These changes afford such benefits as reduced footprint of home-use storage batteries for power generated by solar and other natural sources, as well as by fuel cells.
All that matters for home storage batteries is that they be cheap and recyclable. "Footprint" is completely irrelevant. And mentioning fuel cells as a power source is just asking for a flame war.
After consulting Google maps and images, I see the environment is roughly:
1) Flat terrain, near the Nile river 2) Mostly concrete 3) Standing-room only
So I would say the solution would mostly comprise
1) Shade, 2) Drinking lots of water, and 3) Air flow
Setting up awnings shouldn't be too difficult. It should be possible to filter, bottle and chill water on site. Procuring some large fans and some type of power supply should be possible as well.
I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged".
As pointed out, most people get opiates from a pharmacist, not a black market.
Aaaaaand, of course the answer was "yes". So that's, what, seven responses?
even after you admitted it was 100% false
Once again, your failure at reading the thread has led you to attribute statements to me that I didn't actually make. Perhaps you are confused again? Maybe someone else "admitted it was 100% false"? I conceded in my second post that it was not actually statute but merely judicial law. And of course, as I pointed out over and over again, this makes no difference whatsoever to my argument since there is no distinction between statute and judicial law to a cop or prosecutor.
The fact that you seem to want to make such a distinction and argue about prosecutors going to jail, however, is hilarious. I don't think I've ever seen anyone erect such a ridiculous strawman as "prosecutors aren't put in jail for who they prosecute therefore they follow no rules whatsoever," and then beat it with such stupendous zeal as you have done here in this thread.
Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, of a prosecutor actually going to jail for pursuing defendants he knew to be innocent, you split the tiniest hairs of distinction between species of prosecutorial misconduct in order to maintain your argument.
Congratulations, it seems you just might have what it takes to be a lowly court officer in some Lilliputian American backwater.
I'm not the OP. I never made that argument. So, at this point, you are just responding in order to read your own posts. Are you going to respond to this one too?
My argument was that the system was initially designed such that if there was a "questionable" anything (police, prosecution, or otherwise) then the case should not be followed. Why? Because it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.
Uh-huh. And if you think the way the system was initially designed bears even the slightest resemblance to how the system works today, then you're the one whose opinions are overriding empirical reality.
So if you want to reduce the need for power plants, you're talking about reducing demand, and the only way to do that through the grid is to turn people's stuff off whether they like it or not. Do not want.
Not true. Market-pricing would reduce demand without having to shut anyone's power off.
I have five internets in my briefcase right here. Why, just the other day my secretary sent me an internet. Typical government waste. Next thing you know they'll want to build a bridge to nowhere.
You understand, of course, that "the law" has very little bearing on the actions of police and prosecutors anyways, right? I mean, "the law" prohibits speeding, but obviously police aren't criminally prosecuted for that. Your argument is a red herring. Prosecutors who misbehave face disbarment, judicial sanctions and the political process, not prosecution. Police who misbehave only have to fear demotion or loss of employment. My argument was simply that both err on the side of unjustified prosecution, for whatever reason. Your assertion that they could fail to prosecute anyone and not be criminally prosecuted is kind of irrelevant.
I didn't really mean to make any distinction. Posting here is an exercise in frustration with the latest iteration of Slashcode's retarded Javascript interface. So I don't have time to spend several minutes clicking on things in order to make every point crystal clear.
Regardless, you mentioned bribery. And obviously law enforcement are not immune to prosecution for things like criminal conspiracy in which they purposely avoid arresting their conspirators. So there is a distinction to be made.
Slashdot Mirror
global stupid is a myth perpetrated by scientists who want research grants.
displacing existing populations who are forced to move further from the equator and thus develop bigger brains
farther.
get packing.
You realize it's hundreds of billions, right? And over short term, bailout loans of several trillion dollars were made as well.
These changes afford such benefits as reduced footprint of home-use storage batteries for power generated by solar and other natural sources, as well as by fuel cells.
All that matters for home storage batteries is that they be cheap and recyclable. "Footprint" is completely irrelevant. And mentioning fuel cells as a power source is just asking for a flame war.
For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code.
The most energy efficient way to cool people is to pour ice directly into them.
Only if you ignore the energy required to produce the ice.
Unfortunately it's a package deal and also comes with British teeth.
After consulting Google maps and images, I see the environment is roughly:
1) Flat terrain, near the Nile river
2) Mostly concrete
3) Standing-room only
So I would say the solution would mostly comprise
1) Shade,
2) Drinking lots of water, and
3) Air flow
Setting up awnings shouldn't be too difficult. It should be possible to filter, bottle and chill water on site. Procuring some large fans and some type of power supply should be possible as well.
Key Largo Election Official explains vote counting process.
No, the salespeople who are selling Watson are the new profit center. In fact it's salespeople all the way down.
That's because it isn't just electricity. It also includes solar and geo-thermal, biomass and bio-fuels.
Depends. Are these 'monsters' edible or not?
As Woodrow Wilson warned, there is a military-industrial complex.
Wilson helped create the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower is the one who warned about it.
Given Hoover's extra-curricular pursuits, who's to say that wasn't a pun?
it's a way for the rich to destroy the meritocracy: they have the benefit of not needing money to survive
I would argue that anything else (regulations, unions, wage laws) is a way for the poor to destroy self-sufficiency.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier.
I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged".
As pointed out, most people get opiates from a pharmacist, not a black market.
Aaaaaand, of course the answer was "yes". So that's, what, seven responses?
even after you admitted it was 100% false
Once again, your failure at reading the thread has led you to attribute statements to me that I didn't actually make. Perhaps you are confused again? Maybe someone else "admitted it was 100% false"? I conceded in my second post that it was not actually statute but merely judicial law. And of course, as I pointed out over and over again, this makes no difference whatsoever to my argument since there is no distinction between statute and judicial law to a cop or prosecutor.
The fact that you seem to want to make such a distinction and argue about prosecutors going to jail, however, is hilarious. I don't think I've ever seen anyone erect such a ridiculous strawman as "prosecutors aren't put in jail for who they prosecute therefore they follow no rules whatsoever," and then beat it with such stupendous zeal as you have done here in this thread.
Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, of a prosecutor actually going to jail for pursuing defendants he knew to be innocent, you split the tiniest hairs of distinction between species of prosecutorial misconduct in order to maintain your argument.
Congratulations, it seems you just might have what it takes to be a lowly court officer in some Lilliputian American backwater.
I'm not the OP. I never made that argument. So, at this point, you are just responding in order to read your own posts. Are you going to respond to this one too?
So, you think that "inherent value" results from government confiscating and wasting half of your income?
My argument was that the system was initially designed such that if there was a "questionable" anything (police, prosecution, or otherwise) then the case should not be followed. Why? Because it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.
Uh-huh. And if you think the way the system was initially designed bears even the slightest resemblance to how the system works today, then you're the one whose opinions are overriding empirical reality.
How many innocent people ended up in Gitmo again?
So if you want to reduce the need for power plants, you're talking about reducing demand, and the only way to do that through the grid is to turn people's stuff off whether they like it or not. Do not want.
Not true. Market-pricing would reduce demand without having to shut anyone's power off.
I have five internets in my briefcase right here. Why, just the other day my secretary sent me an internet. Typical government waste. Next thing you know they'll want to build a bridge to nowhere.
You understand, of course, that "the law" has very little bearing on the actions of police and prosecutors anyways, right? I mean, "the law" prohibits speeding, but obviously police aren't criminally prosecuted for that. Your argument is a red herring. Prosecutors who misbehave face disbarment, judicial sanctions and the political process, not prosecution. Police who misbehave only have to fear demotion or loss of employment. My argument was simply that both err on the side of unjustified prosecution, for whatever reason. Your assertion that they could fail to prosecute anyone and not be criminally prosecuted is kind of irrelevant.
I'm unclear why you are making that distinction.
I didn't really mean to make any distinction. Posting here is an exercise in frustration with the latest iteration of Slashcode's retarded Javascript interface. So I don't have time to spend several minutes clicking on things in order to make every point crystal clear.
Regardless, you mentioned bribery. And obviously law enforcement are not immune to prosecution for things like criminal conspiracy in which they purposely avoid arresting their conspirators. So there is a distinction to be made.