Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.
The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.
The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.
The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.
Except as noted 10000 times in the thread the article does not match the account within the court filing the article is based on. Apparently the journalist is a moron and you believe everything you read on the internet.
The court filing says explicitly that it was HER personal phone.
With an economy 97% based on carbon energy when the rest of the world does something about climate change (and it's not that far off, it's already started with solar power becoming cheaper than coal power) Russia will be left high and dry in a economy worse than the 90's. This will be entirely Putin's fault because he's prioritized carbon based energy above everything else.
Like all things Russian this attempt at self production will fail because the corruption and governance problem (the true hallmark of Putin's Russia) will destroy all Russian competitiveness internationally and locally. As with all things it will be cheaper to buy smuggled in western products at near 50% black market markup rather than purchase a Russian produced item that's paid a 10% bribe at every step of production, transport and distribution.
Putin's Russia cut it's own throat when he based on the economy entirely on carbon and allowed the sickness of corruption and bribery to flourish.
You might not like Congress, hell you might not even like your representative but most people do. Individual senators and rep's have approval ratings in the 60-90% (very high) range with their constituency. The overall congressional approval rating is so low because everyone doesn't like the people everyone else picked, not because they hate their own.
This is something pretty scary. The CIA basically violated the separation of powers and ignored and actively opposed congressional oversight. These are prime tenets of our system. Throwing those checks and balances and oversight out and we are one step away from a dictator running things out the CIA office. Government leaders can't just decide they are going to stop worrying about those constitutional limits on power and doing whatever they want.
The most infuriating part of this is that Congress already has the power to punish him. They CAN hold him in contempt and refer him for prosecution for lying under oath. The problem is they won't, because that could endanger national security or some such bullshit. So they write a stupid letter and ask him to admit he broke the law while they wag their finger at him when they should be voting to hold him in contempt.
In summary, though this is a huge concern I have a hard time getting worked up about it when Congress won't use the power it already has to punish him for lying and breaching the separation of powers. Hell, they could de-fund his position and bar the government from paying him a salary if they wanted to be real dicks. They have numerous ways to punish him but they won't and that's the scariest thing of all. Someone breached a basic tenet of our government, lies to Congress and invalidates congressional oversight and the people with the power to punish him won't do it.
ALL the climate models predict irreversible changes. Every single one of them. We have no realistic way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere other than waiting for plants to do it AND sequester it (the plant material can't rot), and it's very hard to sequester carbon now that bacteria can eat plant matter.
The only difference between the models and predictions is the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 when it finally levels off. There is very little difference in the models about what various concentrations of CO2 will mean temperature wise. It's literally a grade school formula to figure out how much heat the additional CO2 will trap. There are only slight differences in the mitigating factors such as increases or decreases in atmospheric moisture and cloud cover that will affect the heat uptake.
The only thing that really differentiates the models is the calculations of actual emissions. No one really knows how much CO2 is being emitted so scientists have to guess based on various outputs like the amount of oil sold, etc. So they pick an emission level, then they apply their factors for cloud cover and atmospheric moisture and a few other minor factors and in a nutshell you've captured the bulk of the differences between the models. The predictions of emissions are tweaked as they get semi-annual measurements of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the models have been remarkably accurate (remarkable given the complexity of the climate) at predicting year to year concentrations and the temperature increase that has caused.
What is clear is that atmospheric carbon has been much higher than today and the oceans and life were doing well.
Completely true. What you fail to mention is that humans didn't exist as a species the last time the earth saw carbon levels this high. And if we keep going at the rate we are in no time at all we will have restored the atmosphere of the dinosaurs, when mammals were no bigger than small rodents. The sun was also at the time putting out significantly less heat, as much as 70% lower than current emission rates. Not only that but as the sun ages emission rates will continue to increase.
Most people won't find any of that very reassuring, that's probably the reason you didn't say WHEN the planet last saw CO2 levels that high or under what conditions. But don't let silly little facts get in your way!
You've presented a hypothesis as to why the models are wrong
Inaccurate and wrong aren't the same thing. The models aren't accurate predictors. They remain correct, just incorrect in timing, but when modeling runs were lined up with the actual timing by chance they proved to not only be right but accurate as well. They are still trying to tune the models to the earths natural cycles that affect the timing of the predictions, not the prediction itself.
It really doesn't matter what the federalist papers propose or the founders discussed because the weapons the government allows you to own are no threat whatsoever to them. Modern heavy weaponry is not allowed to be owned and without it no citizenry could stand up against a government willing to use said heavy weaponry against their citizens. The 2nd amendment defense against government aggression died when the federal government was allowed to classify weapons and restrict access to the heaviest of those weapons.
I'm a big supporter of 2nd amendment rights but you are fooling yourself if you think your handgun and semi-automatic rifles are a deterrent to government aggression. The only thing that protects Americans from government aggression in the 21st century is our armed forces being unwilling to take action against the citizenry. That's it, if the military as a whole decided to side with an autocratic regime that seized power in the US there would be no civilian resistance because anyone that tried would be dead. Small arms are not an effective weapon against armored heavy weaponry. This is just a fact.
There should be no need to defend the 2nd amendment using this silly defense against government. The 2nd amendment exists and it's not going to go away no matter how much the anti-gun lobby wants it to.
Unlike cold fusion this has been duplicated at least 3 times. And NASA even tried to break the system deliberately and it still worked meaning they really have no idea how it works. I'd say with 3 successful independent tests by some very smart people and we've got something interesting even if it turns out to be worthless as a propulsion device. They are going to be writing papers about this for years trying to understand the effect and it's nuances. They might have discovered some new aspect of the universe we didn't understand, or they could have simply discovered that taking measurements on a device like this is problematic.
Just goes to show there are so many areas we've just barely scratched the surface in. Even if this isn't some amazing new propulsion device it's possibly going to reveal something about EM radiation we didn't fully understand. Either way it's pretty cool IMO. It's not often you run into these situations where you can basically stump some very smart people with something that shouldn't exist. Cold fusion might have ended up being nothing but a chemical reaction but out of the gate that was pretty obvious as no one could duplicate the results. This has independent confirmation to at least some degree.
The only problem is that the entire battery industry is being driven by products that demand weight be a consideration. So your aluminum battery doesn't just need to be cheaper for the same KWhr it also needs to be able to keep up with the research progression on lithium. Lithium might not be the best battery system but it's here to stay because there are so many of them being produced. It's just like lead-acid batteries, they are ancient technology with poor design characteristics. The problem is they are almost impossible to displace because they are so entrenched at this point. The Nissan leaf even has a lead acid battery for various minor energy use tasks.
The better technology doesn't always win, much of the time being first to the party is all that's needed to become entrenched.
That's actually a pretty good analogy. Though the digital photography business went quicker than solar has solar has hit the point where mass production is now dramatically lowering prices at a geometric rate. In 10 years the amount of coal being mined will probably be 50% of what it is today and the production rates will drop 50% 5years later and at an ever increasing rate it will slowly evaporate as a resource down to the bare minimum extraction rate where coal is used for non power generating reasons.
And the world will be far better off. Coal is a devastatingly bad energy source. It's full of concentrated pollution that took millions of years for ancient life to scrub out and bury. And we've conveniently dug it up and been diligently burning the stuff to pump all that pollution back into the air. The end of the carbon energy age is nigh and it's not soon enough.
Nearly half the people in the country pay no income taxes at all
This is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize it's a lie because you've bought into the propaganda. Every person who hold a job pays taxes including those on income. Social security and medicare taxes are NOT exempt-able and they ARE income taxes. The only way to not pay social security and medicare/medicaid taxes is to not have income, something the wealthy are remarkably good at not paying for. On top of this they pay their state taxes, including income, cigarette, alcohol, gas, sales and property along with all the other miscellaneous taxes and fees. In fact as a percentage of their income the poorest among us pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes than anyone else.
The nugget of truth that makes your lie so insidious is that the poorest among us don't pay FEDERAL income tax but they still pay taxes and they still pay income taxes. This little lie and deception allows you to paint entire segments of our society as non-contributing freeloaders and it's NOT TRUE.
All your bullshit numbers are based solely on federal income tax. They disregard all the other taxes entirely as if they don't exist and it's complete and utter horseshit. The most important fact, the one you completely ignore is that the poorest among us pay something like 50% of their income in various federal, state and local taxes. As a percentage of income they are the highest taxed individuals in this country.
Personally I'm a big believer that those people who have benefited the most from the system and have the means to support it should be the ones that have the highest burden in paying for it. That is NOT asking a lot.
Before engaging in such speculation maybe you should calculate the volume of water you are talking about and the amount of energy it would require to raise that volume of water the temperature difference and compare that amount of energy to the known heat output of volcano's assuming every bit of energy is converted to heat.
Once you've done that calculation then you can come back and speculate knowing that there is no way in hell a volcano could actively heat that volume of water and hold that temperature fairly constant for several years unless it was the largest super volcano the planet has ever seen. It takes a LOT of heat to raise the temperature of even small volumes of water and the volume of water you are talking about is NOT small.
No volcano's aren't raising the temperature of the ocean in anything but the smallest of areas directly adjacent to the eruption, nor are they the source of climate change. If what you suggest was possible all the water around the island of Hawaii would be near boiling because of all the lava entering the ocean there.
To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.
If you think that everyone that has a hand in reviewing or providing comments at the request of the author on a paper should be listed as sources or authors you don't know anything about how scientific papers work.
Conversely if you think the only people involved in a scientific paper are either authors or sources you don't know anything about scientific papers or the process.
Almost NO ONE is going to submit a paper for publishing without having everyone they can convince to help them read it and provide comments. It just doesn't happen. None of those people are sources, authors or included in the bibliography. That would just be plain stupid. If they did that stupid idea the bibliography would be 20 pages of people that read the paper and provided comments or editing help making it utterly worthless.
The more reproductions without someone figuring out what's wrong with the test the more likely it is that it's not the test that's wrong.
This engine is interesting on many fronts, the most important of which is it appears to violate what we know about conservation of momentum and IF it does it's going to actually point to some fundamental constant or principle of the universe that we've missed as long as it's not an experimental error. This is a big hurdle to take so it's going to take a LOT of evidence there is no mistakes with the test or engine.
Could be pretty cool if it turns out real. We won't need to ever worry about fuel for satellites and all you would need to travel to mars or even Pluto or even another star would be an energy source that would last the length of the journey. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOD put one of these into space ASAP to find out if the work, it would revolutionize spy satellites if they don't have to worry about propulsion fuel.
Then they shouldn't land the plane and make you switch planes. As soon as they land the plane and make you disembark whether you board the second flight is up to you. Otherwise that other plane better not take off without you, you think they would hold the second plane for you?
These fairs are cheaper with layovers are games the airlines play with fairs to maximize revenue. No one should be under any obligation to play along if they don't want to. Suing someone that facilitates exploiting this loophole in their system is nothing more than attacking free speech.
Other than they were jurisdiction shopping in a venue that would be more likely to win because they are headquartered there and the juror pool would be likely to be influenced by that?
The judge didn't rule on venue without it being challenged by the defense. United didn't pick this court by accident.
Do you have a source for these problems with DNA analysis? Because I'd like to see it. It's my understanding that the FBI has always been on the cutting edge with DNA and has been pretty cautious in court testimony about it.
The FBI for years used, in court, hair analysis, handwriting and audio experts that couldn't prove anything. They've all been proven to be pseudo sciences with no actual ability to prove anything with an accuracy better than random guessing. There are a LOT of people in jail based entirely on evidence the FBI submitted using these pseudo sciences. This shouldn't really surprise anyone as the FBI is one of the biggest supporters of "lie detectors". Which is the pseudo science that makes all the other pseudo sciences look reasonable.
The FBI doesn't care if they break the entire purpose of Crypto. They would like the world without crypto at least in their day job. You do something foolish in assuming they don't understand that it would break the entire purpose of crypto. They likely understand that all too well.
If you think that's how science or EPA policy and rule making takes place you are a moron. You've presented an example that's not feasible, not within the required policy frameworks and not even reasonable. Yet you present it like it's rational. Maybe learn about how the rule making process works, if you understood even 10% of that you would know how stupid your example is.
This bill has one intent, to gut environmental science and the EPA's rule making authority and do so covertly rather than just abolishing the EPA that Congress created. But they are to chickenshit to actually try to abolish the EPA because they know the bad press would kill them. Just like no matter how many times they say they want to abolish medicare when the chips are down they won't propose or vote on a single bill to do so because the electorate would kill them. If they weren't so chickenshit they would try to change the law they wrote to alter the NEPA law so it can't be used for CO2. Good luck getting them to not be chickenshit.
Another example, though not as heavily environmental is the Colorado River Compact. Its a federally negotiated water sharing agreement. Arizona and California nearly went to war over the Colorado river water, the president was forced to nationalize the Arizona national guard to prevent it. It is completely within the authority of the federal government to prevent the states from going to war by imposing consistent and reasonable standards on all of them.
I'd also note it's not just the general welfare clause. Pollution clearly falls under the commercial clause as well because the pollution is invariably related to interstate commerce either directly through energy exports or indirectly through manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.
The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.
The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.
The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.
Except as noted 10000 times in the thread the article does not match the account within the court filing the article is based on. Apparently the journalist is a moron and you believe everything you read on the internet.
The court filing says explicitly that it was HER personal phone.
It also opens you up to some pretty massive civil liability.
Considering the quality of journalism today I wouldn't trust a reporter for anything.
With an economy 97% based on carbon energy when the rest of the world does something about climate change (and it's not that far off, it's already started with solar power becoming cheaper than coal power) Russia will be left high and dry in a economy worse than the 90's. This will be entirely Putin's fault because he's prioritized carbon based energy above everything else.
Like all things Russian this attempt at self production will fail because the corruption and governance problem (the true hallmark of Putin's Russia) will destroy all Russian competitiveness internationally and locally. As with all things it will be cheaper to buy smuggled in western products at near 50% black market markup rather than purchase a Russian produced item that's paid a 10% bribe at every step of production, transport and distribution.
Putin's Russia cut it's own throat when he based on the economy entirely on carbon and allowed the sickness of corruption and bribery to flourish.
You might not like Congress, hell you might not even like your representative but most people do. Individual senators and rep's have approval ratings in the 60-90% (very high) range with their constituency. The overall congressional approval rating is so low because everyone doesn't like the people everyone else picked, not because they hate their own.
This is something pretty scary. The CIA basically violated the separation of powers and ignored and actively opposed congressional oversight. These are prime tenets of our system. Throwing those checks and balances and oversight out and we are one step away from a dictator running things out the CIA office. Government leaders can't just decide they are going to stop worrying about those constitutional limits on power and doing whatever they want.
The most infuriating part of this is that Congress already has the power to punish him. They CAN hold him in contempt and refer him for prosecution for lying under oath. The problem is they won't, because that could endanger national security or some such bullshit. So they write a stupid letter and ask him to admit he broke the law while they wag their finger at him when they should be voting to hold him in contempt.
In summary, though this is a huge concern I have a hard time getting worked up about it when Congress won't use the power it already has to punish him for lying and breaching the separation of powers. Hell, they could de-fund his position and bar the government from paying him a salary if they wanted to be real dicks. They have numerous ways to punish him but they won't and that's the scariest thing of all. Someone breached a basic tenet of our government, lies to Congress and invalidates congressional oversight and the people with the power to punish him won't do it.
ALL the climate models predict irreversible changes. Every single one of them. We have no realistic way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere other than waiting for plants to do it AND sequester it (the plant material can't rot), and it's very hard to sequester carbon now that bacteria can eat plant matter.
The only difference between the models and predictions is the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 when it finally levels off. There is very little difference in the models about what various concentrations of CO2 will mean temperature wise. It's literally a grade school formula to figure out how much heat the additional CO2 will trap. There are only slight differences in the mitigating factors such as increases or decreases in atmospheric moisture and cloud cover that will affect the heat uptake.
The only thing that really differentiates the models is the calculations of actual emissions. No one really knows how much CO2 is being emitted so scientists have to guess based on various outputs like the amount of oil sold, etc. So they pick an emission level, then they apply their factors for cloud cover and atmospheric moisture and a few other minor factors and in a nutshell you've captured the bulk of the differences between the models. The predictions of emissions are tweaked as they get semi-annual measurements of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the models have been remarkably accurate (remarkable given the complexity of the climate) at predicting year to year concentrations and the temperature increase that has caused.
The exaggeration is lumping everyone into the same category. If you can't understand that you are beyond help.
Completely true. What you fail to mention is that humans didn't exist as a species the last time the earth saw carbon levels this high. And if we keep going at the rate we are in no time at all we will have restored the atmosphere of the dinosaurs, when mammals were no bigger than small rodents. The sun was also at the time putting out significantly less heat, as much as 70% lower than current emission rates. Not only that but as the sun ages emission rates will continue to increase.
Most people won't find any of that very reassuring, that's probably the reason you didn't say WHEN the planet last saw CO2 levels that high or under what conditions. But don't let silly little facts get in your way!
Inaccurate and wrong aren't the same thing. The models aren't accurate predictors. They remain correct, just incorrect in timing, but when modeling runs were lined up with the actual timing by chance they proved to not only be right but accurate as well. They are still trying to tune the models to the earths natural cycles that affect the timing of the predictions, not the prediction itself.
It really doesn't matter what the federalist papers propose or the founders discussed because the weapons the government allows you to own are no threat whatsoever to them. Modern heavy weaponry is not allowed to be owned and without it no citizenry could stand up against a government willing to use said heavy weaponry against their citizens. The 2nd amendment defense against government aggression died when the federal government was allowed to classify weapons and restrict access to the heaviest of those weapons.
I'm a big supporter of 2nd amendment rights but you are fooling yourself if you think your handgun and semi-automatic rifles are a deterrent to government aggression. The only thing that protects Americans from government aggression in the 21st century is our armed forces being unwilling to take action against the citizenry. That's it, if the military as a whole decided to side with an autocratic regime that seized power in the US there would be no civilian resistance because anyone that tried would be dead. Small arms are not an effective weapon against armored heavy weaponry. This is just a fact.
There should be no need to defend the 2nd amendment using this silly defense against government. The 2nd amendment exists and it's not going to go away no matter how much the anti-gun lobby wants it to.
Unlike cold fusion this has been duplicated at least 3 times. And NASA even tried to break the system deliberately and it still worked meaning they really have no idea how it works. I'd say with 3 successful independent tests by some very smart people and we've got something interesting even if it turns out to be worthless as a propulsion device. They are going to be writing papers about this for years trying to understand the effect and it's nuances. They might have discovered some new aspect of the universe we didn't understand, or they could have simply discovered that taking measurements on a device like this is problematic.
Just goes to show there are so many areas we've just barely scratched the surface in. Even if this isn't some amazing new propulsion device it's possibly going to reveal something about EM radiation we didn't fully understand. Either way it's pretty cool IMO. It's not often you run into these situations where you can basically stump some very smart people with something that shouldn't exist. Cold fusion might have ended up being nothing but a chemical reaction but out of the gate that was pretty obvious as no one could duplicate the results. This has independent confirmation to at least some degree.
The only problem is that the entire battery industry is being driven by products that demand weight be a consideration. So your aluminum battery doesn't just need to be cheaper for the same KWhr it also needs to be able to keep up with the research progression on lithium. Lithium might not be the best battery system but it's here to stay because there are so many of them being produced. It's just like lead-acid batteries, they are ancient technology with poor design characteristics. The problem is they are almost impossible to displace because they are so entrenched at this point. The Nissan leaf even has a lead acid battery for various minor energy use tasks.
The better technology doesn't always win, much of the time being first to the party is all that's needed to become entrenched.
That's actually a pretty good analogy. Though the digital photography business went quicker than solar has solar has hit the point where mass production is now dramatically lowering prices at a geometric rate. In 10 years the amount of coal being mined will probably be 50% of what it is today and the production rates will drop 50% 5years later and at an ever increasing rate it will slowly evaporate as a resource down to the bare minimum extraction rate where coal is used for non power generating reasons.
And the world will be far better off. Coal is a devastatingly bad energy source. It's full of concentrated pollution that took millions of years for ancient life to scrub out and bury. And we've conveniently dug it up and been diligently burning the stuff to pump all that pollution back into the air. The end of the carbon energy age is nigh and it's not soon enough.
This is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize it's a lie because you've bought into the propaganda. Every person who hold a job pays taxes including those on income. Social security and medicare taxes are NOT exempt-able and they ARE income taxes. The only way to not pay social security and medicare/medicaid taxes is to not have income, something the wealthy are remarkably good at not paying for. On top of this they pay their state taxes, including income, cigarette, alcohol, gas, sales and property along with all the other miscellaneous taxes and fees. In fact as a percentage of their income the poorest among us pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes than anyone else.
The nugget of truth that makes your lie so insidious is that the poorest among us don't pay FEDERAL income tax but they still pay taxes and they still pay income taxes. This little lie and deception allows you to paint entire segments of our society as non-contributing freeloaders and it's NOT TRUE.
All your bullshit numbers are based solely on federal income tax. They disregard all the other taxes entirely as if they don't exist and it's complete and utter horseshit. The most important fact, the one you completely ignore is that the poorest among us pay something like 50% of their income in various federal, state and local taxes. As a percentage of income they are the highest taxed individuals in this country.
Personally I'm a big believer that those people who have benefited the most from the system and have the means to support it should be the ones that have the highest burden in paying for it. That is NOT asking a lot.
Before engaging in such speculation maybe you should calculate the volume of water you are talking about and the amount of energy it would require to raise that volume of water the temperature difference and compare that amount of energy to the known heat output of volcano's assuming every bit of energy is converted to heat.
Once you've done that calculation then you can come back and speculate knowing that there is no way in hell a volcano could actively heat that volume of water and hold that temperature fairly constant for several years unless it was the largest super volcano the planet has ever seen. It takes a LOT of heat to raise the temperature of even small volumes of water and the volume of water you are talking about is NOT small.
No volcano's aren't raising the temperature of the ocean in anything but the smallest of areas directly adjacent to the eruption, nor are they the source of climate change. If what you suggest was possible all the water around the island of Hawaii would be near boiling because of all the lava entering the ocean there.
To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.
That's a preposterous assumption.
If you think that everyone that has a hand in reviewing or providing comments at the request of the author on a paper should be listed as sources or authors you don't know anything about how scientific papers work.
Conversely if you think the only people involved in a scientific paper are either authors or sources you don't know anything about scientific papers or the process.
Almost NO ONE is going to submit a paper for publishing without having everyone they can convince to help them read it and provide comments. It just doesn't happen. None of those people are sources, authors or included in the bibliography. That would just be plain stupid. If they did that stupid idea the bibliography would be 20 pages of people that read the paper and provided comments or editing help making it utterly worthless.
The more reproductions without someone figuring out what's wrong with the test the more likely it is that it's not the test that's wrong.
This engine is interesting on many fronts, the most important of which is it appears to violate what we know about conservation of momentum and IF it does it's going to actually point to some fundamental constant or principle of the universe that we've missed as long as it's not an experimental error. This is a big hurdle to take so it's going to take a LOT of evidence there is no mistakes with the test or engine.
Could be pretty cool if it turns out real. We won't need to ever worry about fuel for satellites and all you would need to travel to mars or even Pluto or even another star would be an energy source that would last the length of the journey. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOD put one of these into space ASAP to find out if the work, it would revolutionize spy satellites if they don't have to worry about propulsion fuel.
Then they shouldn't land the plane and make you switch planes. As soon as they land the plane and make you disembark whether you board the second flight is up to you. Otherwise that other plane better not take off without you, you think they would hold the second plane for you?
These fairs are cheaper with layovers are games the airlines play with fairs to maximize revenue. No one should be under any obligation to play along if they don't want to. Suing someone that facilitates exploiting this loophole in their system is nothing more than attacking free speech.
Other than they were jurisdiction shopping in a venue that would be more likely to win because they are headquartered there and the juror pool would be likely to be influenced by that?
The judge didn't rule on venue without it being challenged by the defense. United didn't pick this court by accident.
Do you have a source for these problems with DNA analysis? Because I'd like to see it. It's my understanding that the FBI has always been on the cutting edge with DNA and has been pretty cautious in court testimony about it.
The FBI for years used, in court, hair analysis, handwriting and audio experts that couldn't prove anything. They've all been proven to be pseudo sciences with no actual ability to prove anything with an accuracy better than random guessing. There are a LOT of people in jail based entirely on evidence the FBI submitted using these pseudo sciences. This shouldn't really surprise anyone as the FBI is one of the biggest supporters of "lie detectors". Which is the pseudo science that makes all the other pseudo sciences look reasonable.
The FBI doesn't care if they break the entire purpose of Crypto. They would like the world without crypto at least in their day job. You do something foolish in assuming they don't understand that it would break the entire purpose of crypto. They likely understand that all too well.
If you think that's how science or EPA policy and rule making takes place you are a moron. You've presented an example that's not feasible, not within the required policy frameworks and not even reasonable. Yet you present it like it's rational. Maybe learn about how the rule making process works, if you understood even 10% of that you would know how stupid your example is.
This bill has one intent, to gut environmental science and the EPA's rule making authority and do so covertly rather than just abolishing the EPA that Congress created. But they are to chickenshit to actually try to abolish the EPA because they know the bad press would kill them. Just like no matter how many times they say they want to abolish medicare when the chips are down they won't propose or vote on a single bill to do so because the electorate would kill them. If they weren't so chickenshit they would try to change the law they wrote to alter the NEPA law so it can't be used for CO2. Good luck getting them to not be chickenshit.
Another example, though not as heavily environmental is the Colorado River Compact. Its a federally negotiated water sharing agreement. Arizona and California nearly went to war over the Colorado river water, the president was forced to nationalize the Arizona national guard to prevent it. It is completely within the authority of the federal government to prevent the states from going to war by imposing consistent and reasonable standards on all of them.
I'd also note it's not just the general welfare clause. Pollution clearly falls under the commercial clause as well because the pollution is invariably related to interstate commerce either directly through energy exports or indirectly through manufacturing.