting a motorcycle(poss electric) for commuting, rather than take my truck. I have a truck because I actually use it as a truck around once a week. With a little planning, the rest of the time a motorcycle would be sufficient.
One of the things the big 'E' enviromentalists don't seem to realize is that there's only so much 'power' you can get out of efficiency. By some reports, efficiency requirements are the reasons our appliances, such as refrigerators don't last as long as they used to. This is a big issue.
I don't know about Canada, but here in the USA 99.9% of that stuff is leftovers from early research and the nuclear weapons program - which wasn't really concerned about safety or environmental protection. Another large source, actually exceeding nuclear power in volume is medical waste.
I think it's pretty funny, personally, that the annual maximum allowable radiation dose for a nuclear power plant worker is exceeded in about 30 seconds with many treatment/diagnostic options that use radioisotopes.
Mining wise, well, have you ever been next to a coal mining operation? Or any other mining operation, for that matter? None of them are all that clean.
Well, I assume you're talking about intrinsically-safe for breeder reactors, there's a number of more traditional reactors that have reached that standard.
Besides, I don't actually require perfect safety - I work in a business that can be considered very risky at times. We're to eliminate or mitigate any risks we can, not take any unnecessary ones. But the job still needs to get done.
The way I look at it is that coal power is actually far more deadly on average than nuclear - that gets it a big bonus in my book. We're talking about safety levels so high that a single fatality in wind power at this point, perhaps a fall with an improperly fastened safety harness - and suddenly wind power will be worse than nuclear power.
And it's not like we can't just stop generating power - far more lives are saved and made better with the availability of electricity.
Of course, I support the building of new reactors of modern non-breeder designs at the moment. Still, additional research into breeder technology wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't object to a test plant or two. There's a couple different design methodologies, after all.
I was under the impression that if anything, the rebates were going down, not up.
It depends, but in general, the problem with rebates/subsidies such as this is that the money is limited. It's like the rebates for hybrid cars - as they make more financial sense, more people buy them. This means more rebate money out the door. If the program only has X million dollars, they have to reduce rebates to continue to give them to everyone.
Only the most minor of rebates can be used where it still makes financial sense to the majority of people.
I was particularly angry that I didn't not get one red cent of tax credit, deduction, or anything from the federal government, though I did get a nice credit for State taxes.
You got 70% of the system paid for by somebody else, even more for state taxes, and you still wanted more?
Question, is that 8 year payback figuring cost of capital? Did you figure in the savings from state taxes?
By the sounds of it, your system was probably subsidized to the tune of 70% by the power company and another 5-10% by the state.
That means for every dollar you invested, others invested 4 for you. That's a pretty massive subsidy, isn't it?
For the *RAW* cost of your system, per watt, we could put up enough nuclear power to provide 4 times the annual kwh.
Didn't those proposed coal plants morph into nuclear ones when the pollution waiver was yanked?
It costs a lot of money to build a power plant that can burn coal cleanly.
You're not kidding, though I've seen some examples of installs and how many rebates. It wasn't unusual to see a solar install that wouldn't ever make it's money back at 5% cost of capital for the homeowner, even when the various rebates were paying for 50-75% of the system!
Solar makes sense in some situations, but I think that it needs a few more breakthroughs before it can compete with nuclear.
It's actually very efficient, if not as efficient as using the direct steam from the plant. Still, the region you can service that way is limited.
Beyond that, I'd suggest geothermal heat pumps to keep electricity costs down. The current efficiency of a geothermal heat pump is that it produces something like 3-4 units of heat per unit of electricy used.
That alone would significantly cut the amount of rewiring you need to do.
To me, at least, it's a bit like looking at a Model T to determine the safety of today's automobiles.
The state of technology has changed quite a bit, and the equations have changed due to our relative intolerance of pollution today. Acid Rain, Global warming, mercury and lead emissions, etc...
How do you power civilization at night then? How do you charge all the electric cars that are supposed to be coming? Even in a decade I don't see batteries dropping in cost by an order of magnitude.
Solar already has the highest amount of subsidies going, we could have had a couple nuclear plants for the cost.
Furthermore, I've been seeing a lot of 'worst case scenario' for the cost and time needed for a nuclear plant. I've seen estimates that could have a nuclear plant done in 2 years, though 3-5 is more likely. $10B for a GW sized plant, when the estimates I've seen say $2-3B. $3B for the first plant, $2B for subsequent plants.
If we can cut through the red tape enough, they'll be able to be built much faster and cheaper, and that changes the equations quite a bit.
Solar water heating makes a lot of sense down south. Solar electric panels on Minot AFB doesn't. We'd be better off putting in a small nuclear reactor where the old steam plant used to be. Renovate the steam pipes going to all the buildings and we'd be able to have the base operate independantly of the grid.
The problem with using Chernobyl as an example for a nuclear disaster is that in a multitude of ways it wasn't built as safe as reactors elsewhere.
For example, you wouldn't get a Pripyat in the USA because all of our reactors are already contained in pre-constructed pressure buildings. Often it's a dome. It's designed to act as a second containment vessel in case the primary is breached.
Then there's the whole void coefficient thing.
Well, there's still the question of whether new plants can make enough money to cover their construction costs; those weren't figured in the cost of making the oil. The making/losing money was for operating expenses.
Still, at $130/barrel, the process makes a whole lot more sense, especially if future plants can also get the $1/gallon subsidy* for a guaranteed period of time.
I also didn't see mention of them selling the other byproducts of the process.
*I don't actually support this, unless the NEW plant is also experimental in some regard. First 'full size' plant, perhaps? Then again, I see the tech as being 'right sized' for the most part, sized to handle the feedstock sources expected for the local area.
You were clear enough, I just wanted to express a point to others.
For the deer - well, the other option is that the deer gets to suffer until it dies from internal injuries/bleeding or until the state police or somebody with a weapon* comes along. I don't like unnecessary suffering, so I simply shot the deer.
But then again, that argument means that "just in case" becomes a blanket reason why everyone should be carrying firearms with them, regardless of living on a ranch or in the city.
I do. I'm a holder of a CCW permit. The biggest animal I've ever killed is the aforementioned deer. I also carry unusually well equiped first aid kit in the car, a can of gasoline, road flares. I have two fire extinguishers at home - both are medium commercial/industrial sized. I'm going to add one to my vehicle once I find one with a good mounting so it doesn't roll around. Preferably mounted out of the way. I normally carry a cell phone. I'm trained in CPR and bleeding control. I have around a month's worth of food at home, and spare potable water.
On the other hand, I don't think that everyone should be carrying - preferably only those who care enough to practice occasionally and be aware of the consequences of the usage of a firearm. You don't want to carry, I'm not going to force you.
He feels that people should be educated, so that they do not give him the unwanted attention he is facing. That smells of passing off the responsibility. If he wants that attention reduced, he is just as responsible for the reduction as are the people he wants to pay attention to him less.
On the practical side, I'll agree that he's responsable. On the other side, what he does IS legal, and why should displaced Californians get to dictate what and how he carries? Personally, I'm going to wait until I retire before I start making waves with stuff like this. But it's his decision, and by the sounds of it, it's less than a percent that has a serious problem with what he does, panics and calls 911.
Open carry is easier and more comfortable than concealed.
*Not necessarily a firearm.
I'll admit to getting some stuff mixed together, but when I was talking about the trays I was refering to algae being used to create feedstock before it goes into the bioreactor.
That site is interesting...
.62, South Africa(.50), Russia(.20), and Mexico(.13) in running. USA at #24 at .043, Australia #43 at .015, Canada is #44 at .015, UK #46 at .014. USA has ~3X the murder rate of the other major english speaking countries, Mexico has 3X the murder rate of the USA. .77, Canada .73, USA .30, UK .14* .9% of UK, .8% Canada, .4% USA. New Zealand, unfortunate winner at 1.3%.
For example:
UK Burglary rate is ~2X USA (13.8 vs 7.1) Australia WTF: 21.7
Assault: US wins by a hair, 7.6 vs 7.5. Canada 7.1, Australia 7.0. On the other hand, South Africa is the winner at 12.1
Assault victims: UK 2.8%, Australia 2.4%, Canada 2.3%, USA 1.2%
Car Theft: UK 5.6, USA 3.9, Australia the leader at 6.9. Canada has more than the USA, at 4.9
Murder: Colombia 'wins' at
Rapes: South Africa, 1.2. Australia
Rape Victims: 1% of female Australians have been raped,
Total crime: UK, 86 per 1000, US 80, Canada 75, Australia not listed.
Now, looking at the victim % rates(what percent of the population has been victimized by a particular crime), I come to the conclusion that, in the USA at least, being the victim of a crime like assault or rape once is a very good indicator that you'll be a victim of it again. Not necessarily a good thing, but fits in with my theory that we have regions of high crime that tend to fubar our statistics a bit. Stay out of those areas and you're very unlikely to end up part of the statistics, stay in them and you're much more likely to be in there multiple times.
*Odd that UK has half the rapes per capita, but twice the population reports that they've been raped.
but you are assuming that the point of algae-produced octane, on land, on sea, whatever, that the goal is to completely replace current consumption levels
Not especially. I was just dinging the 'individual jug' methodology.
Personally, I see in the future something like plug in hybrids for everybody, thus eliminating liquid fuel use for the first 40 or so miles of travel. After that, then you use the expensive gasoline or gasoline substitute. That'd drop our gasoline usage by at least half alone.
"hey, i'm making $200 a year with these 100 jugs of seawater, and there's no end in sight to demand. so why can't i go the bank to get the tiny bit of seed money i need for 10,000 more jugs and make $20,000 a year?"
labor, space costs, etc... Eventually you run out of roof or backyard space. Automated tray systems reduce the profit of individual jugs to 'not worth the effort'.
Note, I am in favor of expansion. It's just that you very quickly will eliminate the middle man and relatively inefficient 'jug' system of production, instead moving to professional high production, low labor methods that can produce the product cheaper and faster.
Thermal depolymerization
It's currently getting a $1/gallon subsidy, which works out to $42/barrel, 500 barrels a day oil production. $7.7 million a year.
In '06, that allowed them $4 profit per barrel. In '06 oil hadn't broken $70/barrel yet. Reportably they sell their oil for somewhat under market(probably a penalty for the type of oil or the fact that it's a small source). Regardless, they should be able to sell their oil for almost double now - $60/barrel more.
So, as long as the price of turkey guts and such doesn't go up again($20-30/ton), they should be able to make a profit even without subsidies.
Note-I'm mostly libertarian and therefor against subsidies, but I don't mind subsidizing test plants a bit. I say this because advancing technology is a very good thing. Right now I wouldn't be subsidizing traditional corn type ethanol plants, but I'd consider subsidizing a cellulostic plant, or one looking to commercialize this one.
Last I heard, back when oil was around $80/barrel, the turkey plant decided that they would charge for the waste. This kinda wrecked their profitability for a while. They went from a minor profit to a minor loss, even with a number of subsidies because they were a test plant. Besides that, the test plant has had numerous issue with stench complaints, which they spent a lot of effort working on. Last I'd heard they had solved the stench problem, and $130/barrel oil should have fixed the profitability issue. Not necessarily bad for a test plant - these issues are the reasons you build test plants in the first place. ;)
From the article, they built the test plant with the assumption that processing the waste turkey parts into animal feed would be banned over mad cow stuff. This would mean that they'd be able to get the turkey/chicken parts for free. The benefit to the butterball plant would be that they wouldn't have to pay for disposal. That turned out to be untrue, giving the turkey plant a potentially profitable waste disposal method - so they started charging.
So the main issue is now profitability. They need to locate the plants in areas where they have a constant, reliable and cheap source of organic waste, and preferably in an area not mindful of the occasional stink. Or spend the extra money to clean it out of their stacks.
It also doesn't come close to satisfying our need for oil. Consider, the average American goes through at least a gallon of gasoline a day - assuming the bottle produces a gallon of gasoline, every american would need to have a 100 or so bottles.
It'd be more realistic to have big trays(kilometers long) set up in the desert, and use some automatic process to filter the algae down to the end of the tray. Some get recycled back up to the top of the tray, while the rest get processed.
From the article - 1 Barrel a week from a 1000 liter vessel. 264 gallon tank to produce 42 gallons of oil in a week. 40 square feet of space.
Not there yet, but getting closer.