How so? This device is designed to filter out small particles not CO2.
Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released. Small participates are not produced when burning Natural Gas, unlike fuels like coal and oil. So this "filter" doesn't help. Also "clean coal" involves scrubbers that filter out very small particles from the combustion emissions, then treat the rest to remove the bulk of the remaining pollutants other than CO2.
Here in the USA, we don't need this kind of thing, for the most part anyway. We have greatly cleaned up our automobiles and other emission sources to the point that this device would be nearly pointless. In China, they still openly burn coal and don't have the strong emissions controls on all the various emitters, so they are apparently left with the idea of trying this. I whish them luck, but it's not the solution, just a mediation strategy.
You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.
Veritas obviously edits their video for running time constraints, after all we are in the age of the 30 second sound byte, but when they are pressed on "you edited this out of context!" they usually cough up the unedited video in all it's glory. In both the ACORN and PP videos, they had ostensibly relayed the content accurately and didn't misrepresent what the unedited video showed. If Twitter wants to make the claim that these videos are deceptively edited, have them make the PR release and I'll wager Veritas dumps the raw unedited video onto U-Tube as is their custom. But so far, I don't think Twitter is making that claim.
Of course, the media made a huge deal out of both ACORN's and PP's claims of editing and out of context, but then didn't follow though and actually make as much noise about how right or wrong ACORN and PP where in their claims once the full video source was released. This leaves the public (and the willfully ignorant) with the impression that Veritas did do deceptive editing, when they really didn't. Go back, everything you need to verify this is on U-Tube if you have the hours and hours to burn watching all the mind numbing video.
Then there is all the deceptive editing the media does..... I remember some ABC news audio from the Travan Martian killing where they made some stunningly deceptive edits to 911 audio to make something seem racist, when it wasn't at all. But you don't hear about this because it doesn't play into the narrative. But my point is that the media edits things down too, with an eye to project the news as they want to depict it, why shouldn't these guys? After all, they are nothing more than investigative reporters, carrying hidden cameras and audio recorders around to catch people candidly admitting to shocking things. Isn't that what the media does when they shove a microphone into a neighbors face and ask "So did you know the killer next door sir?"
LOL.. You do realize that Veritas always posts all their video, unedited, for all to see. No need to sue them to get the video.
Also, Twitter can sue for anything they want of course, but I doubt they have any grounds here. Unless Veritas has been out faking video recordings by scripting them, hiring actors and recording them, Twitter has no case. If they DO sue, you can bet Veritas will mount a vigorous defense and the PR they gain from the whole process will be gold. Can you imagine it? Getting to depose Twitter employees under oath on video? You can bet Veritas welcomes that opportunity..
a Mother. (No, I didn't make this up, it's an old, old saying.)
Who thought this was a viable birth control method? Some things work great in theory, but in practice they are not so effective. This one is known to be ineffective from centuries of it failing to work though often tried.
Twitter has already lost this.. They need to shut up and let Veritas take their short lived victory lap... They are in a no win situation, not knowing what other video Veritas has and can release to counter what ever PR spin they try. Best to let the story die a natural death...
The only exception to this is if they KNOW more video is on it's way, in which case, they are playing a game of chicken with an opponent who has nothing to lose. Personally, unless the damage coming is dire and you know it, it's best not to play this game.
Veritas is a master of the obvious truth hidden in plain sight. Of course folks at Twitter filter stuff...
The issue here though is by what standard they filter? Personally I don't care what Twitter does but the fools who are on the video explaining their personal bias presumably used in their filtering of Twitter feeds do make Twitter look bad in the eyes of some.
What we have here is a PR war with Veritas, which generally doesn't work out well for Veritas' targets. We are in full damage control mode by Twitter while Veritas sits back with who knows what kind of additional footage to prove anything Twitter's PR department puts out to fix this is a lie. My advice to Twitter is to shut up, make sure these folks on the video don't actually do what they claim and let it run it's course. It will pass in 2 weeks or less if you shut up.
That tanker contract was contested, multiple times, and after multiple rounds and bids Boeing won. But it might just be that Boeing won for technical and price reasons, not simply corruption?
Yea there is plenty of mud to throw at Boeing, but the fact remains Airbus is a government organized consortium which was put together by EU countries to compete with Boeing, a publicly traded company. Sure Boeing contracts with governments around the world, but they where NOT organized by multiple governments as well.
But you are going to have the same customer service as you do for your water bill...
I don't know about YOUR city, but the surly customer service representatives collecting checks for water, trash and sewer in my town are a sight to behold. Customer and Service are NOT part of their lexicon, certainly never used in the same sentence about them except to complain about the lack there of. And these folks get to enjoy banker's hours, all national, state and local holidays, can never be fired for anything less than an on the job felony and will retire with a pension that makes even me blush. For this, you get to wait 2 weeks to have somebody out to turn on your water and bring you a trash and recyclables container even though you just gave them 3 months deposit...
I don't know about you, but I don't really want these folks in charge of my internet where turning off the data flow only takes a click of a mouse, because you KNOW it will still take 2 weeks to get it fixed... You want a credit on your bill for that lost time? LOL, take it up with customer service and good luck fighting city hall.
Well, when/if Boeing fails, the government won't be on the hook unless it chooses to be. With Airbus, multiple governments where among the primary investors to get it started and have thrown money in along the way to keep it going. Boeing may have enjoyed tax credits and favorable banking arrangements, but they began the old fashioned way and don't have to pay homage to government investors, just hire lobbyists to protect their interests in Washington DC.
True, Boeing made money on the 747 while Airbus is still trying to make back their development costs. But my point was that large passenger aircraft are falling out of favor.
They've been saying that 270 A380's where necessary to break even in the past. Current orders + already flying don't meet that so they lost money on the A380.
Every stock is though the roof, my guess after looking at this is that Airbus will survive, but they will take a hit when compared to their industry. They've been careful to avoid even a hint of this action in past years, reacting strongly to people who suggested that they might need to end production of the A380. They where keeping the dream alive, until it died today. Such things usually hurt stock prices.
I think the question is will they survive the write down of the A380's development costs.
They may not have bet the farm on this venture, but they sure bet a significant part of it. Now that they cannot recover these costs from sales, they are going to have a nasty looking balance sheet.
The problem they couldn't solve is how to load/unload all the passengers efficently. How fast you can get in/out of the gate is just as important as how many passengers you can carry
No, the problem is keeping all the seats full when the aircraft is flying. Loading and Unloading process times are not a huge issue. Load factors are the issue.
What's happening is that the large direct routes that warrant a 380 are relatively few and there are enough aircraft flying now to service them while keeping the load factors in profitable zones. Airlines thus are not buying 380's. They are not buying 747's either. The market is saturated with large capacity aircraft, so they have stopped building them.
That ridiculous there libby... The FCC can easily make a regulation anytime it is necessary.
What prevents the FCC from passing Net Neutrality in it's current form in the future? Nothing, but folks like me objecting. So if you come up with a reason that justifies it and people like me don't object, it can be done. Your fears are unfounded and your objection is moot.
And I DID say "Let's wait for a problem, then regulate" multiple times in this thread in other branches.
So, this is based on a hypothetical "Wow, this COULD happen you know!" set of events? That's not a good idea, given the thing being regulated has survived just fine for two decades.
How about we forego regulations until they are necessary to correct some thing that's actually happening instead of just going off half cocked throwing massive regulations to cover a load of hypotheticals that may or may not happen? That way we can write targeted regulations which have fewer unintended side effects, which are easy to understand and apply. NN was a massive "regulate everything and the kitchen sink" regulation that created a huge government organization at the FCC to enforce it. We don't need the complication or government expense.
So I propose that we simply wait until there is an identifiable problem, THEN discuss the possible solutions and pick the solution with the minimum of impact. There is no need for this preemptive crazy train.
Yea, but do you think Rand Paul will be able to stop it in the Senate? Not sure he can.
Just so you know, this will be a bipartisan effort to get it though the Senate. Everybody will get the blame or praise (depending on your views) on this deal.
SO much promise, so little actual thought being put in...
What if I said that I think your dire predictions about the Earth looking like Venus are a bit over blown... At least this side of our Sun turning into a red dwarf, at which point we will all be dead anyway. We are headed to a planet like Venus? Come on, that's crazy, even with the most dire scientific predictions I've heard.
Just this morning I read a new story about a couple of actual researchers who discovered a massive flaw in nearly every climate model we've ever used which could change by half the amount of energy reaching the surface. It had to do with cloud cover assumptions based on the time of day being wrong. That's going to bite into your dire "The Sky is Falling!" predictions of all those accredited climate scientists if it turns out to be true. I think you are making this out to be worse than it actually will be, by a long shot. But you have to amp up the "we are all going to die" rhetoric don't you?
The *real* problem here is that we are not in a place where alternate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels with the same or better cost don't exist. The choice then becomes one of reducing our standard of living to reduce our dependence on oil, a process that punishes the poor more because they cannot afford the increased costs. What's the right thing to do? I'm not so sure that dumping oil is the correct path, nor the damage this will do to the ecconomy is worth it.
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
Diplomatic immunity requires PRIOR agreements between the two countries which includes entry permission and provisions for exiting the agreement that specify the conditions and time frames for notice by the host country wishing to end the agreement. One country cannot unalterably make someone an ambassador and demand they be afforded immunity by a host country any more than the host country can exit the diplomatic immunity agreement without giving the required notice.
So Ecuador can make this guy a diplomat, but they cannot force the UK into letting him into the country. So, this idea really doesn't change anything.
I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.
Well, they will both loose in the end is my hope. A pile of legal bills fighting this all the way through court and no settlement either way. A lawyer once told me that in a lawsuit, only the lawyers are guaranteed to win. I hope, in this case, they are the only winners.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? This device is designed to filter out small particles not CO2.
Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released. Small participates are not produced when burning Natural Gas, unlike fuels like coal and oil. So this "filter" doesn't help. Also "clean coal" involves scrubbers that filter out very small particles from the combustion emissions, then treat the rest to remove the bulk of the remaining pollutants other than CO2.
Here in the USA, we don't need this kind of thing, for the most part anyway. We have greatly cleaned up our automobiles and other emission sources to the point that this device would be nearly pointless. In China, they still openly burn coal and don't have the strong emissions controls on all the various emitters, so they are apparently left with the idea of trying this. I whish them luck, but it's not the solution, just a mediation strategy.
You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.
Veritas obviously edits their video for running time constraints, after all we are in the age of the 30 second sound byte, but when they are pressed on "you edited this out of context!" they usually cough up the unedited video in all it's glory. In both the ACORN and PP videos, they had ostensibly relayed the content accurately and didn't misrepresent what the unedited video showed. If Twitter wants to make the claim that these videos are deceptively edited, have them make the PR release and I'll wager Veritas dumps the raw unedited video onto U-Tube as is their custom. But so far, I don't think Twitter is making that claim.
Of course, the media made a huge deal out of both ACORN's and PP's claims of editing and out of context, but then didn't follow though and actually make as much noise about how right or wrong ACORN and PP where in their claims once the full video source was released. This leaves the public (and the willfully ignorant) with the impression that Veritas did do deceptive editing, when they really didn't. Go back, everything you need to verify this is on U-Tube if you have the hours and hours to burn watching all the mind numbing video.
Then there is all the deceptive editing the media does..... I remember some ABC news audio from the Travan Martian killing where they made some stunningly deceptive edits to 911 audio to make something seem racist, when it wasn't at all. But you don't hear about this because it doesn't play into the narrative. But my point is that the media edits things down too, with an eye to project the news as they want to depict it, why shouldn't these guys? After all, they are nothing more than investigative reporters, carrying hidden cameras and audio recorders around to catch people candidly admitting to shocking things. Isn't that what the media does when they shove a microphone into a neighbors face and ask "So did you know the killer next door sir?"
LOL.. You do realize that Veritas always posts all their video, unedited, for all to see. No need to sue them to get the video.
Also, Twitter can sue for anything they want of course, but I doubt they have any grounds here. Unless Veritas has been out faking video recordings by scripting them, hiring actors and recording them, Twitter has no case. If they DO sue, you can bet Veritas will mount a vigorous defense and the PR they gain from the whole process will be gold. Can you imagine it? Getting to depose Twitter employees under oath on video? You can bet Veritas welcomes that opportunity..
a Mother. (No, I didn't make this up, it's an old, old saying.)
Who thought this was a viable birth control method? Some things work great in theory, but in practice they are not so effective. This one is known to be ineffective from centuries of it failing to work though often tried.
Twitter has already lost this.. They need to shut up and let Veritas take their short lived victory lap... They are in a no win situation, not knowing what other video Veritas has and can release to counter what ever PR spin they try. Best to let the story die a natural death...
The only exception to this is if they KNOW more video is on it's way, in which case, they are playing a game of chicken with an opponent who has nothing to lose. Personally, unless the damage coming is dire and you know it, it's best not to play this game.
Veritas is a master of the obvious truth hidden in plain sight. Of course folks at Twitter filter stuff...
The issue here though is by what standard they filter? Personally I don't care what Twitter does but the fools who are on the video explaining their personal bias presumably used in their filtering of Twitter feeds do make Twitter look bad in the eyes of some.
What we have here is a PR war with Veritas, which generally doesn't work out well for Veritas' targets. We are in full damage control mode by Twitter while Veritas sits back with who knows what kind of additional footage to prove anything Twitter's PR department puts out to fix this is a lie. My advice to Twitter is to shut up, make sure these folks on the video don't actually do what they claim and let it run it's course. It will pass in 2 weeks or less if you shut up.
That tanker contract was contested, multiple times, and after multiple rounds and bids Boeing won. But it might just be that Boeing won for technical and price reasons, not simply corruption?
Yea there is plenty of mud to throw at Boeing, but the fact remains Airbus is a government organized consortium which was put together by EU countries to compete with Boeing, a publicly traded company. Sure Boeing contracts with governments around the world, but they where NOT organized by multiple governments as well.
But you are going to have the same customer service as you do for your water bill...
I don't know about YOUR city, but the surly customer service representatives collecting checks for water, trash and sewer in my town are a sight to behold. Customer and Service are NOT part of their lexicon, certainly never used in the same sentence about them except to complain about the lack there of. And these folks get to enjoy banker's hours, all national, state and local holidays, can never be fired for anything less than an on the job felony and will retire with a pension that makes even me blush. For this, you get to wait 2 weeks to have somebody out to turn on your water and bring you a trash and recyclables container even though you just gave them 3 months deposit...
I don't know about you, but I don't really want these folks in charge of my internet where turning off the data flow only takes a click of a mouse, because you KNOW it will still take 2 weeks to get it fixed... You want a credit on your bill for that lost time? LOL, take it up with customer service and good luck fighting city hall.
Well, when/if Boeing fails, the government won't be on the hook unless it chooses to be. With Airbus, multiple governments where among the primary investors to get it started and have thrown money in along the way to keep it going. Boeing may have enjoyed tax credits and favorable banking arrangements, but they began the old fashioned way and don't have to pay homage to government investors, just hire lobbyists to protect their interests in Washington DC.
True, Boeing made money on the 747 while Airbus is still trying to make back their development costs. But my point was that large passenger aircraft are falling out of favor.
They've been saying that 270 A380's where necessary to break even in the past. Current orders + already flying don't meet that so they lost money on the A380.
Every stock is though the roof, my guess after looking at this is that Airbus will survive, but they will take a hit when compared to their industry. They've been careful to avoid even a hint of this action in past years, reacting strongly to people who suggested that they might need to end production of the A380. They where keeping the dream alive, until it died today. Such things usually hurt stock prices.
I think the question is will they survive the write down of the A380's development costs.
They may not have bet the farm on this venture, but they sure bet a significant part of it. Now that they cannot recover these costs from sales, they are going to have a nasty looking balance sheet.
Does anybody know if they broke even yet?
The problem they couldn't solve is how to load/unload all the passengers efficently. How fast you can get in/out of the gate is just as important as how many passengers you can carry
No, the problem is keeping all the seats full when the aircraft is flying. Loading and Unloading process times are not a huge issue. Load factors are the issue.
What's happening is that the large direct routes that warrant a 380 are relatively few and there are enough aircraft flying now to service them while keeping the load factors in profitable zones. Airlines thus are not buying 380's. They are not buying 747's either. The market is saturated with large capacity aircraft, so they have stopped building them.
It's problem is that it's an ugliest plane ever made. Now if only it had the graceful lines of 747.
Ah yes, that 747 which is also going out of production...
That ridiculous there libby... The FCC can easily make a regulation anytime it is necessary.
What prevents the FCC from passing Net Neutrality in it's current form in the future? Nothing, but folks like me objecting. So if you come up with a reason that justifies it and people like me don't object, it can be done. Your fears are unfounded and your objection is moot.
And I DID say "Let's wait for a problem, then regulate" multiple times in this thread in other branches.
So, this is based on a hypothetical "Wow, this COULD happen you know!" set of events? That's not a good idea, given the thing being regulated has survived just fine for two decades.
How about we forego regulations until they are necessary to correct some thing that's actually happening instead of just going off half cocked throwing massive regulations to cover a load of hypotheticals that may or may not happen? That way we can write targeted regulations which have fewer unintended side effects, which are easy to understand and apply. NN was a massive "regulate everything and the kitchen sink" regulation that created a huge government organization at the FCC to enforce it. We don't need the complication or government expense.
So I propose that we simply wait until there is an identifiable problem, THEN discuss the possible solutions and pick the solution with the minimum of impact. There is no need for this preemptive crazy train.
Sold! Actual US bills only though.. I'm done with BTC after the exchange got hacked and I lost them.
Don't confuse them with facts.... This isn't about facts but feelings!
I got to hand it to you..... Um.... Sorry... You need to get that looked at.
I was selling a bridge and some beach front property in Arizona...
Yea, but do you think Rand Paul will be able to stop it in the Senate? Not sure he can.
Just so you know, this will be a bipartisan effort to get it though the Senate. Everybody will get the blame or praise (depending on your views) on this deal.
SO much promise, so little actual thought being put in...
What if I said that I think your dire predictions about the Earth looking like Venus are a bit over blown... At least this side of our Sun turning into a red dwarf, at which point we will all be dead anyway. We are headed to a planet like Venus? Come on, that's crazy, even with the most dire scientific predictions I've heard.
Just this morning I read a new story about a couple of actual researchers who discovered a massive flaw in nearly every climate model we've ever used which could change by half the amount of energy reaching the surface. It had to do with cloud cover assumptions based on the time of day being wrong. That's going to bite into your dire "The Sky is Falling!" predictions of all those accredited climate scientists if it turns out to be true. I think you are making this out to be worse than it actually will be, by a long shot. But you have to amp up the "we are all going to die" rhetoric don't you?
The *real* problem here is that we are not in a place where alternate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels with the same or better cost don't exist. The choice then becomes one of reducing our standard of living to reduce our dependence on oil, a process that punishes the poor more because they cannot afford the increased costs. What's the right thing to do? I'm not so sure that dumping oil is the correct path, nor the damage this will do to the ecconomy is worth it.
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
Diplomatic immunity requires PRIOR agreements between the two countries which includes entry permission and provisions for exiting the agreement that specify the conditions and time frames for notice by the host country wishing to end the agreement. One country cannot unalterably make someone an ambassador and demand they be afforded immunity by a host country any more than the host country can exit the diplomatic immunity agreement without giving the required notice.
So Ecuador can make this guy a diplomat, but they cannot force the UK into letting him into the country. So, this idea really doesn't change anything.
There is that.... You are right of course, but both Comcast and TiVo are in a dying market so you got to squabble over the scraps I guess...
I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.
Well, they will both loose in the end is my hope. A pile of legal bills fighting this all the way through court and no settlement either way. A lawyer once told me that in a lawsuit, only the lawyers are guaranteed to win. I hope, in this case, they are the only winners.