tl:dr - They and the Reagan-Bush-Bush judges made it all perfectly legal.
Only "issue" at play is that Democrats are playing by Republican rules. I.e. Acting like Republicans while talking like Democrats. Which they can't help - Republicans changed the rules of the game. THAT is their problem, when facing their voters. But it is not illegal. Just immoral. You know... designed by Republicans.
All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election. That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel. He said, "It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money."
"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s. The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.
But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions. In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.
Campaign finance law had previously set an overarching limit on how much one person could give to federal candidates and the major parties â" combined â" in one election cycle. In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court said that limit was unconstitutional. As in other rulings, the court said removing the limit didn't raise questions of corruption.
You don't like that? Well, you can hop on your time machine and go and shoot down people responsible - two Bushes and a Reagan. They appointed the guys who made it legal. Obama and Clinton appointed judges were against it. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down an overall cap on the amount that large campaign donors can give to parties and candidates in a two-year election cycle.
... Chief Justice John Roberts led the opinion and was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. A separate but concurring opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section. 18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.
But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.
In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so. Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events. "IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."
Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that. It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.
Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.
Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty. "You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered." That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe... And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election. Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.
And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE! They are asking for references for possible consideration. So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise. Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.
But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a
The reasons stated for banning are, in this order: gambling, evolution, use of religious symbols of other religions ("six-pointed star of Judaism", "the cross", "angles and triangles - Masonry", "Symbols of the Shinto creed").
So... the "Zionism-promoting" thing is invention and interpretation of Times of Israel, as neither Zionism nor Israel are mentioned in the fatwa. Other than that, the entire thing reads like any other religious edict of any religion - detached from reality, one leg in conspiracy theories and religious paranoia, other leg firmly cemented in mental issues.
1960 one ended with hanging of Prime Minister, Minister of Labor and Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs. 1980 one ended with 50 (official) executions and half a million arrests.
And modern liberals aren't authoritarian? To the point of legislating soft drink cup size? Or the shape of cucumbers in EU?
You are confusing standards with prohibition.
A law stating the size and system of measurement of cups used to serve beverages in restaurants is there so the owner/server can't fuck over customers with glasses that look big but actually contain less beverage than what the customer paid for. Not really that important for Pepsi (until your kid complains to you asking you to fix the "injustice") but can be important when a bar full of sports fans starts complaining about half of their beer glasses being filled with only foam.
A law stating the size of cucumbers doesn't mean cucumbers of different size will be banned or thrown away - just that AFTER GOING OVER A SORTING GRATE the cucumbers of certain size will be used for pickling in jars of certain sizes while others will be sold fresh. That's how you get your canape sizes pickles cheaply - without having to buy several jars of pickles and then handpicking the pickled pickles of puny proportions.
Both kinds of laws are there cause customers complain about being tricked by the salesmen or salesmen complaining about customers being picky - both sides demanding that the government officials do something about that. Thus, the laws regulating standards.
It's an issue that now and forever every guy with a gun, who is surrounded by police or simply holed up somewhere and high on paranoia - is expecting to be exploded with bombs and perhaps robots. And while this may or may not trigger a series of shootings of drones and toys - it most certainly will create a situation where now the perps expect that they are not getting arrested. That it is a fight to the death. No negotiation. No deescalation. Cops will kill you so you must kill cops.
It's actually a bit ironic that Detroit depicted in RoboCop was actually mostly Dallas.
The heating element i assume is to reduce temperature extreme to reduce the level of expansion and contraction that can cause heavy damage.
This is not a project based on science or engineering. This is a happy-flower-candy-unicorn project to save the deer and make everything happy-skippy-nice. They have LED lights in it in order to light up the fucking animals crossing the road.
Solar Roadways® panels have an integrated heating component. The heating system in Solar Roadways® maintains a temperature above freezing. This keeps the road free of snow and ice. Since more than 70% of the U.S. population lives in snowy regions, this system is crucial to maintain safe road conditions. The implementation of a heated roadway system would also save a significant amount of time in snow removal. The electricity required to run the heating elements will vary from location to location. Every effort has been made to make sure only the minimal amount of energy is expended in keeping snow and ice from accumulating.
For homeowners SR can provide safe and efficient walking and parking surfaces. Shoveling and plowing are time consuming and shoveling can result in injuries. Many homeowners bear the expense of purchasing snow removal equipment or pay others to plow for them. Heated driveways, walkways, paths, patios, etc. would provide safer walking and driving surfaces that require less maintenance. With the implementation of SR, homeowners would be saved from winter inconveniences.
...
Each panel's heating element and LEDs are driven by the grid/storage system, not by the solar cells directly. The solar cells place the harvested energy on the grid/storage system. The systems are independent of one another. This is important because the heaters/LEDs must work at night when the solar cells are incapable of producing power.
I.e. They will be pumping in coal-powered heat and light in order to light up the deer and melt the snow and ice. Pouring gasoline on the road and setting it on fire would probably be more ecological and "green".
Neither the installation nor the maintenance and operation costs for this particular "invention" are cheaper or simpler than the traditional road solutions. They are nowhere close actually.
They require concrete foundations, with crawlspace for all the cabling. They have built-in lights to light up the animals crossing the road. They have built-in heaters to melt the snow and ice.
It's a product of hippy thinking, not engineering a solution to a problem - which would be roadside solar panels. Fear for the deer? Put some lights on the pole too. And whatever you do - don't use heat to melt the snow. You'd be producing global warming by pumping in fossil-fuel-derived heat during the months when there is nearly no sunlight and using it to create water vapor. Mechanical cleaning moves the snow onto dirt - where it slowly melts and is absorbed by said dirt. NOT evaporated directly into the air.
Address your lack of units to the "creators" of said "solar roadways". All the numbers are quoted directly from their site. So they refer "per hexagon".
But who cares - cause their "invention" simply doesn't provide the power needed to melt the snow. Not even their updated "48 W" version, which still doesn't come close to the power they had to pump into the heaters to melt the snow. Which is a thing their FAQ no longer mentions. It just talks about how awesome it is to melt snow - by the power drawn from the grid. I.e. By burning coal to melt ice and snow and heat up air.
They are using the same exact language as back when they listed the fact that they had to use 72 W to melt the snow off of a 36 W producing hexagon - except there's no more talk about any actual numbers. Measured or projected. But they still say "the panels will not be heated to the extent of being warm to the touch" - just like back when "72-watts... was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days". I guess that after their "experiment with different voltages at different temperatures" they came up with the solution.
Which is clearly NOT TO MENTION how much power the whole thing would draw from the grid in order to melt the snow and ice.
If you want a long (but informative) rant about why that is utter nonsense - here's mine. In short - the best they are pulling off today is 36 W, they hope to someday, with the help of magic elves and such, make 52 W. Only tests they made of using their panels for testing required 72 W. I'm guessing that's why they ended up testing it on a road in Missouri and not in... say... Wisconsin.
Also, as any melting would be done in the winter, with shorter days and continuous snowfall - clearing the roads with heating would mean "pumping in" electricity from other sources. I.e. Burning coal. Which would not only create tons of CO2 - it would literally pump water vapor and heat into atmosphere.
As far as "save the planet" ideas go it's somewhere between switching everyone from using electricity to using candles and exploding a bunch of nukes around poles in order to blast more ice into the water to cool the oceans.
It's because Lucas is a bigger hack writer who took bits from all over the place without giving it more consideration than "cause it's cool and I like it". When he finally got around to try to consolidate all that stuff and make it make sense - we got midichlorians. All Lucas knew was what it was supposed to be LIKE. I.e. Like 1920s pulp serials, like Kurosawa's samurai movies, like WW2 dogfights, like the stuff Joseph Campbell wrote, like Buddhism...
Roddenberry on the other hand had strict guidelines for the Star Trek universe. He knew where he wanted the show to go and what it was supposed to be ABOUT. E.g. "...assessing where we humans presently are, where we're going and what our existence is really about." He made sure that the stories are about things that MATTER to humans. Which is why even when his "Bible" wasn't followed (cause there are PAGES AND PAGES OF RULES - like "no stories with Vulcans") - the core idea was still there, holding it all together.
In both cases shooters were stopped or shot (second one committed suicide after being stopped) within minutes - by police officers. In both cases, response time was under the national average.
In neither case civilians (as in not security officers) didn't stop it. Nor did non-security military personnel stop it, though some were killed while trying to do that while unarmed. Nor did the security of the location, which is NOT a gun-free zone, as gun-free zones don't come with armed guards around them and at various locations across the "zone" - deter either of the shooters.
As for the 89th and 720th - that is their job there. When they are not deployed, they are the base security. I.e. They carry guns.
The point is - neither do civilians with guns stop mass shooters, nor does increased security deter them. These are insane people we're talking about.
In fact, there are more cases of unarmed civilians (21, out of 160 incidents, 2000-2013) stopping mass shooters, than there are cases of armed civilians doing that (5 - one of them a security guard at that church). https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/o...
Sorry. Neither facts nor logic support "Yosemite Sam" approach to citizen security.
No... That's your job. You wouldn't want me to call you a mentally retarded idiot who can't even grasp how onus probandi works, now would you?
And then, after you you have compiled all those cases, compare them to the number of cases where an armed civilian committed an actual mass shooting. Just remember to compare actual prevented cases of proven attempts of mass shootings. Not scuffles and personal shootouts where a third person intervened. Cause then you'd have to include ALL the shootings in your comparison. Not just mass shootings. Arguably... even suicides. Cause cops sometimes prevent those by disarming people.
Guess what - civilians with guns NEARLY NEVER stop mass shootings despite all (ALL OF THEM) US states allowing concealed carry, and 11 of them allowing unconcealed carry (plus 4 more with certain caveats). But they sure do cause them.
Nice attempt to get out of cherry picking by putting up a strawman defense.
Guess what? You just affirmed that your cherry picked argument is full of shit - WHILE piling more fallacies on your own doorstep. You should really stop digging once you hit the septic tank, you know?
But while you're wallowing in your own shit there... back to your non-argument about "terrists" and illegal guns. Which could be disregarded simply on account of logic - cause you are pulling an onus probandi disguised as an argument. I.e. Claiming something would happen, without any proof for it (even with immense proof against it) and shifting the burden of evidence on the other side, demanding that I prove your wild hypothetical guess you pulled out of your ass - to be factually wrong. And that's not an argument. That is, again, a fallacy.
But why even bother with hypotheticals when there is DATA proving you wrong RIGHT NOW. In 75% of cases of mass shootings, between 1982 and 2012, gunmen used legally purchased guns. Even this last case was committed with perfectly legally purchased guns. Guns don't kill people. Legally purchased automatic weapons with high capacity magazines kill people.
The fact is, that though the terrists are carefully concealing their identities, secret plans, hiding their true intentions from the public and the police - they are showing no attempt to try to conceal their gun purchases. Omar Mateen RENTED A VAN despite owning a car - but had no need to conceal his gun purchase. Why should he? Buying an automatic gun which can't be used for hunting and will kill your neighbors across the street if you use it for home defense, yet you still want one of those things designed solely for mass murder of people - that is not at all suspicious.
On top of that, had mass shooters been buying illegal guns, even a tragedy such as Orlando would have had a positive side - there would be a clue towards breaking up an illegal, terrist supplying, gun selling chain. But since all these guns were legal - they are not only cheaper, there is also nothing to investigate.
In fact, those guns being legal and thus cheap and available to any loon - is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING of spree killings. It's like the US government is paying people money to gun down its citizens. Or at least lowering the entry fee.
Nearly everywhere else they would be FORCED to pay more. And to jump through some very hard loops. Like, you know... meeting people who break laws for living... in secluded places... where they have guns and you have money... All while leaving a bigger footprint for the police. Except in the land of the flee. Home of the scared.
Even funnier fact - on ALL military bases, security personnel are armed. AND that means both MPs AND guards. Plus, the commander of the base or the officer on duty can issue guns and ammo in the case of an attack.
Oh... wait... I'm repeating what you just said.
It's just that you don't realize that that means that a military base is full of people GUARDING it. With guns. As in all around the perimeter, at all gates, at various secure points... Plus they have their own police force, doing regular police things. While carrying guns. You know that thing about never a cop there when you need one? Imagine working at a place with its own police.
I know! It's almost as if military bases are full of people with guns! Right?! Plus, they have plans and scenarios and protocols for just such an event. It's almost as if they are trained to respond to attacks. Unlike some Travis Bickle wannabe skulking around, waiting for "his moment".
Only 7 states deny gun purchase to people with a diagnosis. Only 4 will deny it to people admitting themselves to a mental institution voluntarily. 46 states think that people who believe that they are mentally insane enough that they shouldn't be allowed to live outside a mental institution, that they need 24 hour mental health help - are perfectly capable of handling a remote murder kill device. I guess they think that those people may only BELIEVE they are insane.
While only 21 state will deny purchase to people with a history of severe mental illness as judged by a court. http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
Doesn't stop a terrorist from obtaining a weapon illegally, as with the Belgium and France nightclub shootings
Well... if you're gonna conflate that - why not just include and compare all those US cases that happen every year with those that happen in Belgium and France? Oh... wait... you're only cherry picking points which you erroneously think are in your favor. Here, let me do that for ya. You'll forgive the discrepancy in years of accounting - it sure beats your data, right? Right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Homicides per 100,000 population per year: USA - 3.43. France - 0.21. Belgium - 0.33.
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year: USA - 10.54. France - 2.83. Belgium - 1.82.
It's almost as if USA has a much bigger problem with guns, regardless of the "outlaws can still get guns" canard. And as they say in France "If it walks like a canard and quacks like a canard - you're full of shit."
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
tl:dr - They and the Reagan-Bush-Bush judges made it all perfectly legal.
Only "issue" at play is that Democrats are playing by Republican rules.
I.e. Acting like Republicans while talking like Democrats. Which they can't help - Republicans changed the rules of the game.
THAT is their problem, when facing their voters. But it is not illegal. Just immoral. You know... designed by Republicans.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/...
All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election.
That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel.
He said, "It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money."
"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s.
The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.
But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions.
In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.
Campaign finance law had previously set an overarching limit on how much one person could give to federal candidates and the major parties â" combined â" in one election cycle.
In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court said that limit was unconstitutional.
As in other rulings, the court said removing the limit didn't raise questions of corruption.
You don't like that? Well, you can hop on your time machine and go and shoot down people responsible - two Bushes and a Reagan.
They appointed the guys who made it legal. Obama and Clinton appointed judges were against it.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down an overall cap on the amount that large campaign donors can give to parties and candidates in a two-year election cycle.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the opinion and was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.
A separate but concurring opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.
Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.
Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.
But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.
What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.
In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."
Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.
Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.
Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.
And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.
But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a
They'll munch on bones of other animals when they find them.
They need all the calcium they can get as they are pumping it out through milk.
Just like the way they'll go for some chicken nuggets if they are low on other nutrients such as phosphorus or iron.
Nature is red in tooth and claw.
21758
The reasons stated for banning are, in this order: gambling, evolution, use of religious symbols of other religions ("six-pointed star of Judaism", "the cross", "angles and triangles - Masonry", "Symbols of the Shinto creed").
So... the "Zionism-promoting" thing is invention and interpretation of Times of Israel, as neither Zionism nor Israel are mentioned in the fatwa.
Other than that, the entire thing reads like any other religious edict of any religion - detached from reality, one leg in conspiracy theories and religious paranoia, other leg firmly cemented in mental issues.
The tech has huge tentacle applications.
I don't know. Felt kinda poultry to me.
Since then they had a coup about once a decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1960 one ended with hanging of Prime Minister, Minister of Labor and Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
1980 one ended with 50 (official) executions and half a million arrests.
And modern liberals aren't authoritarian? To the point of legislating soft drink cup size? Or the shape of cucumbers in EU?
You are confusing standards with prohibition.
A law stating the size and system of measurement of cups used to serve beverages in restaurants is there so the owner/server can't fuck over customers with glasses that look big but actually contain less beverage than what the customer paid for.
Not really that important for Pepsi (until your kid complains to you asking you to fix the "injustice") but can be important when a bar full of sports fans starts complaining about half of their beer glasses being filled with only foam.
A law stating the size of cucumbers doesn't mean cucumbers of different size will be banned or thrown away - just that AFTER GOING OVER A SORTING GRATE the cucumbers of certain size will be used for pickling in jars of certain sizes while others will be sold fresh.
That's how you get your canape sizes pickles cheaply - without having to buy several jars of pickles and then handpicking the pickled pickles of puny proportions.
Both kinds of laws are there cause customers complain about being tricked by the salesmen or salesmen complaining about customers being picky - both sides demanding that the government officials do something about that.
Thus, the laws regulating standards.
Or drones.
It's an issue that now and forever every guy with a gun, who is surrounded by police or simply holed up somewhere and high on paranoia - is expecting to be exploded with bombs and perhaps robots.
And while this may or may not trigger a series of shootings of drones and toys - it most certainly will create a situation where now the perps expect that they are not getting arrested.
That it is a fight to the death. No negotiation. No deescalation. Cops will kill you so you must kill cops.
It's actually a bit ironic that Detroit depicted in RoboCop was actually mostly Dallas.
The heating element i assume is to reduce temperature extreme to reduce the level of expansion and contraction that can cause heavy damage.
This is not a project based on science or engineering.
This is a happy-flower-candy-unicorn project to save the deer and make everything happy-skippy-nice.
They have LED lights in it in order to light up the fucking animals crossing the road.
http://solarroadways.com/faq.s...
Solar Roadways® panels have an integrated heating component. The heating system in Solar Roadways® maintains a temperature above freezing. This keeps the road free of snow and ice. Since more than 70% of the U.S. population lives in snowy regions, this system is crucial to maintain safe road conditions. The implementation of a heated roadway system would also save a significant amount of time in snow removal. The electricity required to run the heating elements will vary from location to location. Every effort has been made to make sure only the minimal amount of energy is expended in keeping snow and ice from accumulating.
For homeowners SR can provide safe and efficient walking and parking surfaces. Shoveling and plowing are time consuming and shoveling can result in injuries. Many homeowners bear the expense of purchasing snow removal equipment or pay others to plow for them. Heated driveways, walkways, paths, patios, etc. would provide safer walking and driving surfaces that require less maintenance. With the implementation of SR, homeowners would be saved from winter inconveniences.
...
Each panel's heating element and LEDs are driven by the grid/storage system, not by the solar cells directly. The solar cells place the harvested energy on the grid/storage system. The systems are independent of one another. This is important because the heaters/LEDs must work at night when the solar cells are incapable of producing power.
I.e. They will be pumping in coal-powered heat and light in order to light up the deer and melt the snow and ice.
Pouring gasoline on the road and setting it on fire would probably be more ecological and "green".
Neither the installation nor the maintenance and operation costs for this particular "invention" are cheaper or simpler than the traditional road solutions.
They are nowhere close actually.
They require concrete foundations, with crawlspace for all the cabling.
They have built-in lights to light up the animals crossing the road.
They have built-in heaters to melt the snow and ice.
It's a product of hippy thinking, not engineering a solution to a problem - which would be roadside solar panels.
Fear for the deer? Put some lights on the pole too.
And whatever you do - don't use heat to melt the snow.
You'd be producing global warming by pumping in fossil-fuel-derived heat during the months when there is nearly no sunlight and using it to create water vapor.
Mechanical cleaning moves the snow onto dirt - where it slowly melts and is absorbed by said dirt. NOT evaporated directly into the air.
Address your lack of units to the "creators" of said "solar roadways".
All the numbers are quoted directly from their site. So they refer "per hexagon".
But who cares - cause their "invention" simply doesn't provide the power needed to melt the snow.
Not even their updated "48 W" version, which still doesn't come close to the power they had to pump into the heaters to melt the snow.
Which is a thing their FAQ no longer mentions. It just talks about how awesome it is to melt snow - by the power drawn from the grid.
I.e. By burning coal to melt ice and snow and heat up air.
They are using the same exact language as back when they listed the fact that they had to use 72 W to melt the snow off of a 36 W producing hexagon - except there's no more talk about any actual numbers.
Measured or projected.
But they still say "the panels will not be heated to the extent of being warm to the touch" - just like back when "72-watts... was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days".
I guess that after their "experiment with different voltages at different temperatures" they came up with the solution.
Which is clearly NOT TO MENTION how much power the whole thing would draw from the grid in order to melt the snow and ice.
We already had this discussion.
If you want a long (but informative) rant about why that is utter nonsense - here's mine.
In short - the best they are pulling off today is 36 W, they hope to someday, with the help of magic elves and such, make 52 W.
Only tests they made of using their panels for testing required 72 W.
I'm guessing that's why they ended up testing it on a road in Missouri and not in... say... Wisconsin.
Also, as any melting would be done in the winter, with shorter days and continuous snowfall - clearing the roads with heating would mean "pumping in" electricity from other sources. I.e. Burning coal.
Which would not only create tons of CO2 - it would literally pump water vapor and heat into atmosphere.
As far as "save the planet" ideas go it's somewhere between switching everyone from using electricity to using candles and exploding a bunch of nukes around poles in order to blast more ice into the water to cool the oceans.
It's because Lucas is a bigger hack writer who took bits from all over the place without giving it more consideration than "cause it's cool and I like it".
When he finally got around to try to consolidate all that stuff and make it make sense - we got midichlorians.
All Lucas knew was what it was supposed to be LIKE.
I.e. Like 1920s pulp serials, like Kurosawa's samurai movies, like WW2 dogfights, like the stuff Joseph Campbell wrote, like Buddhism...
Roddenberry on the other hand had strict guidelines for the Star Trek universe. He knew where he wanted the show to go and what it was supposed to be ABOUT.
E.g. "...assessing where we humans presently are, where we're going and what our existence is really about."
He made sure that the stories are about things that MATTER to humans.
Which is why even when his "Bible" wasn't followed (cause there are PAGES AND PAGES OF RULES - like "no stories with Vulcans") - the core idea was still there, holding it all together.
He attended Penasquitos Lutheran Church with his family, according to the church's pastor.[21][22]
Siria?
What's that article beside click-bait?
Being that Gizomodo is a part of the Gawker shithouse - it's all clickbait all the time.
In both cases shooters were stopped or shot (second one committed suicide after being stopped) within minutes - by police officers.
In both cases, response time was under the national average.
In neither case civilians (as in not security officers) didn't stop it.
Nor did non-security military personnel stop it, though some were killed while trying to do that while unarmed.
Nor did the security of the location, which is NOT a gun-free zone, as gun-free zones don't come with armed guards around them and at various locations across the "zone" - deter either of the shooters.
As for the 89th and 720th - that is their job there. When they are not deployed, they are the base security.
I.e. They carry guns.
The point is - neither do civilians with guns stop mass shooters, nor does increased security deter them.
These are insane people we're talking about.
In fact, there are more cases of unarmed civilians (21, out of 160 incidents, 2000-2013) stopping mass shooters, than there are cases of armed civilians doing that (5 - one of them a security guard at that church).
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/o...
Sorry. Neither facts nor logic support "Yosemite Sam" approach to citizen security.
No... That's your job. You wouldn't want me to call you a mentally retarded idiot who can't even grasp how onus probandi works, now would you?
And then, after you you have compiled all those cases, compare them to the number of cases where an armed civilian committed an actual mass shooting.
Just remember to compare actual prevented cases of proven attempts of mass shootings. Not scuffles and personal shootouts where a third person intervened.
Cause then you'd have to include ALL the shootings in your comparison. Not just mass shootings.
Arguably... even suicides. Cause cops sometimes prevent those by disarming people.
And don't forget to include the cases where civilians decide to go all Rambo - and end up getting killed or killing and wounding innocent bystanders.
Guess what - civilians with guns NEARLY NEVER stop mass shootings despite all (ALL OF THEM) US states allowing concealed carry, and 11 of them allowing unconcealed carry (plus 4 more with certain caveats).
But they sure do cause them.
Nice attempt to get out of cherry picking by putting up a strawman defense.
Guess what? You just affirmed that your cherry picked argument is full of shit - WHILE piling more fallacies on your own doorstep.
You should really stop digging once you hit the septic tank, you know?
But while you're wallowing in your own shit there... back to your non-argument about "terrists" and illegal guns.
Which could be disregarded simply on account of logic - cause you are pulling an onus probandi disguised as an argument.
I.e. Claiming something would happen, without any proof for it (even with immense proof against it) and shifting the burden of evidence on the other side, demanding that I prove your wild hypothetical guess you pulled out of your ass - to be factually wrong.
And that's not an argument. That is, again, a fallacy.
But why even bother with hypotheticals when there is DATA proving you wrong RIGHT NOW.
In 75% of cases of mass shootings, between 1982 and 2012, gunmen used legally purchased guns.
Even this last case was committed with perfectly legally purchased guns.
Guns don't kill people. Legally purchased automatic weapons with high capacity magazines kill people.
The fact is, that though the terrists are carefully concealing their identities, secret plans, hiding their true intentions from the public and the police - they are showing no attempt to try to conceal their gun purchases.
Omar Mateen RENTED A VAN despite owning a car - but had no need to conceal his gun purchase.
Why should he?
Buying an automatic gun which can't be used for hunting and will kill your neighbors across the street if you use it for home defense, yet you still want one of those things designed solely for mass murder of people - that is not at all suspicious.
On top of that, had mass shooters been buying illegal guns, even a tragedy such as Orlando would have had a positive side - there would be a clue towards breaking up an illegal, terrist supplying, gun selling chain.
But since all these guns were legal - they are not only cheaper, there is also nothing to investigate.
In fact, those guns being legal and thus cheap and available to any loon - is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING of spree killings.
It's like the US government is paying people money to gun down its citizens.
Or at least lowering the entry fee.
Nearly everywhere else they would be FORCED to pay more.
And to jump through some very hard loops. Like, you know... meeting people who break laws for living... in secluded places... where they have guns and you have money...
All while leaving a bigger footprint for the police.
Except in the land of the flee. Home of the scared.
How many of those do you think were LEOs, MPs or on guard duty?
Well... considering 89th Military Police Brigade is garrisoned there... at least about a battalion of MPs.
So what you are saying is that every legal gun owner should be treated as a murderer because he has the tool ? Get real.
Nope. That's you putting words in my mouth, playing "Let's make a strawman".
Get literate. Also, factual.
Even funnier fact - on ALL military bases, security personnel are armed. AND that means both MPs AND guards.
Plus, the commander of the base or the officer on duty can issue guns and ammo in the case of an attack.
Oh... wait... I'm repeating what you just said.
It's just that you don't realize that that means that a military base is full of people GUARDING it. With guns.
As in all around the perimeter, at all gates, at various secure points... Plus they have their own police force, doing regular police things. While carrying guns.
You know that thing about never a cop there when you need one? Imagine working at a place with its own police.
I know! It's almost as if military bases are full of people with guns! Right?!
Plus, they have plans and scenarios and protocols for just such an event. It's almost as if they are trained to respond to attacks.
Unlike some Travis Bickle wannabe skulking around, waiting for "his moment".
Many states already have this.
Only 7 states deny gun purchase to people with a diagnosis. Only 4 will deny it to people admitting themselves to a mental institution voluntarily.
46 states think that people who believe that they are mentally insane enough that they shouldn't be allowed to live outside a mental institution, that they need 24 hour mental health help - are perfectly capable of handling a remote murder kill device.
I guess they think that those people may only BELIEVE they are insane.
While only 21 state will deny purchase to people with a history of severe mental illness as judged by a court.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
Doesn't stop a terrorist from obtaining a weapon illegally, as with the Belgium and France nightclub shootings
Well... if you're gonna conflate that - why not just include and compare all those US cases that happen every year with those that happen in Belgium and France?
Oh... wait... you're only cherry picking points which you erroneously think are in your favor.
Here, let me do that for ya. You'll forgive the discrepancy in years of accounting - it sure beats your data, right? Right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Homicides per 100,000 population per year:
USA - 3.43.
France - 0.21.
Belgium - 0.33.
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year:
USA - 10.54.
France - 2.83.
Belgium - 1.82.
It's almost as if USA has a much bigger problem with guns, regardless of the "outlaws can still get guns" canard.
And as they say in France "If it walks like a canard and quacks like a canard - you're full of shit."