-your assertion that the 'kurd lobby' drives international geopolitics (not sure where you get this whopper from)
- your assertion that the U.S. didnt get involved in syria
- your assertion that assad used WMDs (debunked ages ago no less.. do you also think we found WMDs in iraq?)
- your whole 'mainland attack' notion.
i did say something constructive, pointing out that the opinions you espouse are based on information sourced from propaganda. question is, can you entertain the possibility that me calling these sources propaganda is accurate? if it *was* accurate, how would you know?
let's have a massive disproportionate reaction!! you know.. lots of fear mongering and maybe we can invite more surveillance!!
just remember.. we need to reserve these blissful over-reactions for only 'threats' that involve the terrorist-boogey-man... if we reacted this way to comparable threat-per-capita non-terrorist criminals, we would run out of resources in about a week. (plus, the whole surveillance thing would be harder to jam down the masses throats)
"We're still trying to work our way through distinguishing the difference between criminal hacking and an act of war,"
this is like the scene in the movie where the parent knocks on the door to the kids room asking "what are you doing in there!?!?" knowing full well... and the kid hurriedly puts out his joint and sprays air freshener... "nothing!!!"
mobydisk says it well in his comment above - but unless you're talking about VOLUME of ice, the argument is all but meaningless for you deniers. and oh, the volume is shrinking.
maybe im focusing on my own personal semantics, but im thinking of bankruptcy in terms of assets/liabilities woefully mismatching... ie, difference between going bankrupt and being bankrupt. prob should have left it alone though, as i fear im talking semantics now. cheers
we seriously gotta get the word out that 'news' and 'airtime' as dictated by the likes of vice (partly owned by rupert murdoch btw) is part of the problem vis-a-vis setting the terms of the conversation. Maybe/. should add a field to the data sources that with a mouseover would show all the owners of record of said data source.
people should understand that re: 'hydrogen powered cars' and equipment, if the source of the hydrogen is electrolysis powered by electricity which is ITSELF sourced from traditional coal and natgas power plants, then the environmental impact is not at all the rosy scenario people wish it would be. the promise of a hydrogen economy (vis a vis being environmentally clean) is to take the green impact all the way to the sourcing of the hydrogen production stage.
the real problem with renewable energies (like solar, wind, geothermal) is that they are very dependent on being produced in the right geographic region, and energy is notoriously difficult to transfer long distances efficiently. You can't realistically expect to run a solar plant in a region that gets little sunlight (while you can build a coal or gas power plant anywhere). Running a solar or wind farm, the best you can hope for is to supply power to a particular region thats nearby, or charge up batteries which loses a LOT of energy in the transfer AND the physical transport of the (relatively heavy) batteries themselves.
hydrogen offers the promise of being a 'better battery' so to speak -hydrogen is compressible and relatively light to transport while maintaining it's energetic potential. if the efficiency of the electrolytic process can be improved as the article states (and in such a way as to compete with fossil fuels for transport)then solar and wind farms can power electrolytic processes to produce fuel that can be stored and shipped, for a truly carbon neutral impact.
MO.. you can google search for plenty of scientific claims that run counter to the claims made by the pro-fracking community. there's clearly a lot of he-said-she-said, and obfuscation of the facts by many parties. what is worth exploring too though are the actions by the fracking companies vis-a-vis what they have done to keep information out of the public domain.. gag-orders linked to paying-off/relocating affected families. bribing town councils, paying for and pressuring research groups to come up with favorable and/or squelch unfavortable studies etc. etc. these are not the kinds of things people generally do when there is nothing to hide, at least not in such a systemic fashion. while public domain information may not get you to a level of metaphysical certitude re: the seriousness of the damage being done, at the very least there is a very serious fact pattern that points in one direction.
a piece of paper never has nor will it ever have power. it is only a physical manifestation of a broader reality which may or may not be in-line with the written word. i think the bigger question it raises is, were we ever really 'free'? or were certain things just 'permitted' so long as they didn't represent a threat to the extant power structure?
ESPN's Trent Dilfer joked about how long it took Cardinals assistant head coach Tom Moore to "learn how to use the iPad to scroll through the pictures."
apple should issue a statement that Dilfer misspoke, and how it was actually a surface tablet. and add, that were it an actual easy to use ipad, Tom Moore would likely have not had any problems figuring it out.
thanks dp - im appreciative of your response (and your posts in general that ive read) - but i think you're missing the point i was alluding to, which is getting back to the net impact coming from baseload generation- beyond transportation efficiency into net total eco impact.
it just seems to me that people are getting distracted by the promise of EV being so much cleaner, that they are not clued into the misdirection going on re: the impacts of fracking (which are only growing) to generate the baseload necessary to ultimately run it (and can be multiples more eco harmful that even coal, soup to nuts). I was hoping there was some similar analysis done comparing fracking+EV to oil+std-car on a soup to nuts basis,. from extraction of energy to ultimate car expenditure.
i guess what i'm saying is that it's great that people are so siked by the promise of ev, but to the extent that buying a tesla (or some other such anecdotally equivalent action) 'solves the problem' for them personally and takes away from the urgency of the larger situation, i am concerned.
while the current 6 may not be that much bigger, a trip to asia and you see how the ROW is exposed to much larger handsets.. it seems to be logical that the progression has been thought of.
Slashdot Mirror
ok.. -your knowledge of who and what ISIS is
-your assertion that the 'kurd lobby' drives international geopolitics (not sure where you get this whopper from) - your assertion that the U.S. didnt get involved in syria - your assertion that assad used WMDs (debunked ages ago no less.. do you also think we found WMDs in iraq?) - your whole 'mainland attack' notion.
sigh.
hah!!
i did say something constructive, pointing out that the opinions you espouse are based on information sourced from propaganda. question is, can you entertain the possibility that me calling these sources propaganda is accurate? if it *was* accurate, how would you know?
the problem with this post is, you apparently believe everything spoonfed to you by 'the news'. nom nom nom propaganda so delicious! nom nom nom
paranoia about theoretical possible threats is their cover story IKR..
sadly, this needed a sarc tag.. i think a lot of people missed it.
1) "Coming up tonight on the news @ 10... Just HOW MUCH did Edward Snowden's betrayal HELP the TERRORISTS?? A new study sheds some light!!"
2) repeat this ad every 15 minutes all day long
3) Run the segment for 10 seconds at the end of the broadcast, say.. 'apparently not much if at all.' assume most people miss it.
4) profit!
let's have a massive disproportionate reaction!! you know.. lots of fear mongering and maybe we can invite more surveillance!!
just remember.. we need to reserve these blissful over-reactions for only 'threats' that involve the terrorist-boogey-man... if we reacted this way to comparable threat-per-capita non-terrorist criminals, we would run out of resources in about a week. (plus, the whole surveillance thing would be harder to jam down the masses throats)
glad to know someone else sees it for what all this is. tough to stomach.
"We're still trying to work our way through distinguishing the difference between criminal hacking and an act of war,"
this is like the scene in the movie where the parent knocks on the door to the kids room asking "what are you doing in there!?!?" knowing full well... and the kid hurriedly puts out his joint and sprays air freshener... "nothing!!!"
i've experienced fear driven life.. i think that's a sufficient catchall
mobydisk says it well in his comment above - but unless you're talking about VOLUME of ice, the argument is all but meaningless for you deniers. and oh, the volume is shrinking.
maybe im focusing on my own personal semantics, but im thinking of bankruptcy in terms of assets/liabilities woefully mismatching... ie, difference between going bankrupt and being bankrupt. prob should have left it alone though, as i fear im talking semantics now. cheers
can any of your smart people opine on the feasibility to mask the fact that one is even *using* TOR from their ISPs?
one thing you've forgotten....softly softly catchy monkey
we seriously gotta get the word out that 'news' and 'airtime' as dictated by the likes of vice (partly owned by rupert murdoch btw) is part of the problem vis-a-vis setting the terms of the conversation. Maybe /. should add a field to the data sources that with a mouseover would show all the owners of record of said data source.
agreed.. and p.s. the government IS (and has been) bankrupt.. it just isn't yet entirely insolvent.
glad to know that you've read the textbooks on how it works. when you get to the real world, let me know.
if only she were in some sort of position to do more than talk to oklahoma students about the topic.. ah well.
people should understand that re: 'hydrogen powered cars' and equipment, if the source of the hydrogen is electrolysis powered by electricity which is ITSELF sourced from traditional coal and natgas power plants, then the environmental impact is not at all the rosy scenario people wish it would be. the promise of a hydrogen economy (vis a vis being environmentally clean) is to take the green impact all the way to the sourcing of the hydrogen production stage.
the real problem with renewable energies (like solar, wind, geothermal) is that they are very dependent on being produced in the right geographic region, and energy is notoriously difficult to transfer long distances efficiently. You can't realistically expect to run a solar plant in a region that gets little sunlight (while you can build a coal or gas power plant anywhere). Running a solar or wind farm, the best you can hope for is to supply power to a particular region thats nearby, or charge up batteries which loses a LOT of energy in the transfer AND the physical transport of the (relatively heavy) batteries themselves.
hydrogen offers the promise of being a 'better battery' so to speak -hydrogen is compressible and relatively light to transport while maintaining it's energetic potential. if the efficiency of the electrolytic process can be improved as the article states (and in such a way as to compete with fossil fuels for transport)then solar and wind farms can power electrolytic processes to produce fuel that can be stored and shipped, for a truly carbon neutral impact.
MO.. you can google search for plenty of scientific claims that run counter to the claims made by the pro-fracking community. there's clearly a lot of he-said-she-said, and obfuscation of the facts by many parties. what is worth exploring too though are the actions by the fracking companies vis-a-vis what they have done to keep information out of the public domain.. gag-orders linked to paying-off/relocating affected families. bribing town councils, paying for and pressuring research groups to come up with favorable and/or squelch unfavortable studies etc. etc. these are not the kinds of things people generally do when there is nothing to hide, at least not in such a systemic fashion. while public domain information may not get you to a level of metaphysical certitude re: the seriousness of the damage being done, at the very least there is a very serious fact pattern that points in one direction.
a piece of paper never has nor will it ever have power. it is only a physical manifestation of a broader reality which may or may not be in-line with the written word. i think the bigger question it raises is, were we ever really 'free'? or were certain things just 'permitted' so long as they didn't represent a threat to the extant power structure?
ESPN's Trent Dilfer joked about how long it took Cardinals assistant head coach Tom Moore to "learn how to use the iPad to scroll through the pictures."
apple should issue a statement that Dilfer misspoke, and how it was actually a surface tablet. and add, that were it an actual easy to use ipad, Tom Moore would likely have not had any problems figuring it out.
thanks dp - im appreciative of your response (and your posts in general that ive read) - but i think you're missing the point i was alluding to, which is getting back to the net impact coming from baseload generation- beyond transportation efficiency into net total eco impact.
it just seems to me that people are getting distracted by the promise of EV being so much cleaner, that they are not clued into the misdirection going on re: the impacts of fracking (which are only growing) to generate the baseload necessary to ultimately run it (and can be multiples more eco harmful that even coal, soup to nuts). I was hoping there was some similar analysis done comparing fracking+EV to oil+std-car on a soup to nuts basis,. from extraction of energy to ultimate car expenditure.
i guess what i'm saying is that it's great that people are so siked by the promise of ev, but to the extent that buying a tesla (or some other such anecdotally equivalent action) 'solves the problem' for them personally and takes away from the urgency of the larger situation, i am concerned.
while the current 6 may not be that much bigger, a trip to asia and you see how the ROW is exposed to much larger handsets.. it seems to be logical that the progression has been thought of.