And hydrogen isn't even a fuel source - it's a fuel store. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself provides when used. It might be useful for getting around transmission loss over long distances, but it's definitely not a source itself and should not be treated as such in energy policy.
A lot of people - even Democrats - had a visceral distaste for Clinton (who was the worst possible candidate the party could have chosen), and figured that Trump couldn't be that bad. A lot of those people are reconsidering that assessment.
Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
The law gives the government a great deal of latitude in HOW it enforces the law. There is nothing in the law requiring that children be separated from their parents. There is nothing in the law requiring prosecution of every case. The fact is that the Trump administration made the calculated decision to commit heinous acts that are in no way required by law.
And this:
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it.
Those the weasel words of a person who supports heinous acts but doesn't want to be held responsible for them. Cowardly and intellectually dishonest. If you think the law is a good one, own it.
And companies cannot require you give them a kidney as payment to use their service. There limitations to what can legally be demanded of customers - why should personal data not be protected in the same way?
You're greatly overestimating the impact of labor cost on the overall cost of housing in high-demand areas. Existing housing is oftentimes more expensive than new housing - not because it cost more to build, but because older houses are in older neighborhoods closer to city centers, where property values are higher because the location is more desirable. Why else do you think so many people are able to choose to buy a larger new house in an exurb rather than the smaller, older house they could buy for the same money in the city?
Exactly this. I have used a grocery delivery service before. I did so because I was extremely busy, and didn't have room in my schedule to go to the grocery store. I'd get home, and there would be my groceries - including frozen items a milk, kept cold with dry ice. I didn't have time to set aside to help the delivery person unload them, but I didn't have to - that was part of the service. And the whole damned reason I used the service in the first place.
How is the FTC failing to maintain a competitive environment and user-protections in the market-place, exactly?
Internet service - particularly the upper tier networks where the Net Neutrality rubber meets the road - is a natural monopoly. The is no competitive environment to maintain.
Why is the FCC better position to 'own' the Internet for all intents and purposes?
Because the internet is a communications network, and the FCC is tasked with regulating interstate and internation communications networks. The FTC is a consumer protection agency, tasked with protecting consumers
What exactly would be wrong with an Internet Rights amendment to the US Constitution? Or at least clarifying language on the 1st, 4th (and other) amendments, that says you don't become a non-citizen just because you go online.
Nothing, other than the fact that it's not going to happen any time soon.
Just because you don't like - or maybe simply don't understand - the legal justification doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It was based on the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which gives the FCC the authority to regulate interstate and international communications, and the 1996 revision thereof.
I'm criticizing the critics, not the project. Hubble *was* called an expensive boondoggle, especially after the first blurry pictures came down. That the solution was going to add even more expense to the project didn't help public perception at the time.
But after it was fixed, the real science started, and it was freaking amazing. It didn't take long for people to start to see the value of it. I expect the same to happen with the Webb once it's online and results start coming back.
You aren't an American, then. Here, business owners have the right to refuse servicen so long as they're not doing so to discriminate based on protected classes like religion, sex, race, or national origin. Someone is making your employees and other customers uncomfortable? That's enough.
I'm old enough to remember when the Hubble Space Telescope was an expensive boondoggle that would never produce valuable science. How did that turn out?
This makes the belief that we probably aren't alone in the universe an actually unfalsifiable premise, even if it weren't true.
In the sense that you can't prove a negative, sure. But the belief that we ARE alone *is* falsifiable - we just need one example to the contrary and it's proven false.
You have no requirement to serve someone who does things you don't like, nor do employers have any requirement to maintain the employment of individuals whose conduct causes their businesses harm, nor do voters have any requirement to not vocally demonstrate against elected officials who they feel are enacting policies that are harmful to the country.
There's nothing violent or illegal about throwing people out of a restaurant you own, bringing detrimental conduct to the attention of employers, or protests on public property.
Fermi basically said that the window of life (from birth to the "great filter" event was too short to occur (very often) simultaneously with other civilizations. (In other words, life exists elsewhere, just not at the same TIME as any other civilization, because they kil themselves off so quickly.
Fermi didn't say that. Robin Hanson did. The Great Filter is one of many postulated explanations of Fermi's paradox.
My personal feeling is that the correct explanation is a combination of the Earth not being old enough (or being the first) and space being too big. I think third generation stars are a necessary prerequisite to advanced life, which reduces the amount of time available for that life to emerge by two thirds. Add in the necessary time for planets of third generation stars to coalesce and cool down enough for life to form, and then the amount of time necessary for primitive life to evolve into advanced life, and the horizon within which we would be able to detect and interact with such life becomes quite small.
3. What we term intelligent life (insert joke here) has only appeared as far as we can tell once in 4.5 billion years. Why is this?
Because what "we can tell" is not even close to authoritative knowledge. We only started verifying the existence of extrasolar planets in the last 23 years.
What are the conditions needed and why has it not happened in multiple times?
We don't know the answer to the former, and the latter is a loaded question. We have no idea whether or not it has happened more than once. But given the sheer immensity of the universe, it seems highly unlikely that ANY phenomenon exists only in one place.
In the absence of knowledge, if you actually randomly choose values from the entire range, then odds are good that at least one of the parameters will be close to zero - thus giving you an empty universe.
How's that? And how do you justify randomly choosing values from the entire range? Also, "close to zero" in terms of the Drake equation is nowhere near the same thing as "zero", given the number of stars in the universe. It doesn't take a very large number at all to get to "more intelligent life than just earth".
Slashdot Mirror
And hydrogen isn't even a fuel source - it's a fuel store. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself provides when used. It might be useful for getting around transmission loss over long distances, but it's definitely not a source itself and should not be treated as such in energy policy.
A lot of people - even Democrats - had a visceral distaste for Clinton (who was the worst possible candidate the party could have chosen), and figured that Trump couldn't be that bad. A lot of those people are reconsidering that assessment.
Dylann Roof would indicate otherwise.
So would Robert Dear.
And Timothy McVeigh.
And Wade Page.
And Alex Fields.
And Jeremy Christian.
That's just a start. I could go on (and on, and on and on), but it should be pretty clear that you're arguing in bad faith by now.
This guy gets it.
Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
The law gives the government a great deal of latitude in HOW it enforces the law. There is nothing in the law requiring that children be separated from their parents. There is nothing in the law requiring prosecution of every case. The fact is that the Trump administration made the calculated decision to commit heinous acts that are in no way required by law.
And this:
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it.
Those the weasel words of a person who supports heinous acts but doesn't want to be held responsible for them. Cowardly and intellectually dishonest. If you think the law is a good one, own it.
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again."
-Mike Godwin, originator of Godwin's law
And companies cannot require you give them a kidney as payment to use their service. There limitations to what can legally be demanded of customers - why should personal data not be protected in the same way?
You're greatly overestimating the impact of labor cost on the overall cost of housing in high-demand areas. Existing housing is oftentimes more expensive than new housing - not because it cost more to build, but because older houses are in older neighborhoods closer to city centers, where property values are higher because the location is more desirable. Why else do you think so many people are able to choose to buy a larger new house in an exurb rather than the smaller, older house they could buy for the same money in the city?
Exactly this. I have used a grocery delivery service before. I did so because I was extremely busy, and didn't have room in my schedule to go to the grocery store. I'd get home, and there would be my groceries - including frozen items a milk, kept cold with dry ice. I didn't have time to set aside to help the delivery person unload them, but I didn't have to - that was part of the service. And the whole damned reason I used the service in the first place.
How is the FTC failing to maintain a competitive environment and user-protections in the market-place, exactly?
Internet service - particularly the upper tier networks where the Net Neutrality rubber meets the road - is a natural monopoly. The is no competitive environment to maintain.
Why is the FCC better position to 'own' the Internet for all intents and purposes?
Because the internet is a communications network, and the FCC is tasked with regulating interstate and internation communications networks. The FTC is a consumer protection agency, tasked with protecting consumers
What exactly would be wrong with an Internet Rights amendment to the US Constitution? Or at least clarifying language on the 1st, 4th (and other) amendments, that says you don't become a non-citizen just because you go online.
Nothing, other than the fact that it's not going to happen any time soon.
There's another difference: The GOP voted the way Big Telecom wanted them to.
For those who lack imagination:
Tennessee is one example.
Michigan Republicans are trying something similar.
It's part of a push by the Koch brothers.
And their effort has been quite successful.
Just because you don't like - or maybe simply don't understand - the legal justification doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It was based on the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which gives the FCC the authority to regulate interstate and international communications, and the 1996 revision thereof.
Since when is anyone compelled to work a union job?
You have a very skewed idea of what "acting like an adult" looks like.
I'm criticizing the critics, not the project. Hubble *was* called an expensive boondoggle, especially after the first blurry pictures came down. That the solution was going to add even more expense to the project didn't help public perception at the time.
But after it was fixed, the real science started, and it was freaking amazing. It didn't take long for people to start to see the value of it. I expect the same to happen with the Webb once it's online and results start coming back.
You aren't an American, then. Here, business owners have the right to refuse servicen so long as they're not doing so to discriminate based on protected classes like religion, sex, race, or national origin. Someone is making your employees and other customers uncomfortable? That's enough.
I'm old enough to remember when the Hubble Space Telescope was an expensive boondoggle that would never produce valuable science. How did that turn out?
This makes the belief that we probably aren't alone in the universe an actually unfalsifiable premise, even if it weren't true.
In the sense that you can't prove a negative, sure. But the belief that we ARE alone *is* falsifiable - we just need one example to the contrary and it's proven false.
You have no requirement to serve someone who does things you don't like, nor do employers have any requirement to maintain the employment of individuals whose conduct causes their businesses harm, nor do voters have any requirement to not vocally demonstrate against elected officials who they feel are enacting policies that are harmful to the country.
There's nothing violent or illegal about throwing people out of a restaurant you own, bringing detrimental conduct to the attention of employers, or protests on public property.
Fermi basically said that the window of life (from birth to the "great filter" event was too short to occur (very often) simultaneously with other civilizations. (In other words, life exists elsewhere, just not at the same TIME as any other civilization, because they kil themselves off so quickly.
Fermi didn't say that. Robin Hanson did. The Great Filter is one of many postulated explanations of Fermi's paradox.
My personal feeling is that the correct explanation is a combination of the Earth not being old enough (or being the first) and space being too big. I think third generation stars are a necessary prerequisite to advanced life, which reduces the amount of time available for that life to emerge by two thirds. Add in the necessary time for planets of third generation stars to coalesce and cool down enough for life to form, and then the amount of time necessary for primitive life to evolve into advanced life, and the horizon within which we would be able to detect and interact with such life becomes quite small.
3. What we term intelligent life (insert joke here) has only appeared as far as we can tell once in 4.5 billion years. Why is this?
Because what "we can tell" is not even close to authoritative knowledge. We only started verifying the existence of extrasolar planets in the last 23 years.
What are the conditions needed and why has it not happened in multiple times?
We don't know the answer to the former, and the latter is a loaded question. We have no idea whether or not it has happened more than once. But given the sheer immensity of the universe, it seems highly unlikely that ANY phenomenon exists only in one place.
In the absence of knowledge, if you actually randomly choose values from the entire range, then odds are good that at least one of the parameters will be close to zero - thus giving you an empty universe.
How's that? And how do you justify randomly choosing values from the entire range? Also, "close to zero" in terms of the Drake equation is nowhere near the same thing as "zero", given the number of stars in the universe. It doesn't take a very large number at all to get to "more intelligent life than just earth".
Dolphins, apes, elephants and ravens are all incredibly intelligent species that don't look like cracking the radio telescope project anytime soon.
In fact, it was apes who invented the radio telescope, and it is apes who continue to operate them, and to innovate new forms of them.