You're kidding, right? How about the Wikipedia entry?
You're kidding right? Wikipedia?
Oh hell, let's give it a try:
Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: izbu-'llh(i),[2] literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamist political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah is now also a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and plays a significant force in Lebanese politics.[4] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.[3] Many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah while others have praised the party.[5][6] Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.[7]
(UTF-8 trashed by slashshit)
Nothing about Israel there. Keep going:
[...]Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a "Zionist entity... built on lands wrested from their owners."[10][11]
Ok, so we've got "leaders" calling for the destruction of the "Zionist entity". The straight Jimmy Carter/Nelson Mandela line.
Destruction of the "Zionist Entity" is no more the destruction of "Israel" than the destruction of Apartheid was the destruction of South Africa,
Iraqis would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
Afghanis would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
I'm not saying we target innocents intentionally, but we've certainly killed plenty of them in the crossfire with whichever groups we decided were naughty.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
We use military force on "legitimate targets" around civilians and every time the "collateral damage" is larger than the number of bad guys killed we cry "oh, but we weren't deliberately targeting those poor civilians".
Won't happen. Current-day Israel is their ancestral home, ignoring the fact that for about 200 years, it was 'occupied' by the Arabs when the Romans kicked them out.
So, the second temple was destroyed in 1748? I think you missed a zero there.
Indeed. Israel has nuclear weapons and reasons for having them - they are situated amidst a number of countries where there is a lot of ill-will toward them and in which political capital is made out of voicing hatred of the country. It's not a reassuring position to be in. In the past, they have been subject to a war of aggression due to the aggressor the countries' internal troubles. As far as Israel is concerned, Iran gaining a nuclear capability would (whilst not actually doing so as far as any sane person were concerned) remove the deterrent to attacking them in the future and open the door to devestating attacks (subjecting them to the deterrent). It is in Israel's rational interests that Iran does not gain nuclear capability.
Indeed. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and has refused to develop them even though they are situated amidst a number of countries where there is great ill-will toward them and in which political capital is made out of voicing hatred of the country. It's not a reassuring position to be in. In the past, they have been subject to a war of aggression due to the aggressor countries' internal troubles.
Funny, most of what you say about Israel applies to Iran, with the difference that Iran doesn't have a history of attacking it's neighbours and annexing their territory. Iran has also refused to develop nuclear weapons, going so far as to declare their possession un-Islamic.
Considering Iran has said they'd love to wipe Israel off the map,
I'm getting really bored with this, but, here we go again, when did "Iran" say that? Who is this "Iran" anyway, did the entire 70 million of them rise up and cry it out in one voice? Or maybe it's a misquotation of a speech Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made? You know, the "president" or Iran who has no control over the Armed forces or Foreign policy?
Here's my analysis. Iran is clearly building nukes, and will succeed unless stopped. They clearly arm Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. Israel has nukes now. What do you think Israel will do about it?
You think Hezbollah is trying to destroy Israel? How exactly are they trying to do this? What evidence do you have for this strange belief?
Well, if you read the VNC source EDU4 were using you wont see any copyright notices - they took them out.
AFPA could sue EDU4 because they bought (a license to) a software system from EDU4, and EDU4 provided a forgery - a GPL'd work obfuscated to hide the fact that it was GPL'd.
(EDU4 also included a secret back-door password in the version of VNC they provided, which is presumably why they didn't want to provide the source!)
I don't know of any energy conversion process that is 100% efficient,
Uh, electrictity into heat? (You may get a little buzzing noise, but apart from that...)
and I can tell you for certain that burning gas, wood, or coal is no where near 100% efficiency.
A condensing gas boiler is supposed to get somewhere between 82% (lowest real-life reported) and 98% (best case in the lab).
In fact the better equipment most electrical companies have for combustion still provides a better efficiency even after transmission loss and conversion then you could achieve at home.
Nowhere near - just the heat->electricity is at best 48% efficient, without even getting into transmission losses.
Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.
The marginal increase in cost from the cooling is canceled out by the heating gains. That is, for every extra dollar I spend cooling heat that I produced with the light bulbs, I save at least an extra dollar off my heating bill.
Wah? You're losing me here.
Using silly made up numbers, assuming conservation of energy and double entry book-keeping:
With incandescents in winter:
In winter your heating bill is, say, $100. Your lighting bill is, say, $100. $90 of that is heat, $10 is light.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
With CFL or LED or whatever in winter:
Your heating bill is now $190 ('cos the CFL/LED is not giving you the heat it used to) Your lighting bill is now $10.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
In summer, with incandescents, your lighting bill is $100 and your air conditioning bill is $190.
In summer with CFL/LED's your lighting bill is $10 and your air conditioning bill is $100.
Like I said, silly made up numbers, and you can possibly correctly claim:
Correct. Unfortunately, CFLs and LEDs are much more expensive upfront. Since I get approximately zero savings for 6 months of the year, the time to recoup is doubled (or, with a fixed horizon, the price differential at the critical point is halved).
But that has nothing to do with your initial claim that the heating effect of incandescent bulbs in winter canceled out their electricity savings all year round.
Again, large upfront costs and smaller continued costs. It would cost a small fortune to replace our 1950s oil boiler with something vaguely modern.
Wah? You said you had electric heat! Is electricity cheaper than fuel oil in New England?
Oh, and I rent, so tearing stuff out is not an option.
But it's so easy to get a low rate loan to buy, and property is such a great investment!
Even if we assume (incorrectly) that there is the same light usage in winter and summer, the marginal increase from paying double during the 2 months (maybe 3 during a bad summer) of AC are more than canceled out by 6 months where the bulb is redundant with the heater
Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.
If you replace your incandescents by CFL's or LED's you'll produce less heat from your lighting, so in winter you'll need to run the heater more. However the total electricity use will be the same.
In summer (summer being defined as the months, weeks or days the heating is not being run) the heat from the incandescent will be wasted, and if you have air conditioning will make your air conditioning run harder.
The case for CFLs just isn't that compelling in a house where more than 50% of my annual electrical bill is electric heaters.
Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.
The markets set the price that refiners buy the oil from producers. Producing countries (i.e. OPEC) then get a bit of that.
The refiners then refine the oil, some of it to petrol, and sell it to you.
But the government slaps some taxes on, to fund some of the little things it does (you know, like roads, police, defense, social security, health care and so on).
The UK petrol duty + VAT is somewhere around 60-70% of the price at the pump. (very approximate figure, I couldn't be bothered to find the real prices online).
No the scam is not on you, you get cheaper heating. The scam is on everyone else, who pay more for the electricity than you pay for the gas you use to generate it. This is a way of stealing the reusable energy subsidies while increasing CO2 output.
they are also one of the leading nations when it comes to adopting renewable energy sources, like wind power
Denmark is funny. The country is split in two, eastern Denmark and western Denmark, with no grid interconnection. Each part is connected to the grids of neighboring countries.
So Eastern Denmark generates 51% of it's electricity from fossil fuel and imports 29% from Germany and Sweden. Western Denmark generates 52% of its electricity from fossil fuels and imports 26% from Germany, Norway and Sweden, The power imported from Germany is largely nuclear and brown coal, The power imported from Sweden is about half hydro and half nuclear, the power from Norway is almost all hydro. (Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.html
So one of the "leading nations when it comes to adopting renewable energy sources, like wind power" generates more than 50% of its electricity from fossil fuels, and has to import electricity that it's neighbors are generating from nukes or even horrible brown coal (lignite).
Amusingly both East and West Denmark export more power than they generate from wind - they effectively export all the green energy they produce, running Denmark itself mostly on fossil fuels and imported nukes!
Slashdot Mirror
2008 GDP (IMF, nominal):
Iran: 344,820 MUSD
Israel: 201,761 MUSD
So Iran (pop ~70M) has a bigger GDP than Israel (pop ~7M), but "many times"? No.
By the way, some countries that do have the bomb:
Pakistan: 167,640 MUSD
North Korea: 26,200 MUSD (CIA estimate)
No, Italians.
Fucking slashtripe. I am not a cowboy.
Oh, by the way, you did notice that my original questions were
How exactly are they trying to do this?
Even if you think Hezbollah want Israel to be destroyed what exactly makes you think they are trying to do it?
You're kidding right? Wikipedia?
Oh hell, let's give it a try:
(UTF-8 trashed by slashshit)
Nothing about Israel there. Keep going:
Ok, so we've got "leaders" calling for the destruction of the "Zionist entity". The straight Jimmy Carter/Nelson Mandela line.
Destruction of the "Zionist Entity" is no more the destruction of "Israel" than the destruction of Apartheid was the destruction of South Africa,
Iraqis would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get
back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
Afghanis would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
Hey, it works for everyone!
But it would ensure a Republican presidency for the next 1000 years so some people would be happy.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
We use military force on "legitimate targets" around civilians and every time the "collateral damage" is larger than the number of bad guys killed we cry "oh, but we weren't deliberately targeting those poor civilians".
Pah. Not just terrorists but cowardly terrorists.
So, the second temple was destroyed in 1748? I think you missed a zero there.
Indeed. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and has refused to develop them even though they are situated amidst a number of countries where there is great ill-will toward them and in which political capital is made out of voicing hatred of the country. It's not a reassuring position to be in. In the past, they have been subject to a war of aggression due to the aggressor countries' internal troubles.
Funny, most of what you say about Israel applies to Iran, with the difference that Iran doesn't have a history of attacking it's neighbours and annexing their territory. Iran has also refused to develop nuclear weapons, going so far as to declare their possession un-Islamic.
I'm getting really bored with this, but, here we go again, when did "Iran" say that? Who is this "Iran" anyway, did the entire 70 million of them rise up and cry it out in one voice? Or maybe it's a misquotation of a speech Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made? You know, the "president" or Iran who has no control over the Armed forces or Foreign policy?
You think Hezbollah is trying to destroy Israel? How exactly are they trying to do this? What evidence do you have for this strange belief?
Citation Needed. And don't bother coming back with "wipe 'em off the map".
Well, if you read the VNC source EDU4 were using you wont see any copyright notices - they took them out.
AFPA could sue EDU4 because they bought (a license to) a software system from EDU4, and EDU4 provided a forgery - a GPL'd work obfuscated to hide the fact that it was GPL'd.
(EDU4 also included a secret back-door password in the version of VNC they provided, which is presumably why they didn't want to provide the source!)
How do you know they were distributing an unmodified version of VNC?
Oh, because you read the source.
Good thing you had it available.
Did they fix the discriminatory bits (not applying to ministers, the music industry and so on)?
Uh, electrictity into heat? (You may get a little buzzing noise, but apart from that...)
A condensing gas boiler is supposed to get somewhere between 82% (lowest real-life reported) and 98% (best case in the lab).
Nowhere near - just the heat->electricity is at best 48% efficient, without even getting into transmission losses.
An incandescent bulb turns about 90% of the electricity into heat and 10% into light.
An electric heater turns about 100% if the electricity into heat.
So an incandescent bulb is not so bad as a heater (just ask any chicken).
They were, as I said, joke numbers. The point is that 1+1=2.
Wah? You're losing me here.
Using silly made up numbers, assuming conservation of energy and double entry book-keeping:
With incandescents in winter:
In winter your heating bill is, say, $100.
Your lighting bill is, say, $100. $90 of that is heat, $10 is light.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
With CFL or LED or whatever in winter:
Your heating bill is now $190 ('cos the CFL/LED is not giving you the heat it used to)
Your lighting bill is now $10.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
In summer, with incandescents, your lighting bill is $100 and your air conditioning bill is $190.
In summer with CFL/LED's your lighting bill is $10 and your air conditioning bill is $100.
Like I said, silly made up numbers, and you can possibly correctly claim:
But that has nothing to do with your initial claim that the heating effect of incandescent bulbs in winter canceled out their electricity savings all year round.
Wah? You said you had electric heat! Is electricity cheaper than fuel oil in New England?
But it's so easy to get a low rate loan to buy, and property is such a great investment!
Tell me about it! The bastards who were in my last flat before me took the fucking light sockets not just the bulbs!
Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.
If you replace your incandescents by CFL's or LED's you'll produce less heat from your lighting, so in winter you'll need to run the heater more. However the total electricity use will be the same.
In summer (summer being defined as the months, weeks or days the heating is not being run) the heat from the incandescent will be wasted, and if you have air conditioning will make your air conditioning run harder.
Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.
Of course Raul was elected, by 100% of eligible Cuban voters - aka Fidel Castro.
We're talking about oil, not petrol.
The markets set the price that refiners buy the oil from producers. Producing countries (i.e. OPEC) then get a bit of that.
The refiners then refine the oil, some of it to petrol, and sell it to you.
But the government slaps some taxes on, to fund some of the little things it does (you know, like roads, police, defense, social security, health care and so on).
The UK petrol duty + VAT is somewhere around 60-70% of the price at the pump. (very approximate figure, I couldn't be bothered to find the real prices online).
No the scam is not on you, you get cheaper heating. The scam is on everyone else, who pay more for the electricity than you pay for the gas you use to generate it. This is a way of stealing the reusable energy subsidies while increasing CO2 output.
Denmark is funny. The country is split in two, eastern Denmark and western Denmark, with no grid interconnection. Each part is connected to the grids of neighboring countries.
In 2008 the figures look like this:
Source _ _ _ _ _ East _ _ _ _ _ _ West
Wind _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 786 (11%)_ _ _ 5 192 (17%)
Biofuel_ _ _ _ _ 1 549 (9%) _ _ _ 1 708 (6%)
Fossil _ _ _ _ _ 8 666 (51%) _ _ 15 721 (52%)
Hydro, PV_ _ _ _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 27
Imports_ _ _ _ _ 4 949 (29%)_ _ _ 7 769 (26%)
Total:_ _ _ _ _ 16 950 _ _ _ _ _ 30 417
Exports_ _ _ _ _ 2 467_ _ _ _ _ _ 8 797
Loss _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 359_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 518
Consumption _ _ 14 124 _ _ _ _ _ 21 102
Total:_ _ _ _ _ 16 950 _ _ _ _ _ 30 417 (hey, the numbers add up!)
(Sorry about the horrible table, the fault of idiot slashdot coders who don't let me use <table> like god intended. Source: http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/Climate+and+the+environment/Environmental+key+figures+for+electricity/Environmental+key+figures+for+electricity+generation+2008.htm).
So Eastern Denmark generates 51% of it's electricity from fossil fuel and imports 29% from Germany and Sweden. Western Denmark generates 52% of its electricity from fossil fuels and imports 26% from Germany, Norway and Sweden, The power imported from Germany is largely nuclear and brown coal, The power imported from Sweden is about half hydro and half nuclear, the power from Norway is almost all hydro. (Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.html
So one of the "leading nations when it comes to adopting renewable energy sources, like wind power" generates more than 50% of its electricity from fossil fuels, and has to import electricity that it's neighbors are generating from nukes or even horrible brown coal (lignite).
Amusingly both East and West Denmark export more power than they generate from wind - they effectively export all the green energy they produce, running Denmark itself mostly on fossil fuels and imported nukes!