IF you are tracking my I-phone by it's IP, I spend a lot of time in downtown Dallas.. If you track my Facebook access from home, it's going to tell you I'm in the Carrolton Texas area. Both are about 25 miles from my ACTUAL location.
However, there are more ways to give up your physical location than accessing Facebook. Take a picture and share it with your mobile device? (They are usually GEO tagged by your device). Run some "GPS" application to get driving directions? Actually have it turned on and pinging a cell tower? (The carrier knows where you are with very good resolution.)
So why do I care what Facebook is tracking? I fully know my activities are being tracked by multiple services. IF you don't like that, don't access these services.. IF you don't already know about this, that's on you for accepting all the EULA's without understanding them.
2. Everyone should get what they deserve, and we deserve a good life. Not because of who we are or who are dad is but because we're human beings.
We do eh? I don't know what world YOU live in, but in mine humans are violent, vile, nasty and hateful creatures sometimes, all of us are in our own ways. Personally, I don't deserve a good life to be given me. I am entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but ease, leisure, food, clothing and entertainment is up to me to earn.
Your kind of thinking is what is driving the world into the sewer. When folks start thinking that they DESERVE to be happy, fed, comfortable and the word owes them this, then you get places like Venezuela where this mentality has ruined a once vibrant economy and now EVERYBODY is desperately poor, hungry and uncomfortable. Don't bring that mess here, for my kids sake.
In a sane world, folks who can work, are productive and live off of the proceeds of their labor. In a sane world if you want food, you grow it or work for money to buy it from someone. In a sane world people are expected to earn their way, if at all possible, though their labor, skills and investments. In a sane world we are all free to choose how to be happy and left on our own to do it, in so far as it recognizes everyone's rights to do the same.
Socialist like programs are contrary to these principles, as is giving the able bodied stuff w/o requiring labor in return. It destroys the society, fosters irresponsible behavior, kills productivity and eventually destroys economies and countries, bringing death and destruction to all.
They often have regional pay scales. They'll gladly hire you to work there for less money then someone in an expensive area.
LOL.. How's that fair?
Actually, it's a seller's market for my kind of labor here right now. My salary is going up more than it did last year. I have a feeling I'm going to be making the same wages as my counter parts in San Francisco pretty soon. We are already seeing the massive real-estate price run up and a massive influx of folks from the better paid areas and wages are following that.
Still produces some smog-forming chemicals. Also, they're already in place. This is plan is about replacing those buses as they reach EOL.
Also, it's not like this is hard to do. There's no new technology to invent. There's already cities that use 100% EV buses, and these cities are not small. So all that is needed is a reason to switch. And this regulation supplies that reason.
No, Not nearly as many. CNG is much cleaner as a motor fuel, especially diesel. Plus, with current emission standards, MOST newer gasoline powered vehicles are emitting cleaner vapors than they are ingesting when the air quality is bad. We have, at least in the USA, largely dealt with vehicle emissions and the production of smog. In fact, the majority of the problem is no longer vehicle emissions, but all the other things out there like law mowers, water heaters, manufacturing processes or even building materials.
But hey, don't let the facts get in way of a good narrative here..
You still haven't addressed HOW the state is going to get enough electricity to charge all these batteries. Which was my point. You cannot just toss fossil fuels out of the mix by buying electric vehicles because all that power needs to come from someplace.... All the "green" sources are going to rapidly be tapped out and then where will we be? (walking home in the dark instead of taking the bus most likely)
Scattered coworking spaces and work-from-home with virtual offices.
I can attest that this is fine for some kinds of work, but not for others. Close collaboration and team work suffers when people are not actually face to face, and working from say a "home office" hasn't been shown to be real good for productivity or information security. But it has it's place I suppose.
Good luck with your venture, I wouldn't mind working for a San Francisco company at their wage scale from here in the Midwest and I wouldn't mind staying a few hours later each day to support communications until 5PM west coast time. I'd make a killing for Texas...
I recall that just a few months ago California also tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants in a similar move. I'm just curious how they figure on charging these new buses so they can actually use them?
IF smog is your concern, do CNG powered buses. They run exceptionally clean and CNG generally doesn't require major changes to existing internal combustion engines to work.
IF you are really serious about CO2 emissions, then your problem isn't city buses, but population density. You need to get folks to live where they work and give up their cars, in mass numbers. This will require that you stop enabling the long commutes to the suburbs, heavily regulate cars and hike the price of motor fuels though the roof.
Problem is, most of these "solutions" are not very popular with the voters.... So we get this kind of stuff that sounds good but won't ever really work.
Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?
I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation? I also understand that his purposed tax cuts got trimmed by Congress, especially on the income tax side, so one needs to be careful to consider exactly which tax cut plan is being discussed, the one he wanted or the one Congress gave him.
BTW, household income IS going up these days on average according to the numbers I'm seeing.
Also, I'm still looking for my $2,500 savings promised by the ACA.... But hey, I fully understood that wasn't coming...:)
Half of the USA got annual raises.. Weird... They used to be handing out pink slips just a few short years ago, but they have largely stopped that now. Even weirder..
What are we, a glass half full or half empty kind of person here?
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
2. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. (i.e. Don't be afraid to ASK for what you deserve, but you have to be prepared to move on if they cannot or will not do what you think is fair. )
I have another friend who used to tell me in the down turn in the tech market of the 2000's, "Right now it's a buyer's market, but it will be a seller's market someday again." He was saying the same thing as my dad, be ready to demand more, but fully understand the limits of your bargaining power and be ready to walk when it makes sense to your future.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and that's the part that bothers me.
So, unethical but otherwise legal behavior is worth of THIS kind of coverage and threats of impeachment?
Look, we ALL knew what kind of guy Trump was BEFORE he was elected, even before he dreamed of running for office. This continued harping on him and unending investigating him and anybody who has the misfortune of being associated with him is crazy, in a partisan sort of way..
"Quite so. You'd think that the feds would be ready to pounce on any coin redeemed for cash" - Derp, lol. What's your basis for thinking that?
Also ledgers are fairly fucking simple to distribute, sell, disseminate, sit on indefinitely... so there's that. They could probably spend all of it paying 3rd parties for services and no one would know for years.
Sir, the block chain is not private and ALL transactions in BitCoin are publicly recorded. So, yea, you may sit on an illegally obtained Coin all you want, but it's worthless until you trade it for something of value. Once you attempt to transfer ownership, it pops up in the block chain, bells go off over at the Feds and a host of agents start investigating who the new owner of the coin is so they can ask them who they got the funds from. So, sitting on it is pointless, your best bet is to TRADE it sooner rather than later, get your value out of it before the Feds can set up to spring the trap with your ill gotten gains as the bait.
""It is not a crime to hire a bad lawyer." - However, if you provably enter into a crime with that lawyer, not only is he going to prison (did) but so are you, and without any 5th Amendment protections in that relationship.
Oh you DO understand that you have to really read a lot of stuff between the lines here. I'd like to know what you think the "provable crime" here might have been here. Hiring Cohen to "fix" situations by paying women for their silence isn't illegal in and of itself. This kind of thing happens all the time and apparently this isn't a new thing for Trump either. He paid Karen McDougal and even purchased an unflattering news story about that well in advance of his running for president. It's important that you understand that this is SOP for Trump and has been for years before the election, that this was his standard practice.
The question then becomes not about the legality of the agreements with the women, but the question of if paying the money was a campaign finance violation, and if so, by who? Well, Mueller claims that the Trump organization (his business) actually paid these expenses, in fact he claims they tried to hide these payments, burying it in creative accounting, but that too was their standard practice (i.e. not done for campaign reasons). Then there is the audio recording where Trump "ordered" Cohen to pay Daniels, where he arguably is offering to cut Cohen a check which Cohen seems to refuse. I don't think this is Trump ordering Cohen to violate campaign finance law at all...
Cohen may indeed be guilty of a campaign finance violation depending on how he views the payments, but that's on him, not Trump. If Trump was ordering the payments for other reasons (as in it's how he handles these things as evidenced by his past actions) then it's not a campaign finance issue at all. Further, if Trump ordered and PAYED the money to Cohen (which again he could easily argue given the fees he was paying) it is not a campaign finance violation for any of them including Cohen, despite of his guilty plea otherwise.
I'm telling you that you need to be patient and see what the whole body of evidence shows here. There are fundamental questions which simply must be answered and specific points which must be proven or this is going to end totally different than you assume.
There are different forms of critical mass, nuclear reactors do not have the ability to cause a nuclear explosion as they are NOT prompt critical, but moderated critical.
In order to cause a nuclear explosion you have to have a critical mass that is prompt critical, where unmoderated neutrons can sustain the chain reaction. This requires a very fast assembly of the critical mass, because you need to get the device prompt critical before it disassembles itself from the heat of being moderated critical, where moderated neutrons, ones that have been slowed down either by distance or by hitting something sustain the chain reaction.
So, like the pulsar reactor I got to see once, you can actually pull out all the control rods and it will not detonate in a nuclear explosion. The pulsar reactor would actually pulse to a very high power level for a very short period of time and cycle up and down rapidly, but wouldn't explode. A power reactor who's control rods got fully removed would produce a LOT of heat, but as the temperature and pressure went up it would vent water/steam and once the steam bubbles started to form in the reactor core, the nuclear reaction would be inhibited, with less and less moderated neutrons being available. Problem is, for most boiling water reactors, that the decay heat would far exceed the core structure's ability to stay in place, it melts and bad things start happening. You get steam explosions or should the cladding on the fuel rods get hot enough, it starts to break down, producing hydrogen gas from the water and such to get you a chemical explosion if it ignites for some reason.
So no, nuclear plats will not ever produce a thermal nuclear (or just plain nuclear) explosion...It's physically impossible.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to ask for Bitcoin as ransom, since they can be tracked and traced perfectly, forever.
Quite so. You'd think that the feds would be ready to pounce on any coin redeemed for cash and are right now tracing down all transactions attached to the wallet associated with the ransom demands, if there are any.
The Orange Asshole has been losing his mind on Twitter, trying to distract the planet from the seemingly endless parade of his cohorts going to prison. Is it possible Dipshit Donnie did it? Who else is that stupid and has as much of a motive? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, All I can say is why would he bother? There are PLENTY of ways to "wag the dog" if he wanted should the Twitter ranting not be enough distraction for him.
By the way... Having dodgy friends is no crime in and of itself and the US Constitution makes it clear that "guilt by association" isn't a governing legal principle in the USA. Or as Rudy puts it, "It is not a crime to hire a bad lawyer. " Personally, I figure I'll wait to pass judgment until all the facts are known from Mueller's investigation on all of this, but if you want to, fine. Just remember, Trump has been declared dead multiple times a month since the campaign and yet lived to tell the tale, so I'd urge a bit or caution in doing it this time, at least right away. Let's see if anything sticks before we go off half cocked..
Because... I bristle at those who throw out "It causes cancer!" as a means to make their point sound valid. I DO NOT take such statements at face value or accept them from people who cannot explain exactly what they mean. Plus, this is just an emotional argument anyway. I hate it when environmental concerns use emotion to sell their ideas, especially when they are concentrating on the insignificant and ignoring the real issues.
SMOG is largely a thing of the past here in the USA. Since the 70's we've made great progress on this front, so much that the most prevalent causes of illness and death from emissions is NOT cancer. Not that it ever was...
Now if you want to discuss asthmatics and those suffering from lung issues, having issues breathing do to particulate loads, one has to realize that the air OUTSIDE is likely better than the air in your house now days... But hey, let's concentrate on the minors, because we can make an emotional argument from that stuff.
Just so it's TOTALY clear... When you say "explode" you are discussing hydrogen explosions which are only possible concerns in very extreme situations in nuclear power plants. Modern designs do NOT suffer from the same issues as the various operating reactors in the USA today.
The only reason why we don't have modern nuclear reactors in operation here in the USA is because the "environmentalist" lobby has basically made it too expensive. It's not dangerous.
I remember being a college student during the final phases of licensing for the Sharon Harris plant outside of Raleigh. At the time "equal time" was a rule the media had to practice, so the environmentalists where given free TV Time all over the place. "It's not too late!" was their campaign slogan. I asked one of them to go pull their electric meter if they really where serious, live off the grid, prove you are really concerned.... Needless to say, the lights stayed on at home.
IF we are serious about climate change and environmental concerns, these folks should be marching at every fossil fueled power plant demanding it be replaced with a nuclear one. They should be demanding dollars for fusion R&D. Where are they?
Finally, somebody who has a reasonable answer... Yes, but these compounds are already being reduced though the various emissions controls including the catalytic converters in modern vehicles. In fact, GREATLY reduced by these measures, especially in gasoline engines.
Remember the VW getting caught cheating thing? This was about NOx emissions (among other things). VW had supposedly developed an engine that didn't require the urea injection NOx reduction systems of other diesel makers required. NOx emissions have been the focus of intense regulation since before the 1970's. We've done a great job and made great strides with this.
CO is not a cancer risk is it? Surely CO2 and H2O are not an issue right?
BTW, With modern catalytic converters, most of that incomplete combustion and CO emissions are eliminated before they are emitted. Which is pretty much the whole point of that emissions control stuff...
If you get a civil judgment you cannot pay, your choices are to either make payments or go bankrupt which cancels out any civil judgments. What would YOU choose?
I was sued once by a former employer and my lawyer explained to me what they could force me to give them if they won the judgment. They couldn't take my house, my car my retirement, but only things I owned beyond that. Given I didn't have a 2nd car, house, any cash or other fungible assets I asked him what they could collect? He said "Nothing." to which he added "Then what did you do to piss them off this bad because this has to be about revenge, not recovery?"
They didn't prevail, quite the opposite, but the plan was to just declare bankruptcy and leave them with their legal bills and worthless civil judgment. You cannot squeeze blood from a stone or money out of a bankrupt individual who doesn't have any. As it turned out, I walked away with my legal fees paid and a new respect for the legal process and how it can be abused, but my former employer was an idiot with a huge chip on his shoulder and I had him on tape saying some stupid things to a prospective future employer. It was so bad I could have sued him, probably should have, but I was so done with the whole thing...
But you CAN avoid paying, it's called bankruptcy. In fact, I could have stopped the lawsuit in it's tracks by filing for bankruptcy.
So all this guy needs to do is file bankruptcy, survive 10 years w/o credit to speak of and get back to work creating a positive credit history. If Tesla is counting on discovery, just the filing of the bankruptcy kills this whole thing in it's tracks, no discovery, no lawsuit, nothing.
This is just Tesla slapping the guy around in the press... Not much else...Unless he actually HAS that kind of cash, or at least enough laying around to make it worth the legal bills...
Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?
More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other things. And in the USA smog has been greatly reduced since the 70's, and I mean GREATLY. In some cases the problem is becoming more and more caused by natural processes than man made emitters.
It's been an ignored fact that in the USA we've gone to great strides and made great progress with our air quality issues. Even since the 70's we've improved the environment around our large cities in unprecedented ways and have been very successful doing this.
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
Conveniently omitting to mention pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as remaining concerns.
I would like to point out that this USED to be a question of national security too. Because the nation's infrastructure ran on oil and we used more than we produced, we where at high risk if there where supply disruption, say because of some bad things happening half a world away. So, the initial emission standards and mileage requirements where driven into regulations long before the Climate Change argument was a thing.
I know a lot of you folks didn't live though the oil embargo's of the 70's, when we got blessed with the 55 MPH speed limits and Jimmy Carter's national regulations that mandated how cold you could set the AC and how hot you could run the heater. I remember waiting in lines to get gas too.
So environmental concerns where only part of the reason we have the CAFE standards. Some of those reasons don't exist now.
The question is now that we have one less reason, does that justify relaxing the standards? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure makes it a harder sell to increase the CAFE mileage standards...
Then, WHY? Some mid-level engineer would be bankrupted for $100k or severely hurt in Small Claims court. Heck, just defending the claim will likely be enough to bankrupt the guy in legal bills alone. We all get it, this guy cost them a pile of dough. What's a lawsuit going to get Tesla? If they get a $1M judgment, what's the point? All you are likely to collect is the cash in his bank accounts which is what? $10K? if that.
I say this is just beating a dead horse for PR value. Shame on Tesla.
Slashdot Mirror
IF you are tracking my I-phone by it's IP, I spend a lot of time in downtown Dallas.. If you track my Facebook access from home, it's going to tell you I'm in the Carrolton Texas area. Both are about 25 miles from my ACTUAL location.
However, there are more ways to give up your physical location than accessing Facebook. Take a picture and share it with your mobile device? (They are usually GEO tagged by your device). Run some "GPS" application to get driving directions? Actually have it turned on and pinging a cell tower? (The carrier knows where you are with very good resolution.)
So why do I care what Facebook is tracking? I fully know my activities are being tracked by multiple services. IF you don't like that, don't access these services.. IF you don't already know about this, that's on you for accepting all the EULA's without understanding them.
2. Everyone should get what they deserve, and we deserve a good life. Not because of who we are or who are dad is but because we're human beings.
We do eh? I don't know what world YOU live in, but in mine humans are violent, vile, nasty and hateful creatures sometimes, all of us are in our own ways. Personally, I don't deserve a good life to be given me. I am entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but ease, leisure, food, clothing and entertainment is up to me to earn.
Your kind of thinking is what is driving the world into the sewer. When folks start thinking that they DESERVE to be happy, fed, comfortable and the word owes them this, then you get places like Venezuela where this mentality has ruined a once vibrant economy and now EVERYBODY is desperately poor, hungry and uncomfortable. Don't bring that mess here, for my kids sake.
In a sane world, folks who can work, are productive and live off of the proceeds of their labor. In a sane world if you want food, you grow it or work for money to buy it from someone. In a sane world people are expected to earn their way, if at all possible, though their labor, skills and investments. In a sane world we are all free to choose how to be happy and left on our own to do it, in so far as it recognizes everyone's rights to do the same.
Socialist like programs are contrary to these principles, as is giving the able bodied stuff w/o requiring labor in return. It destroys the society, fosters irresponsible behavior, kills productivity and eventually destroys economies and countries, bringing death and destruction to all.
They often have regional pay scales. They'll gladly hire you to work there for less money then someone in an expensive area.
LOL.. How's that fair?
Actually, it's a seller's market for my kind of labor here right now. My salary is going up more than it did last year. I have a feeling I'm going to be making the same wages as my counter parts in San Francisco pretty soon. We are already seeing the massive real-estate price run up and a massive influx of folks from the better paid areas and wages are following that.
I recall that just a few months ago California also tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants in a similar move.
You really need to see someone about this memory issue. 'Cause that didn't happen.
Maybe you missed this: https://www.powermag.com/calif...
IF smog is your concern, do CNG powered buses.
Still produces some smog-forming chemicals. Also, they're already in place. This is plan is about replacing those buses as they reach EOL.
Also, it's not like this is hard to do. There's no new technology to invent. There's already cities that use 100% EV buses, and these cities are not small. So all that is needed is a reason to switch. And this regulation supplies that reason.
No, Not nearly as many. CNG is much cleaner as a motor fuel, especially diesel. Plus, with current emission standards, MOST newer gasoline powered vehicles are emitting cleaner vapors than they are ingesting when the air quality is bad. We have, at least in the USA, largely dealt with vehicle emissions and the production of smog. In fact, the majority of the problem is no longer vehicle emissions, but all the other things out there like law mowers, water heaters, manufacturing processes or even building materials.
But hey, don't let the facts get in way of a good narrative here..
You still haven't addressed HOW the state is going to get enough electricity to charge all these batteries. Which was my point. You cannot just toss fossil fuels out of the mix by buying electric vehicles because all that power needs to come from someplace.... All the "green" sources are going to rapidly be tapped out and then where will we be? (walking home in the dark instead of taking the bus most likely)
Oh gee.. They are ALWAYS handing out pink slips if you look close enough..
My statement has to do with NEW unemployment claims going down, less folks are losing their jobs, more folks are finding new jobs.
You need to get folks to live where they work
Scattered coworking spaces and work-from-home with virtual offices.
I can attest that this is fine for some kinds of work, but not for others. Close collaboration and team work suffers when people are not actually face to face, and working from say a "home office" hasn't been shown to be real good for productivity or information security. But it has it's place I suppose.
Good luck with your venture, I wouldn't mind working for a San Francisco company at their wage scale from here in the Midwest and I wouldn't mind staying a few hours later each day to support communications until 5PM west coast time. I'd make a killing for Texas...
I recall that just a few months ago California also tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants in a similar move. I'm just curious how they figure on charging these new buses so they can actually use them?
IF smog is your concern, do CNG powered buses. They run exceptionally clean and CNG generally doesn't require major changes to existing internal combustion engines to work.
IF you are really serious about CO2 emissions, then your problem isn't city buses, but population density. You need to get folks to live where they work and give up their cars, in mass numbers. This will require that you stop enabling the long commutes to the suburbs, heavily regulate cars and hike the price of motor fuels though the roof.
Problem is, most of these "solutions" are not very popular with the voters.... So we get this kind of stuff that sounds good but won't ever really work.
Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?
I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation? I also understand that his purposed tax cuts got trimmed by Congress, especially on the income tax side, so one needs to be careful to consider exactly which tax cut plan is being discussed, the one he wanted or the one Congress gave him.
BTW, household income IS going up these days on average according to the numbers I'm seeing.
Also, I'm still looking for my $2,500 savings promised by the ACA.... But hey, I fully understood that wasn't coming... :)
Weird, huh..
Half of the USA got annual raises.. Weird... They used to be handing out pink slips just a few short years ago, but they have largely stopped that now. Even weirder..
What are we, a glass half full or half empty kind of person here?
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
2. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. (i.e. Don't be afraid to ASK for what you deserve, but you have to be prepared to move on if they cannot or will not do what you think is fair. )
I have another friend who used to tell me in the down turn in the tech market of the 2000's, "Right now it's a buyer's market, but it will be a seller's market someday again." He was saying the same thing as my dad, be ready to demand more, but fully understand the limits of your bargaining power and be ready to walk when it makes sense to your future.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and that's the part that bothers me.
So, unethical but otherwise legal behavior is worth of THIS kind of coverage and threats of impeachment?
Look, we ALL knew what kind of guy Trump was BEFORE he was elected, even before he dreamed of running for office. This continued harping on him and unending investigating him and anybody who has the misfortune of being associated with him is crazy, in a partisan sort of way..
"Quite so. You'd think that the feds would be ready to pounce on any coin redeemed for cash" - Derp, lol. What's your basis for thinking that?
Also ledgers are fairly fucking simple to distribute, sell, disseminate, sit on indefinitely... so there's that. They could probably spend all of it paying 3rd parties for services and no one would know for years.
Sir, the block chain is not private and ALL transactions in BitCoin are publicly recorded. So, yea, you may sit on an illegally obtained Coin all you want, but it's worthless until you trade it for something of value. Once you attempt to transfer ownership, it pops up in the block chain, bells go off over at the Feds and a host of agents start investigating who the new owner of the coin is so they can ask them who they got the funds from. So, sitting on it is pointless, your best bet is to TRADE it sooner rather than later, get your value out of it before the Feds can set up to spring the trap with your ill gotten gains as the bait.
""It is not a crime to hire a bad lawyer." - However, if you provably enter into a crime with that lawyer, not only is he going to prison (did) but so are you, and without any 5th Amendment protections in that relationship.
Oh you DO understand that you have to really read a lot of stuff between the lines here. I'd like to know what you think the "provable crime" here might have been here. Hiring Cohen to "fix" situations by paying women for their silence isn't illegal in and of itself. This kind of thing happens all the time and apparently this isn't a new thing for Trump either. He paid Karen McDougal and even purchased an unflattering news story about that well in advance of his running for president. It's important that you understand that this is SOP for Trump and has been for years before the election, that this was his standard practice.
The question then becomes not about the legality of the agreements with the women, but the question of if paying the money was a campaign finance violation, and if so, by who? Well, Mueller claims that the Trump organization (his business) actually paid these expenses, in fact he claims they tried to hide these payments, burying it in creative accounting, but that too was their standard practice (i.e. not done for campaign reasons). Then there is the audio recording where Trump "ordered" Cohen to pay Daniels, where he arguably is offering to cut Cohen a check which Cohen seems to refuse. I don't think this is Trump ordering Cohen to violate campaign finance law at all...
Cohen may indeed be guilty of a campaign finance violation depending on how he views the payments, but that's on him, not Trump. If Trump was ordering the payments for other reasons (as in it's how he handles these things as evidenced by his past actions) then it's not a campaign finance issue at all. Further, if Trump ordered and PAYED the money to Cohen (which again he could easily argue given the fees he was paying) it is not a campaign finance violation for any of them including Cohen, despite of his guilty plea otherwise.
I'm telling you that you need to be patient and see what the whole body of evidence shows here. There are fundamental questions which simply must be answered and specific points which must be proven or this is going to end totally different than you assume.
There are different forms of critical mass, nuclear reactors do not have the ability to cause a nuclear explosion as they are NOT prompt critical, but moderated critical.
In order to cause a nuclear explosion you have to have a critical mass that is prompt critical, where unmoderated neutrons can sustain the chain reaction. This requires a very fast assembly of the critical mass, because you need to get the device prompt critical before it disassembles itself from the heat of being moderated critical, where moderated neutrons, ones that have been slowed down either by distance or by hitting something sustain the chain reaction.
So, like the pulsar reactor I got to see once, you can actually pull out all the control rods and it will not detonate in a nuclear explosion. The pulsar reactor would actually pulse to a very high power level for a very short period of time and cycle up and down rapidly, but wouldn't explode. A power reactor who's control rods got fully removed would produce a LOT of heat, but as the temperature and pressure went up it would vent water/steam and once the steam bubbles started to form in the reactor core, the nuclear reaction would be inhibited, with less and less moderated neutrons being available. Problem is, for most boiling water reactors, that the decay heat would far exceed the core structure's ability to stay in place, it melts and bad things start happening. You get steam explosions or should the cladding on the fuel rods get hot enough, it starts to break down, producing hydrogen gas from the water and such to get you a chemical explosion if it ignites for some reason.
So no, nuclear plats will not ever produce a thermal nuclear (or just plain nuclear) explosion...It's physically impossible.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to ask for Bitcoin as ransom, since they can be tracked and traced perfectly, forever.
Quite so. You'd think that the feds would be ready to pounce on any coin redeemed for cash and are right now tracing down all transactions attached to the wallet associated with the ransom demands, if there are any.
The Orange Asshole has been losing his mind on Twitter, trying to distract the planet from the seemingly endless parade of his cohorts going to prison. Is it possible Dipshit Donnie did it? Who else is that stupid and has as much of a motive? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, All I can say is why would he bother? There are PLENTY of ways to "wag the dog" if he wanted should the Twitter ranting not be enough distraction for him.
By the way... Having dodgy friends is no crime in and of itself and the US Constitution makes it clear that "guilt by association" isn't a governing legal principle in the USA. Or as Rudy puts it, "It is not a crime to hire a bad lawyer. " Personally, I figure I'll wait to pass judgment until all the facts are known from Mueller's investigation on all of this, but if you want to, fine. Just remember, Trump has been declared dead multiple times a month since the campaign and yet lived to tell the tale, so I'd urge a bit or caution in doing it this time, at least right away. Let's see if anything sticks before we go off half cocked..
Because... I bristle at those who throw out "It causes cancer!" as a means to make their point sound valid. I DO NOT take such statements at face value or accept them from people who cannot explain exactly what they mean. Plus, this is just an emotional argument anyway. I hate it when environmental concerns use emotion to sell their ideas, especially when they are concentrating on the insignificant and ignoring the real issues.
SMOG is largely a thing of the past here in the USA. Since the 70's we've made great progress on this front, so much that the most prevalent causes of illness and death from emissions is NOT cancer. Not that it ever was...
Now if you want to discuss asthmatics and those suffering from lung issues, having issues breathing do to particulate loads, one has to realize that the air OUTSIDE is likely better than the air in your house now days... But hey, let's concentrate on the minors, because we can make an emotional argument from that stuff.
Just so it's TOTALY clear... When you say "explode" you are discussing hydrogen explosions which are only possible concerns in very extreme situations in nuclear power plants. Modern designs do NOT suffer from the same issues as the various operating reactors in the USA today.
The only reason why we don't have modern nuclear reactors in operation here in the USA is because the "environmentalist" lobby has basically made it too expensive. It's not dangerous.
I remember being a college student during the final phases of licensing for the Sharon Harris plant outside of Raleigh. At the time "equal time" was a rule the media had to practice, so the environmentalists where given free TV Time all over the place. "It's not too late!" was their campaign slogan. I asked one of them to go pull their electric meter if they really where serious, live off the grid, prove you are really concerned.... Needless to say, the lights stayed on at home.
IF we are serious about climate change and environmental concerns, these folks should be marching at every fossil fueled power plant demanding it be replaced with a nuclear one. They should be demanding dollars for fusion R&D. Where are they?
So NOx is your main concern?
Finally, somebody who has a reasonable answer... Yes, but these compounds are already being reduced though the various emissions controls including the catalytic converters in modern vehicles. In fact, GREATLY reduced by these measures, especially in gasoline engines.
Remember the VW getting caught cheating thing? This was about NOx emissions (among other things). VW had supposedly developed an engine that didn't require the urea injection NOx reduction systems of other diesel makers required. NOx emissions have been the focus of intense regulation since before the 1970's. We've done a great job and made great strides with this.
And which of those cause cancer?
CO is not a cancer risk is it? Surely CO2 and H2O are not an issue right?
BTW, With modern catalytic converters, most of that incomplete combustion and CO emissions are eliminated before they are emitted. Which is pretty much the whole point of that emissions control stuff...
But, which ones cause cancer?
If you get a civil judgment you cannot pay, your choices are to either make payments or go bankrupt which cancels out any civil judgments. What would YOU choose?
I was sued once by a former employer and my lawyer explained to me what they could force me to give them if they won the judgment. They couldn't take my house, my car my retirement, but only things I owned beyond that. Given I didn't have a 2nd car, house, any cash or other fungible assets I asked him what they could collect? He said "Nothing." to which he added "Then what did you do to piss them off this bad because this has to be about revenge, not recovery?"
They didn't prevail, quite the opposite, but the plan was to just declare bankruptcy and leave them with their legal bills and worthless civil judgment. You cannot squeeze blood from a stone or money out of a bankrupt individual who doesn't have any. As it turned out, I walked away with my legal fees paid and a new respect for the legal process and how it can be abused, but my former employer was an idiot with a huge chip on his shoulder and I had him on tape saying some stupid things to a prospective future employer. It was so bad I could have sued him, probably should have, but I was so done with the whole thing...
But you CAN avoid paying, it's called bankruptcy. In fact, I could have stopped the lawsuit in it's tracks by filing for bankruptcy.
So all this guy needs to do is file bankruptcy, survive 10 years w/o credit to speak of and get back to work creating a positive credit history. If Tesla is counting on discovery, just the filing of the bankruptcy kills this whole thing in it's tracks, no discovery, no lawsuit, nothing.
This is just Tesla slapping the guy around in the press... Not much else...Unless he actually HAS that kind of cash, or at least enough laying around to make it worth the legal bills...
Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?
More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other things. And in the USA smog has been greatly reduced since the 70's, and I mean GREATLY. In some cases the problem is becoming more and more caused by natural processes than man made emitters.
It's been an ignored fact that in the USA we've gone to great strides and made great progress with our air quality issues. Even since the 70's we've improved the environment around our large cities in unprecedented ways and have been very successful doing this.
Boy are you going to get it...
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
Conveniently omitting to mention pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as remaining concerns.
I would like to point out that this USED to be a question of national security too. Because the nation's infrastructure ran on oil and we used more than we produced, we where at high risk if there where supply disruption, say because of some bad things happening half a world away. So, the initial emission standards and mileage requirements where driven into regulations long before the Climate Change argument was a thing.
I know a lot of you folks didn't live though the oil embargo's of the 70's, when we got blessed with the 55 MPH speed limits and Jimmy Carter's national regulations that mandated how cold you could set the AC and how hot you could run the heater. I remember waiting in lines to get gas too.
So environmental concerns where only part of the reason we have the CAFE standards. Some of those reasons don't exist now.
The question is now that we have one less reason, does that justify relaxing the standards? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure makes it a harder sell to increase the CAFE mileage standards...
Air infused with toxic carcinogenic combustion byproducts.
Which combustion byproduct are you thinking is carcinogenic? CO2? H2O? maybe even NOX?
Then, WHY? Some mid-level engineer would be bankrupted for $100k or severely hurt in Small Claims court. Heck, just defending the claim will likely be enough to bankrupt the guy in legal bills alone. We all get it, this guy cost them a pile of dough. What's a lawsuit going to get Tesla? If they get a $1M judgment, what's the point? All you are likely to collect is the cash in his bank accounts which is what? $10K? if that.
I say this is just beating a dead horse for PR value. Shame on Tesla.