Since the AC didn't respond to you directly I'll repost it to you so you get it.
What? Are you saying that the justice department/DEA isn't a part of the executive branch? Think you need to go back and review your notes from your high school civics class.
Seriously, the JUSTICE dept is the executive branch.
Yeah, must be a bitch with all those northern roads that no longer have any markings on them at all by spring...oh wait, we have lines that seem to last just fine now under heavy plowing.
Besides, we're talking about 'paint' here, it's not like it's hard to reapply even if it does wear off in some spots.
Some states in the US use a graduated licensing system, meaning you get a permit at age 15, can drive alone at 16, can have a passenger at 17, and finally are allowed to drive at night when it is not work or education related at the age of 18.
Yes and there's damned little TRAINING for said new drivers.
here is no state that has done this in the last half of a century.
Well, NY state did this in the 1980s because that was exactly my experience. A joke of a written test, literally 20 multiple choice questions followed by said road test lasting less than 30 minutes; exactly 1 K-turn included.
Perhaps it's different now but I doubt it since the 'written' test is taken at electronic kiosks at DMV's here in VA.
Even so, you have going on 50 years of drivers on the road now who learned that way and taught their kids through simply kids watching their parents cruise in the left hand lane, California stop, jabber on a cell phone, speed ridiculously, smoke, drink, and eat while driving.
With damned little training.
So would you say that passing on the right is good or bad driving? And is it legal? I learned from both my parents and drivers ed in school (not required) it was bad and you should stay right except to pass. Yet here in VA apparently it's perfectly legal.
The US just has far more drivers and far more emphasis on driving a person vehicle as compared to other countries and hence it gets a bad name.
Given how much 'emphasis' you say we put on driving, you'd think we'd be better at it no?
Have you been to Europe? In Germany, it takes literally almost 2 years to get your license. Driving school is that long and costs a couple thousand dollars if memory serves.
Compare that to the US where everyone gets their license after 20 minutes test consisting of a K-turn and nothing over 45 mph. Who do you think turns out better drivers?
People routinely fail driving tests in Europe, because driving really is a 'privilege' and they make it hard to earn.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to actual driving currently. Roads already have lines and symbols on them that seem to stay pretty visible after literally billions of miles being driven over them by all manner of cars carrying all manner of dirt.
Yeah but that's not what the French are saying. They want to have their cake and get paid for having their cake.
Google does not have a stranglehold by any stretch. Are they the largest? Sure, but far from the only player in the space. I'm not aware of anything they do regarding ad clicks/views that is anti-competitive (but then I wouldn't claim to be terribly knowledgeable about the innards of such business processing)
The basic point is that Google is making money off of them, while also making them 'more' money in the process. That's a basic definition of win/win. And yet they don't want to accept it. It's mind bogglingly short sited.
The product provider wants to be paid for its product.
AND they want to get Google's service for free. Not exactly high moral ground. If you don't like Google's service, then by all means, opt out with robots.txt. But complaining that Google is 'mooching' your product while still demanding that Google give you a service YOU DON'T PAY FOR, is pretty ballsy.
Indeed. I really want Google to just say "You think you're being robbed of ad revenue? We'll show you real loss of ad revenue by not listing you at all. Let us know when you want back in."
I was in Charleston, SC a few years after Hugo (cat 5, direct hit) when another hurricane came out of the carribean with the same size speed strength, etc. Forecast wasn't bad as the steering currents were set to move it offshore.
Still that town got up and LEFT en mass.
Being the stupid 'damn' yankee that I was(am?) I of course stayed to watch;-)
Using corn for ethanol is bad, sugar cane is something like 8 times as productive energy wise. Brazil is oil independent now because of sugar cane ethanol I think.
Sagebrush likewise is many times more energy productive than corn, so even with existing tech we could get a lot more out of it.
That said, the sheer acreage needed to grow enough of either to replace oil is prohibitive. It will be a relative niche fuel, ideally suited for the military since it is has all the upsides of oil with only a few relative downsides. And I suspect our military oil usage is below 5% of total, though I'm just guessing on that.
Car exhaust usually contains carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various nitrogen or sulfur oxides.
Now, that nitrogen is from the atmosphere when running oil based gasoline. Is algal biofuel exactly the same? I DON'T FUCKING KNOW SINCE I'M NOT A CHEMIST.
My question is whether these requirements are for growing 'new' fuel; the biggest boon in biofuels is using 'scrap' and 'waste' material, in which case your costs are relatively near zero for those fuel sources.
Even growing sagebrush doesn't require much in the way of input water. It's a weed and grows on it's own on land that isn't farmable. Still uses the nitrogen/phosphorus but water would be the biggest expense.
What it won't do is solve 'all' of our fuel needs.
Here's a hint, nothing else will either. It's the perfect solution for scenarios where long distance, remote and quick fueling requirements need to be met. The military is tops on this list. Just because it won't replace oil entirely doesn't mean it isn't working.
And which of those 'lies' let the liar commit war crimes and genocide?
Bush *did* start Fast and Furious, then stopped his implementation of it.
Really? The SCOTUS wasn't involved *at all* in 2000?
Tea Party filled with racists? Where did they come from, oh yeah, the militant right wing who were already considered the racists in the GOP...
Led by *multiple* GOP Congressmen either currently having or having had their own extra-marital affairs.
How about Bush flat out lying to the public right about this time in 2004? Asked whether he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, he said 'no', even though he'd already decided to do just that.... linky
Slashdot Mirror
What? Are you saying that the justice department/DEA isn't a part of the executive branch? Think you need to go back and review your notes from your high school civics class.
Seriously, the JUSTICE dept is the executive branch.
Yeah, must be a bitch with all those northern roads that no longer have any markings on them at all by spring...oh wait, we have lines that seem to last just fine now under heavy plowing.
Besides, we're talking about 'paint' here, it's not like it's hard to reapply even if it does wear off in some spots.
He's probably thinking of the road markings they have in California which disappear in the wet after dark.
While he's complaining about road markings that....wait for it....GLOW IN THE DARK ;-)
he's a moron.
Some states in the US use a graduated licensing system, meaning you get a permit at age 15, can drive alone at 16, can have a passenger at 17, and finally are allowed to drive at night when it is not work or education related at the age of 18.
Yes and there's damned little TRAINING for said new drivers.
here is no state that has done this in the last half of a century.
Well, NY state did this in the 1980s because that was exactly my experience. A joke of a written test, literally 20 multiple choice questions followed by said road test lasting less than 30 minutes; exactly 1 K-turn included.
Perhaps it's different now but I doubt it since the 'written' test is taken at electronic kiosks at DMV's here in VA.
Even so, you have going on 50 years of drivers on the road now who learned that way and taught their kids through simply kids watching their parents cruise in the left hand lane, California stop, jabber on a cell phone, speed ridiculously, smoke, drink, and eat while driving.
With damned little training.
So would you say that passing on the right is good or bad driving? And is it legal? I learned from both my parents and drivers ed in school (not required) it was bad and you should stay right except to pass. Yet here in VA apparently it's perfectly legal.
you were saying?
The US just has far more drivers and far more emphasis on driving a person vehicle as compared to other countries and hence it gets a bad name.
Given how much 'emphasis' you say we put on driving, you'd think we'd be better at it no?
Have you been to Europe? In Germany, it takes literally almost 2 years to get your license. Driving school is that long and costs a couple thousand dollars if memory serves.
Compare that to the US where everyone gets their license after 20 minutes test consisting of a K-turn and nothing over 45 mph. Who do you think turns out better drivers?
People routinely fail driving tests in Europe, because driving really is a 'privilege' and they make it hard to earn.
We on the other hand let damn near anyone drive.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to actual driving currently. Roads already have lines and symbols on them that seem to stay pretty visible after literally billions of miles being driven over them by all manner of cars carrying all manner of dirt.
Yeah but that's not what the French are saying. They want to have their cake and get paid for having their cake.
Google does not have a stranglehold by any stretch. Are they the largest? Sure, but far from the only player in the space. I'm not aware of anything they do regarding ad clicks/views that is anti-competitive (but then I wouldn't claim to be terribly knowledgeable about the innards of such business processing)
The basic point is that Google is making money off of them, while also making them 'more' money in the process. That's a basic definition of win/win. And yet they don't want to accept it. It's mind bogglingly short sited.
The product provider wants to be paid for its product.
AND they want to get Google's service for free. Not exactly high moral ground. If you don't like Google's service, then by all means, opt out with robots.txt. But complaining that Google is 'mooching' your product while still demanding that Google give you a service YOU DON'T PAY FOR, is pretty ballsy.
Uh, you don't have to use Google. If you're crying that you need to use Google....you really don't have much of an argument.
Indeed. I really want Google to just say "You think you're being robbed of ad revenue? We'll show you real loss of ad revenue by not listing you at all. Let us know when you want back in."
You know what? They're all in the phone book...hence aren't what the poster was talking about, moron.
Truth Troll at your service
Beer, you forgot beer!
I was in Charleston, SC a few years after Hugo (cat 5, direct hit) when another hurricane came out of the carribean with the same size speed strength, etc. Forecast wasn't bad as the steering currents were set to move it offshore.
;-)
Still that town got up and LEFT en mass.
Being the stupid 'damn' yankee that I was(am?) I of course stayed to watch
and lots of people who need them wouldn't get them...
Not 2 months to fix a hole. Read that again.
If you're implying they learned of the attacks on 8/27 and didn't act until 10/20, you're not reading that correctly...
I never see anyone calling for less government expecting the government to do everything for them.
Perhaps you missed Eric Cantor asking for Federal Disaster assistance after the east coast earthquake?
Or the fact that SC receives FAR more money from the Feds than they contribute...
Or perhaps the ever hilarious Tea Party signs "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"
Indeed, hence why I said that in my post. Different fuels made in different ways aren't necessarily the 'same' though.
Using corn for ethanol is bad, sugar cane is something like 8 times as productive energy wise. Brazil is oil independent now because of sugar cane ethanol I think.
Sagebrush likewise is many times more energy productive than corn, so even with existing tech we could get a lot more out of it.
That said, the sheer acreage needed to grow enough of either to replace oil is prohibitive. It will be a relative niche fuel, ideally suited for the military since it is has all the upsides of oil with only a few relative downsides. And I suspect our military oil usage is below 5% of total, though I'm just guessing on that.
Car exhaust usually contains carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various nitrogen or sulfur oxides.
Now, that nitrogen is from the atmosphere when running oil based gasoline. Is algal biofuel exactly the same? I DON'T FUCKING KNOW SINCE I'M NOT A CHEMIST.
And so I asked the question.
Assuming algae is grown in tubes, how does the nitrogen/phosphorus go from the burning of the fuel into the air back into the tubes?
(not a chemist so I'm curious)
My question is whether these requirements are for growing 'new' fuel; the biggest boon in biofuels is using 'scrap' and 'waste' material, in which case your costs are relatively near zero for those fuel sources.
Even growing sagebrush doesn't require much in the way of input water. It's a weed and grows on it's own on land that isn't farmable. Still uses the nitrogen/phosphorus but water would be the biggest expense.
What it won't do is solve 'all' of our fuel needs.
Here's a hint, nothing else will either. It's the perfect solution for scenarios where long distance, remote and quick fueling requirements need to be met. The military is tops on this list. Just because it won't replace oil entirely doesn't mean it isn't working.
And which of those 'lies' let the liar commit war crimes and genocide?
Bush *did* start Fast and Furious, then stopped his implementation of it.
Really? The SCOTUS wasn't involved *at all* in 2000?
Tea Party filled with racists? Where did they come from, oh yeah, the militant right wing who were already considered the racists in the GOP...
Led by *multiple* GOP Congressmen either currently having or having had their own extra-marital affairs.
How about Bush flat out lying to the public right about this time in 2004? Asked whether he was getting rid of Rumsfeld, he said 'no', even though he'd already decided to do just that.... linky