Well, my Facebook account isn't worth anything anyway. I am a member of only a few groups and don't link to very many "friends" in the first place so I have no contacts to give up. My Facebook information is basically fiction to start, with only enough facts (my name and a picture) so people who are looking for me can find me. There really isn't anything else.
Now, some of my friends and family have HUGE exposure... My half sister announced her kid's arrival, giving his full legal name and stats on the day he was born, has a link to her mother and father's names... She also had her location down to the city provided, so it's not a hard stretch to steal the kid's identity now.. We have is full legal name, date of birth, location of birth, mother and father's name and even his mother's maiden name, all on face book.
If my account gets hacked, there isn't much I can do to fix stupidity like that. I sometimes wonder how we can be related... I've even explained all this to her and still nothing...
Truth be told here, vaccines have saved millions of lives and carry very low risk when properly and appropriately administered. This is FACT. It is not debatable in any meaningful scientific way. I suggest that you drop the Anti-Vaxx dogma for a bit and take each of your objections in turn and get the facts about the question. ALL the facts, not just what the AntiVaxx dogma gives you.
Look, I've been down this rabbit hole a number of times with multiple folks who sound just like you. Making boasts about facts that are not based in usable evidence. The official numbers say 1 in 10,000 who get the measles die from it. This number is consistent with the 122,000 deaths a year from the illness world wide (mostly in poor, unvaccinated populations). The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 and is a component in the MMR vaccine, usually given in two doses.and since 1963 the instances of the illness in the USA went from about 700,000/year to almost none, saving about 70 lives a year in the USA alone.
Few people who are parents to day remember the time when the vaccine existed, and unless you are about 70 or older, of course you don't know of anybody who's had the measles. You can thank the vaccine for that. But kids die from this every day, maybe not in the USA, but they are still dying needlessly.
Now.. Before we go down the "it's a conspiracy for big pharma profits" rabbit hole, I suggest you whoa up a bit. I'm not going to debate the cost issues in our medical practice in the USA with you. But I will point out that the MMR vaccine is available on the cheap from most county and state health departments if you are unable (or just unwilling) to pay your doctor for it. Also, I'm going to point out that the MMR vaccine is really THREE vaccines in one, combined in 1974 to reduce costs and increase convenience for the kiddos (who now get one jab, instead of three). Somehow, this doesn't look like a way to make money to me. So how does your theory go again?
Yea, I know, you are not impressed.. So, I'm going to just say, you need to get the actual facts here and stop with the half truths and opinions of the anti-vax dogma pushers... But I'm afraid my asking you to do some actual fact finding work will fall on deaf ears.
Who turns on two factor authentication on Facebook?
Personally, I don't really care if somebody hacks my FB account. I don't depend on it for *anything* of importance in my life and I'm NOT giving up my phone number or much else beyond my Gmail account to FB or any of their advertisers. They don't have any correct information from me except for my name, and even that is a nickname, not my legal name.
Just don't do it. Social media isn't worth the trouble..
It was *supposed* to be funny.. But hey, I guess informative works too...
Hmmm... Mod up my own posts by creating another account... Well, I haven't tried that, but if it works for you... Who's got time for that on Slashdot? I'm not seeing where it would be worth the trouble.
Hey, don't take me wrong... I think they are making grand claims on the thinnest of data in an attempt to either justify or secure funding though generating interest and news coverage.
All I'm advocating is that we at least properly characterize what they are claiming, because debating claims they didn't make is a logical fallacy (Straw Man), and doesn't help.
When you set out to prove climate change, then everything is because of climate change.
Therefore, the obvious flashing neon sign alternate explanation of over-fishing must be ignored, because shut up.
Please be accurate here. The authors of the study claim to have isolated out the effect of water temperature form their data. They claim overfishing is the by far the biggest factor, but that they where able to isolate other factors in their data.
I've not seen the study so it's anybody's guess as to what methods they used to interpret their data, or if their results are sufficiently outside the margin of error to be able to make their claim. I suspect there is more to this story they are not reporting and that the truth is they may be just reporting a statistically insignificant variation as a hard fact, when it's not. But the real point here is to justify and secure more funding by generating some PR with the willing press.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature. I figure they believe they have found and isolated the effect of water temperature, but I've not seen their study so I have no clue how they managed this. I'd love to see their study, but I've not had the time to try and find it yet.
I'm no climate change zealot (quite the opposite actually) but we need to be accurate here.
I used to live in Austin, quaint place in the 90's... I didn't like it and moved out as soon as I could... Horrible traffic, weird people, really weird, and already too expensive. I see how some would like it, but it just wasn't for me.
I see the current revitalization of the areas around the river and new convention center as an improvement myself. They really needed to knock down the weird factor a bit and that sure helped. I get that some of the stranger stuff has died out and it's more of a posh swanky kind of weird now, but I like it better this way, given I have money now and can afford the swanky thing if I want.
Typhus is alive and well on the streets and in the halls of City Hall in Los Angeles.
It's like we are regressing to third world status out west... I wonder why? Well, what do Venezuela and Los Angeles have in common? No, I'm not going to tell you because you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
I would suggest that you avoid making English and grammar mistakes of your own.... Like capitalization of proper nouns like "English" and proper punctuation when completing an interrogative sentence ("?").
And I'm just a lowly EE who cannot spell very well and didn't like English classes at all..
If you can afford that rent, you can afford a bus ticket out of there.
And that's EXACTLY what's happening. Folks are leaving both the cities AND the state because it's too expensive to live there. They are heading to places where the cost of living is lower. Places like Texas, Florida and other places where an $800K house isn't a two bedroom shack.
On one hand I like this, I live in one of the hot spots where folks are moving to in droves. My $150K house has doubled in price over the last 5 years, but on the other hand, I don't really care for the decided shift towards liberal politics and the doubling of my property tax bill...
If you are pushing this on the FCC's public comment system, knock yourself out. Literally NOTHING you can say will matter and the more you repeat yourself, even if you use alternative ID's the less it actually will matter.
The public comment system is designed to get information from the public, so if your repeated posting doesn't contain some kind of new or novel information of use to the FCC's regulatory decisions, you are wasting your time. Nobody at the FCC is reading automated posts and form letters beyond *maybe* the first one. After the first duplicate, they get added to the automated SPAM filters and they are just taking up storage space on their way to the/dev/null bit-bucket.
Ah come on folks, everybody knows that the comment process used by the FCC isn't some vote counter. It's for providing unique information to the FCC about the topic. The public can comment, but in reality these comments mean little or nothing and are rarely even reviewed.
When you submit some "form letter" kind of comment, they may notice that somebody else was interested enough to post a form letter, but if you think some poor hapless bureaucrat in DC actually READS all these, you are sadly mistaken.
So who cares if somebody tried to stuff the public comment system? It literally was a waste of their time and the FCC's resources and it's even worse for Slashdot to be discussing it.... AGAIN and AGAIN....
Net Neutrality is DEAD and isn't happening in this congress. It's not making it though the Senate and certainly won't be signed into law by the president. Besides, nothing bad has happened so far without it, so chill, take a deep breath and keep waiting for a better time....
As much as it says about the folks who hired and paid Dennis Raider for the two plus decades he was on the lamb.. Or what does it say about the local hardware stores that sold the Uni-bomber the stuff for his bombs.. Nothing.
there are people dying because of the border situation. I think that kind of justifies the emergency declaration.
But the point here is what's the LAW say about this. If you read the law, the president is given very wide latitude in making this decision, and Congress may disagree by passing legislation to undo the president's action, then override his veto if he chooses to stick with the declaration he's made.
So... Suck it up. Take your case to the courts and fight it there. But you won't get this overturned in the end, so I suggest you get used to the idea.
So "adoption" is a code word? You are kidding right...
You DO understand that you are basically making a conspiracy theory out of that assumption, a theory for which you have to make all sorts of assumptions to support because there are no facts to back up your claims.
The problem for your theory here is *everybody* in the room is saying the same things, that nobody was coordinating Russian efforts with Trump's campaign and besides this meeting there is nothing,else really to discuss as evidence. This whole thing fails on it's face, legally speaking, unless you have actual evidence and not supposition and innuendo to actually back up your claims. Just meeting a Russian is NOT proof of anything unethical or illegal took place, not even close. You need some kind of actual evidence.... Something more than Hillary lost that is..
I wonder who he's playing to. The Russian people don't believe anything their government tells them, and neither do we.
Obviously he's playing to the Russian people directly, or at least trying to. His polling numbers have been falling out of bed of late, so it's time to rattle swards, date young popular women and ride horses bareback shirtless. Or, as in this case, take steps to seemingly bolster Russian security and power. I expect a lot more of this kind of saber rattling in the days to come.
..the more grains of sand slip through your fingers.
I really wish someone would end Putin. He's a fucking troublemaker and the world would be better off without him -- and several other people I could name.
This is really about Putin's falling poll numbers. His popularity is falling, so it's time to rattle some swards, ride some horses w/o a shirt and stuff like that. He's got to push the narrative that Russia is relevant and HE'S in charge of the Russian rise to power.
The glaring truth here is that Russians see their continued decline and Putin's part in that. Putin is getting desperate and now that the "Russian Collusion" from 2016 narrative is dying, he has to do something. So he's looking for ways to bolster his image, his country's short term advantage or ANYTHING that gets him positive attention.
I'm not saying "Trump didn't do it" at all, I'm saying Cohen has no proof he did.
We all know that the *whole* point here for this "investigation" is to dig up as much dirt as possible to throw into the articles of impeachment which is as certain as the sun rising in the east. Trust me, unless the democrats come to their senses pretty soon, they will impeach him sometime around spring of 2020 if not before.
Cohen's testimony was supposed to be the start of the Democrat's investigation of Trump... As a beginning it's not a good start, but if that's all the cards you have to play, by all means. All I can say is if this is all the Democrats can come up with, they are WAY overplaying their hand. It may placate the base, but it's going to ensure Trump wins in a landslide in 2020, loosing the House again and loosing more seats in the Senate to boot.
Ok, but using Cohen to press this case is kind of thin. Everybody needs to take Cohen's testimony with all the relevance it's due. He's made multiple statements, under oath none the less, which have both conflicted and also boosted all sorts of theories about Trump in turn. It's totally fair to question if he's telling us the truth, or at least wonder which version of the story he's told us is true.
The problem here is Cohen reputation is in tatters and legally he has an on again, off again relationship with the truth. As a witness, his credibility is shot. So, if he's the best witness we have, the case is in tatters too.
Also, if the grand claims being made based on Cohen's testimony are true, there simply *has* to be some more evidence. I would suggest that Cohen's testimony isn't worth the paper to print it out. There has to be more actual evidence or this is a dead horse. BUT.... The House investigated this for 2 years already and concluded that there wasn't any evidence, admittedly controlled by the Republicans. Now the Democrats have their chance and they START with Cohen? Wouldn't you start with your best evidence and forget this Cohen mess? He really doesn't help, but comes across as a guy who's desperate and angry with the president to boot. Not a good start.
Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
Right... Look, all you need to understand is the *potential* is the problem... The Avionic backup batteries in the 787 where "aircraft" parts, meaning that they where manufactured and tracked to very strict and exacting specifications. These where the best quality we could manage at the time and we've seen at least three fires, one during flight testing and at least two I remember since. The aircraft was even grounded by the FAA for a couple of weeks due to this problem, until the containment system was retrofitted and put into place on all flying aircraft.
The FAA simply won't let this happen again. So battery tech may be getting better, but history shows that even under the best manufacturing and quality situation we can muster, they still can catch fire and release huge amounts of energy. Which is why, in this case, the FAA is taking such batteries OUT of the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. They are too dangerous. I don't see technology improvements fixing this anytime soon.
Also, nobody is going to use batteries for a 9 hour flight. Electric planes will be used for short hops, like LAX to Las Vegas, or Boston to NYC.
Long flights may go to hydrogen, but certainly not batteries.
Now I AM laughing at you... Do you have ANY clue how dangerous hydrogen is to handle and use? Any idea how much hydrogen you'd need for a 9 hour flight and how much space this would take, even if you went with liquid hydrogen? Compared to kerosene (which Jet 1A really is) the energy density isn't even close and the fuel handling problems are a lot less of an issue. BESIDES... How do you think industrial level production of hydrogen gas works? Right now, hydrogen is generated from reforming Natural Gas....
Honestly, you'd be better off trying bio-fuels for this... Except that growing enough corn to power a 747 for 9 hours is going to take a LOT of ground, fertilizer, and fuel to run the farming equipment. I shudder to thing of how much environmental impact all that would have.
The 787 avionic batteries where "FAA Certified" but we all know what happened with those things.
Now they are packaged in "flame proof" containment systems designed to keep stuff around them from going up in flames. Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Show me a state that doesn't have gerrymandered districts and I'll show you one that has all one political party anyway..
Reminds me of my younger liberal brother from Illinois during 2016's election... He was complaining about the Senate's balance of power and blamed gerrymandered districts in "red states" for it. He also voted for Bernie in the primary... How'd we have the same parents?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my Facebook account isn't worth anything anyway. I am a member of only a few groups and don't link to very many "friends" in the first place so I have no contacts to give up. My Facebook information is basically fiction to start, with only enough facts (my name and a picture) so people who are looking for me can find me. There really isn't anything else.
Now, some of my friends and family have HUGE exposure... My half sister announced her kid's arrival, giving his full legal name and stats on the day he was born, has a link to her mother and father's names... She also had her location down to the city provided, so it's not a hard stretch to steal the kid's identity now.. We have is full legal name, date of birth, location of birth, mother and father's name and even his mother's maiden name, all on face book.
If my account gets hacked, there isn't much I can do to fix stupidity like that. I sometimes wonder how we can be related... I've even explained all this to her and still nothing...
Ah, so you are falling for the AntiVaxx dogma eh?
Truth be told here, vaccines have saved millions of lives and carry very low risk when properly and appropriately administered. This is FACT. It is not debatable in any meaningful scientific way. I suggest that you drop the Anti-Vaxx dogma for a bit and take each of your objections in turn and get the facts about the question. ALL the facts, not just what the AntiVaxx dogma gives you.
Look, I've been down this rabbit hole a number of times with multiple folks who sound just like you. Making boasts about facts that are not based in usable evidence. The official numbers say 1 in 10,000 who get the measles die from it. This number is consistent with the 122,000 deaths a year from the illness world wide (mostly in poor, unvaccinated populations). The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 and is a component in the MMR vaccine, usually given in two doses.and since 1963 the instances of the illness in the USA went from about 700,000/year to almost none, saving about 70 lives a year in the USA alone.
Few people who are parents to day remember the time when the vaccine existed, and unless you are about 70 or older, of course you don't know of anybody who's had the measles. You can thank the vaccine for that. But kids die from this every day, maybe not in the USA, but they are still dying needlessly.
Now.. Before we go down the "it's a conspiracy for big pharma profits" rabbit hole, I suggest you whoa up a bit. I'm not going to debate the cost issues in our medical practice in the USA with you. But I will point out that the MMR vaccine is available on the cheap from most county and state health departments if you are unable (or just unwilling) to pay your doctor for it. Also, I'm going to point out that the MMR vaccine is really THREE vaccines in one, combined in 1974 to reduce costs and increase convenience for the kiddos (who now get one jab, instead of three). Somehow, this doesn't look like a way to make money to me. So how does your theory go again?
Yea, I know, you are not impressed.. So, I'm going to just say, you need to get the actual facts here and stop with the half truths and opinions of the anti-vax dogma pushers... But I'm afraid my asking you to do some actual fact finding work will fall on deaf ears.
Who turns on two factor authentication on Facebook?
Personally, I don't really care if somebody hacks my FB account. I don't depend on it for *anything* of importance in my life and I'm NOT giving up my phone number or much else beyond my Gmail account to FB or any of their advertisers. They don't have any correct information from me except for my name, and even that is a nickname, not my legal name.
Just don't do it. Social media isn't worth the trouble..
to mod up your own posts? That IS informative.
It was *supposed* to be funny.. But hey, I guess informative works too...
Hmmm... Mod up my own posts by creating another account... Well, I haven't tried that, but if it works for you... Who's got time for that on Slashdot? I'm not seeing where it would be worth the trouble.
Hey, don't take me wrong... I think they are making grand claims on the thinnest of data in an attempt to either justify or secure funding though generating interest and news coverage.
All I'm advocating is that we at least properly characterize what they are claiming, because debating claims they didn't make is a logical fallacy (Straw Man), and doesn't help.
When you set out to prove climate change, then everything is because of climate change.
Therefore, the obvious flashing neon sign alternate explanation of over-fishing must be ignored, because shut up.
Please be accurate here. The authors of the study claim to have isolated out the effect of water temperature form their data. They claim overfishing is the by far the biggest factor, but that they where able to isolate other factors in their data.
I've not seen the study so it's anybody's guess as to what methods they used to interpret their data, or if their results are sufficiently outside the margin of error to be able to make their claim. I suspect there is more to this story they are not reporting and that the truth is they may be just reporting a statistically insignificant variation as a hard fact, when it's not. But the real point here is to justify and secure more funding by generating some PR with the willing press.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature. I figure they believe they have found and isolated the effect of water temperature, but I've not seen their study so I have no clue how they managed this. I'd love to see their study, but I've not had the time to try and find it yet.
I'm no climate change zealot (quite the opposite actually) but we need to be accurate here.
Something is fishy with this study.... Just say'n....
I used to live in Austin, quaint place in the 90's... I didn't like it and moved out as soon as I could... Horrible traffic, weird people, really weird, and already too expensive. I see how some would like it, but it just wasn't for me.
I see the current revitalization of the areas around the river and new convention center as an improvement myself. They really needed to knock down the weird factor a bit and that sure helped. I get that some of the stranger stuff has died out and it's more of a posh swanky kind of weird now, but I like it better this way, given I have money now and can afford the swanky thing if I want.
Typhus is alive and well on the streets and in the halls of City Hall in Los Angeles.
It's like we are regressing to third world status out west... I wonder why? Well, what do Venezuela and Los Angeles have in common? No, I'm not going to tell you because you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
Can we get some english editors in here.
Well, if you want to volunteer, have at it...
I would suggest that you avoid making English and grammar mistakes of your own.... Like capitalization of proper nouns like "English" and proper punctuation when completing an interrogative sentence ("?").
And I'm just a lowly EE who cannot spell very well and didn't like English classes at all..
Time to pay up, people.
If you are being unfairly compensated, Maybe it's time to switch places of employment.
We ARE in a seller's market for labor these days. I suggest you take advantage of the market.
How is anyone forced to live there?
If you can afford that rent, you can afford a bus ticket out of there.
And that's EXACTLY what's happening. Folks are leaving both the cities AND the state because it's too expensive to live there. They are heading to places where the cost of living is lower. Places like Texas, Florida and other places where an $800K house isn't a two bedroom shack.
On one hand I like this, I live in one of the hot spots where folks are moving to in droves. My $150K house has doubled in price over the last 5 years, but on the other hand, I don't really care for the decided shift towards liberal politics and the doubling of my property tax bill...
If you are pushing this on the FCC's public comment system, knock yourself out. Literally NOTHING you can say will matter and the more you repeat yourself, even if you use alternative ID's the less it actually will matter.
The public comment system is designed to get information from the public, so if your repeated posting doesn't contain some kind of new or novel information of use to the FCC's regulatory decisions, you are wasting your time. Nobody at the FCC is reading automated posts and form letters beyond *maybe* the first one. After the first duplicate, they get added to the automated SPAM filters and they are just taking up storage space on their way to the /dev/null bit-bucket.
Ah come on folks, everybody knows that the comment process used by the FCC isn't some vote counter. It's for providing unique information to the FCC about the topic. The public can comment, but in reality these comments mean little or nothing and are rarely even reviewed.
When you submit some "form letter" kind of comment, they may notice that somebody else was interested enough to post a form letter, but if you think some poor hapless bureaucrat in DC actually READS all these, you are sadly mistaken.
So who cares if somebody tried to stuff the public comment system? It literally was a waste of their time and the FCC's resources and it's even worse for Slashdot to be discussing it.... AGAIN and AGAIN....
Net Neutrality is DEAD and isn't happening in this congress. It's not making it though the Senate and certainly won't be signed into law by the president. Besides, nothing bad has happened so far without it, so chill, take a deep breath and keep waiting for a better time....
As much as it says about the folks who hired and paid Dennis Raider for the two plus decades he was on the lamb.. Or what does it say about the local hardware stores that sold the Uni-bomber the stuff for his bombs.. Nothing.
there are people dying because of the border situation. I think that kind of justifies the emergency declaration.
But the point here is what's the LAW say about this. If you read the law, the president is given very wide latitude in making this decision, and Congress may disagree by passing legislation to undo the president's action, then override his veto if he chooses to stick with the declaration he's made.
So... Suck it up. Take your case to the courts and fight it there. But you won't get this overturned in the end, so I suggest you get used to the idea.
So "adoption" is a code word? You are kidding right...
You DO understand that you are basically making a conspiracy theory out of that assumption, a theory for which you have to make all sorts of assumptions to support because there are no facts to back up your claims.
The problem for your theory here is *everybody* in the room is saying the same things, that nobody was coordinating Russian efforts with Trump's campaign and besides this meeting there is nothing ,else really to discuss as evidence. This whole thing fails on it's face, legally speaking, unless you have actual evidence and not supposition and innuendo to actually back up your claims. Just meeting a Russian is NOT proof of anything unethical or illegal took place, not even close. You need some kind of actual evidence.... Something more than Hillary lost that is..
I wonder who he's playing to. The Russian people don't believe anything their government tells them, and neither do we.
Obviously he's playing to the Russian people directly, or at least trying to. His polling numbers have been falling out of bed of late, so it's time to rattle swards, date young popular women and ride horses bareback shirtless. Or, as in this case, take steps to seemingly bolster Russian security and power. I expect a lot more of this kind of saber rattling in the days to come.
..the more grains of sand slip through your fingers. I really wish someone would end Putin. He's a fucking troublemaker and the world would be better off without him -- and several other people I could name.
This is really about Putin's falling poll numbers. His popularity is falling, so it's time to rattle some swards, ride some horses w/o a shirt and stuff like that. He's got to push the narrative that Russia is relevant and HE'S in charge of the Russian rise to power.
The glaring truth here is that Russians see their continued decline and Putin's part in that. Putin is getting desperate and now that the "Russian Collusion" from 2016 narrative is dying, he has to do something. So he's looking for ways to bolster his image, his country's short term advantage or ANYTHING that gets him positive attention.
I'm not saying "Trump didn't do it" at all, I'm saying Cohen has no proof he did.
We all know that the *whole* point here for this "investigation" is to dig up as much dirt as possible to throw into the articles of impeachment which is as certain as the sun rising in the east. Trust me, unless the democrats come to their senses pretty soon, they will impeach him sometime around spring of 2020 if not before.
Cohen's testimony was supposed to be the start of the Democrat's investigation of Trump... As a beginning it's not a good start, but if that's all the cards you have to play, by all means. All I can say is if this is all the Democrats can come up with, they are WAY overplaying their hand. It may placate the base, but it's going to ensure Trump wins in a landslide in 2020, loosing the House again and loosing more seats in the Senate to boot.
Ok, but using Cohen to press this case is kind of thin. Everybody needs to take Cohen's testimony with all the relevance it's due. He's made multiple statements, under oath none the less, which have both conflicted and also boosted all sorts of theories about Trump in turn. It's totally fair to question if he's telling us the truth, or at least wonder which version of the story he's told us is true.
The problem here is Cohen reputation is in tatters and legally he has an on again, off again relationship with the truth. As a witness, his credibility is shot. So, if he's the best witness we have, the case is in tatters too.
Also, if the grand claims being made based on Cohen's testimony are true, there simply *has* to be some more evidence. I would suggest that Cohen's testimony isn't worth the paper to print it out. There has to be more actual evidence or this is a dead horse. BUT.... The House investigated this for 2 years already and concluded that there wasn't any evidence, admittedly controlled by the Republicans. Now the Democrats have their chance and they START with Cohen? Wouldn't you start with your best evidence and forget this Cohen mess? He really doesn't help, but comes across as a guy who's desperate and angry with the president to boot. Not a good start.
Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Battery tech is improving by leaps and bounds. Reliability is way better than it was even 5 years ago.
Right... Look, all you need to understand is the *potential* is the problem... The Avionic backup batteries in the 787 where "aircraft" parts, meaning that they where manufactured and tracked to very strict and exacting specifications. These where the best quality we could manage at the time and we've seen at least three fires, one during flight testing and at least two I remember since. The aircraft was even grounded by the FAA for a couple of weeks due to this problem, until the containment system was retrofitted and put into place on all flying aircraft.
The FAA simply won't let this happen again. So battery tech may be getting better, but history shows that even under the best manufacturing and quality situation we can muster, they still can catch fire and release huge amounts of energy. Which is why, in this case, the FAA is taking such batteries OUT of the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. They are too dangerous. I don't see technology improvements fixing this anytime soon.
Also, nobody is going to use batteries for a 9 hour flight. Electric planes will be used for short hops, like LAX to Las Vegas, or Boston to NYC.
Long flights may go to hydrogen, but certainly not batteries.
Now I AM laughing at you... Do you have ANY clue how dangerous hydrogen is to handle and use? Any idea how much hydrogen you'd need for a 9 hour flight and how much space this would take, even if you went with liquid hydrogen? Compared to kerosene (which Jet 1A really is) the energy density isn't even close and the fuel handling problems are a lot less of an issue. BESIDES... How do you think industrial level production of hydrogen gas works? Right now, hydrogen is generated from reforming Natural Gas....
Honestly, you'd be better off trying bio-fuels for this... Except that growing enough corn to power a 747 for 9 hours is going to take a LOT of ground, fertilizer, and fuel to run the farming equipment. I shudder to thing of how much environmental impact all that would have.
The 787 avionic batteries where "FAA Certified" but we all know what happened with those things.
Now they are packaged in "flame proof" containment systems designed to keep stuff around them from going up in flames. Good luck doing that with a battery designed to hold enough energy to power an aircraft on a 9 hour flight.
Show me a state that doesn't have gerrymandered districts and I'll show you one that has all one political party anyway..
Reminds me of my younger liberal brother from Illinois during 2016's election... He was complaining about the Senate's balance of power and blamed gerrymandered districts in "red states" for it. He also voted for Bernie in the primary... How'd we have the same parents?