How about you live in the real world. 'Just say no' doesn't work, never has, especially for sex.
Wow... how selfish. "Go ahead and kill your kids, because after all, you deserve a new flat screen TV".
How about give them the ability to plan their families so they can go to, hell just finish, school and get a job to actually buy that TV themselves? Or are you that selfish you don't want anyone else getting ahead?
And who said they had to get abortions, BIRTH CONTROL prevents said 'murder' just as well and Planned Parenthood provides that.
You really don't see the problem in having 10 kids when you live in poverty? It's a guarantee you will 'stay' in poverty. Abortions and birth control fix that problem and all people the chance to lift themselves out of it.
You sir, are an Infoxicated idiot. Planned Parenthood exists not because people choose not to go to a doctor, but because they can't afford insurance or that there are no doctors willing to risk being killed who provide that service.
Uh, Cap and Trade was a GOP idea...you know, use the 'free market' to solve the environmental problems.
So was the Insurance Mandate.
As far as Arizona, you mean the decapitated bodies in the desert that never existed? Or the fact that the GOP in AZ allowed the private prison industry to write the 'papers please' law? Conflict of interest much?
If you don't see the difference in handing out money to people who are trying to solve problems (like climate change) versus just handing more money to corporations in general...well you sir are 'infoxicated'.
Solar, even in the desert: people complain about the local flora and fauna.
Geothermal: people complain that you're creating earthquakes.
Hydro: Dams are Satan's tools.
Wind: It's killing the BIRDS!
You forgot:
Coal/gas: causing global warming/climate change.
So everything has downsides. The main difference is oil and gas cause damages at a snails pace from the human perspective. Out of sight, out of mind and so people buy into the claptrap of the deniers because they can see, hear and feel the effects above fairly immediately.
Oil and coal are basically 'batteries' that store solar power from millions of years ago. They just have some unpleasant side effects we're seeing from over use.
We can build enough solar panels and wind turbines to power the globe. That's easy. The hard part as you suggest is getting that power 24/7 from what are intermittent sources.
That needs research, yet people want to wait until it's available before funding it. It doesn't work like that, or rather, doesn't work like that 'quickly'.
What we need is reliable 24/7/365 power and so far the renewables simply can't give us that so its nuke or coal and NG, take your pick.
The problem is it's false choice. We need to invest in renewables 'now' so that they can take over grid scale, and yes we need nuclear for the next 50-100 years or so to provide base load power until renewables are ready.
It will cost money, lots of money...and one party has completely poisoned public thinking that we need to invest in the future. Instead we should just give all money to corporations who will save us from ourselves...for a hefty fee.
So you're tall then I take it? 80cm is about 30 inches. Which I'd wager is longer than most people's arms.
I'm 5'6" and so pretty average in height and my arms when extended straight forward are at best 65cm to the finger tips. You lose some usable arm length going forward because the shoulder is set back relative to the front position of the chest.
Not even considering the extra effort required to hold your arm out and up off the table for most of the day.
When our monitor is our desk, this starts to become useful as a desktop, but that's a long long way away.
Reach your arm out...if you have a monitor of any decent size, it's far enough away from you that you can't 'touch' it.
'Touch' in the generic computing market is nothing but fluff hype and M$ is going to take a 'massive' hit on this when it comes out for enterprise computing users.
Nothing is as horrible as being trapped in a monopoly.
Sort like before HCR? Employer provided health-care is it's own monopoly, meaning you can't switch jobs if you have a pre-existing condition.
I really don't understand why people distrust a government program 'that they have actual say in' versus a corporation that they have ZERO say in how it's run. You don't get to vote for who runs it, you don't get to vote for what you want it to do.
before HCR reform Insurance companies were perfectly allowed to cancel your coverage because you cost them too much money. You really want that as your health care system?
It does make you think. If Bush and the GOP think that Dems are government solution crazy....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place. Did they not think the Dems would 'improve' upon them?
I fully believe if Bush hadn't started this dive into moral failure the Dems wouldn't have done it on their own, if only because the GOP would have, rightly, decried the invasions of privacy. But because of 'terrerism' somehow it was ok...
Bush's fault for starting it, Dems and Obama's for continuing.
I've run through various sizes of phones over the years Kyocera QCP-6035, Treo 650, 700p and a few of the original Palms before them.
I have an HTC Evo 4G and it's just about the right size.
Phone is 4.75" x 2.5"
Screen is 3.75" x 2.25"
So lets say 5" by 2.5" is a reasonable size for the phone itself. Big enough to see maps and such, small enough to still fit in my pockets or more importantly, on my hip.
Agreed, however, once this system is online, switching the gas turbines for solar is 'relatively' straightforward. Call it Step 1 in a mult-step process. And given this is smaller than 'grid scale' it might be a great test bed for solar as well.
It's a reasonable explanation with one caveat: use solar/wind for air compression power needs and it becomes massively more efficient.
That said, I see this as something similar to electric vehicles. Sure the EV's are initially run on coal fired plants, but now that the consumption is in electric you can switch the plant and make them much much greener.
And you seem to ignore the plethora of data that shows significant change induced by human activities.
Do we know for certain either way? Of course not.
You then take the down side of each possibility...that this spike is natural and not man made, or that it is man made.
One involves the decimation of society, the other simply costs money that will have to be spent in either event - and results in a better situation over all. Renewable sources of energy, less pollution, more national security.
money in 2050 is going to cost LOTS more than small investments now. It's call amortization of costs. The longer you can do it over the cheaper it gets.
People who actually plan for the real world, don't dismiss out of hand the fact that we are doing something massive to the environment and we're seeing a spike. It's entirely possible, and frankly quite likely, they are related.
Remember, the deniers used to claim there was no spike. Now they are saying, well ok there is a spike but there have been spikes before so it's fine.
Slashdot Mirror
let go without so much as a hand-slap again
Yet another FU from GWBush :(
They were convicted and would have faced serious penalties, except for Bush and Co's decision to not punish them.
Wow... how selfish. "Go ahead and kill your kids, because after all, you deserve a new flat screen TV".
How about give them the ability to plan their families so they can go to, hell just finish, school and get a job to actually buy that TV themselves? Or are you that selfish you don't want anyone else getting ahead?
And who said they had to get abortions, BIRTH CONTROL prevents said 'murder' just as well and Planned Parenthood provides that.
You really don't see the problem in having 10 kids when you live in poverty? It's a guarantee you will 'stay' in poverty. Abortions and birth control fix that problem and all people the chance to lift themselves out of it.
You sir, are an Infoxicated idiot. Planned Parenthood exists not because people choose not to go to a doctor, but because they can't afford insurance or that there are no doctors willing to risk being killed who provide that service.
Uh, Cap and Trade was a GOP idea...you know, use the 'free market' to solve the environmental problems.
So was the Insurance Mandate.
As far as Arizona, you mean the decapitated bodies in the desert that never existed? Or the fact that the GOP in AZ allowed the private prison industry to write the 'papers please' law? Conflict of interest much?
If you don't see the difference in handing out money to people who are trying to solve problems (like climate change) versus just handing more money to corporations in general...well you sir are 'infoxicated'.
Which party has been denigrating 'elites' and scientific research? I don't think the Dems are generally doing that.
Solar, even in the desert: people complain about the local flora and fauna.
Geothermal: people complain that you're creating earthquakes.
Hydro: Dams are Satan's tools.
Wind: It's killing the BIRDS!
You forgot:
Coal/gas: causing global warming/climate change.
So everything has downsides. The main difference is oil and gas cause damages at a snails pace from the human perspective. Out of sight, out of mind and so people buy into the claptrap of the deniers because they can see, hear and feel the effects above fairly immediately.
Oil and coal are basically 'batteries' that store solar power from millions of years ago. They just have some unpleasant side effects we're seeing from over use.
We can build enough solar panels and wind turbines to power the globe. That's easy. The hard part as you suggest is getting that power 24/7 from what are intermittent sources.
That needs research, yet people want to wait until it's available before funding it. It doesn't work like that, or rather, doesn't work like that 'quickly'.
What we need is reliable 24/7/365 power and so far the renewables simply can't give us that so its nuke or coal and NG, take your pick.
The problem is it's false choice. We need to invest in renewables 'now' so that they can take over grid scale, and yes we need nuclear for the next 50-100 years or so to provide base load power until renewables are ready.
It will cost money, lots of money...and one party has completely poisoned public thinking that we need to invest in the future. Instead we should just give all money to corporations who will save us from ourselves...for a hefty fee.
So you're tall then I take it? 80cm is about 30 inches. Which I'd wager is longer than most people's arms.
I'm 5'6" and so pretty average in height and my arms when extended straight forward are at best 65cm to the finger tips. You lose some usable arm length going forward because the shoulder is set back relative to the front position of the chest.
Not even considering the extra effort required to hold your arm out and up off the table for most of the day.
When our monitor is our desk, this starts to become useful as a desktop, but that's a long long way away.
Reach your arm out...if you have a monitor of any decent size, it's far enough away from you that you can't 'touch' it.
'Touch' in the generic computing market is nothing but fluff hype and M$ is going to take a 'massive' hit on this when it comes out for enterprise computing users.
Nothing is as horrible as being trapped in a monopoly.
Sort like before HCR? Employer provided health-care is it's own monopoly, meaning you can't switch jobs if you have a pre-existing condition.
I really don't understand why people distrust a government program 'that they have actual say in' versus a corporation that they have ZERO say in how it's run. You don't get to vote for who runs it, you don't get to vote for what you want it to do.
before HCR reform Insurance companies were perfectly allowed to cancel your coverage because you cost them too much money. You really want that as your health care system?
Only kibbitz I have is Obama made a calculated decision to go with Mandate vs Gov't Single Payer in order to try and get some GOP support.
In a world without political calculations (& Unicorns!) I think he'd have done away with said insurance megacorps...
Now if only he'd do something about Bush who was responsible for even more deaths.
I'm sorry, "Independence Day" showed you can hack alien super ships with a quick virus. Duh ;-)
Critical infrastructure is very likely 'regulated' infrastructure. We already have all the enforcement mechanisms we need.
Exactly. Didn't see anything in the Op-Ed about reducing threats, only responding to them.
It does make you think. If Bush and the GOP think that Dems are government solution crazy....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place. Did they not think the Dems would 'improve' upon them?
I fully believe if Bush hadn't started this dive into moral failure the Dems wouldn't have done it on their own, if only because the GOP would have, rightly, decried the invasions of privacy. But because of 'terrerism' somehow it was ok...
Bush's fault for starting it, Dems and Obama's for continuing.
I've run through various sizes of phones over the years Kyocera QCP-6035, Treo 650, 700p and a few of the original Palms before them.
I have an HTC Evo 4G and it's just about the right size.
Phone is 4.75" x 2.5"
Screen is 3.75" x 2.25"
So lets say 5" by 2.5" is a reasonable size for the phone itself. Big enough to see maps and such, small enough to still fit in my pockets or more importantly, on my hip.
Agreed, however, once this system is online, switching the gas turbines for solar is 'relatively' straightforward. Call it Step 1 in a mult-step process. And given this is smaller than 'grid scale' it might be a great test bed for solar as well.
It's a reasonable explanation with one caveat: use solar/wind for air compression power needs and it becomes massively more efficient.
That said, I see this as something similar to electric vehicles. Sure the EV's are initially run on coal fired plants, but now that the consumption is in electric you can switch the plant and make them much much greener.
Step 1 of a multi-step process.
Compared to moving NYC? yes quite small
And you seem to ignore the plethora of data that shows significant change induced by human activities.
Do we know for certain either way? Of course not.
You then take the down side of each possibility...that this spike is natural and not man made, or that it is man made.
One involves the decimation of society, the other simply costs money that will have to be spent in either event - and results in a better situation over all. Renewable sources of energy, less pollution, more national security.
But you don't seem to value those things.
money in 2050 is going to cost LOTS more than small investments now. It's call amortization of costs. The longer you can do it over the cheaper it gets.
People who actually plan for the real world, don't dismiss out of hand the fact that we are doing something massive to the environment and we're seeing a spike. It's entirely possible, and frankly quite likely, they are related.
Remember, the deniers used to claim there was no spike. Now they are saying, well ok there is a spike but there have been spikes before so it's fine.
Move the goal posts much?