However, I do look in amazement at scenes of the roadside carnage in the south caused by what I perceive as a dusting of snow.
Funny thing, I did the same thing when Sandy hit New York. Poor babies, hit by a weak tropical storm, and they're carrying on like it was the end of the world...
Why should there be a problem with the Italian justice system because following the conviction one court overturns it on appeal, but later another higher court rules that it shouldn't have been overturned?
Of course, that's not what happened. First Appeal ruled that the conviction was invalid and ordered a new trial. Second conviction was as a result of the new trial.
"It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden." -- except he isn't in the UK.
Of course, he spent YEARS in the UK while the Swedes' extradition request worked its way through the courts. If the USA wanted him, why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time?
Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange.
Obama has been willing to assassinate US citizens (twice, at least, and they're debating how to go about doing it again, I see in the news), so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
Even then there are going to be problems running into Article II arguments during a time of military conflict.
Last I checked, the only "military conflict" that Article II recognizes is a state of War. Which we don't have, since Congress has never declared war...
Last I checked, those KN-08 ICBM's were mock-ups, not real missiles.
Note that apparently the KN-08 is a liquid-fueled ICBM, which means it is completely useless for defensive purposes (you don't store liquid fueled missiles fueled-up, you fuel them just before launch - which would take too long to allow them to be used to react to an attack), and only really useful for a first strike.
Also, it is the name of a Nazi gun more commonly known as the Luger...
A Nazi gun??? The parabellum (aka Luger) was patented in 1898, and began production in 1900.
Which, if you're not aware, predated the Nazis by a few years.
If you're looking for a real "Nazi gun", you might want to look at the Walther P-38, which replaced the Luger as the German Army's standard sidearm starting in 1938.
His Executive Order for closing same pretty much had all the loopholes it needed, since it required that prisoners be returned to their countries of origin if possible (and most of the countries of origin didn't want those guys back).
Plus there was the part about "The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃnamo are eligible for such transfer or release.", which implies strongly that there are also a number NOT so eligible.
Then there's the "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." part, which provides plenty of cover for the DoJ to determine that any particular inmate is NOT eligible for release.
In other words, the Executive Order was written so as to cover Obama's ass first and foremost, with the actual closing of Gitmo a bonus, if it happened.
Are you REALLY suggesting that reentry produces enough energy to initiate fusion???
If so, might want to look at some actual numbers for a change...
Deuterium-tritium fusion requires about 100,000 eV. Which translates to a reentry speed in the vicinity of 1800 km/s, assuming that basically everything were perfect to induce fusion.
Note that reentry speed from the Moon is about 11.2 km/s.
Note further that everything will NOT be perfect to induce fusion.
The only danger from dropping tritium from the Moon would be if the reentry vehicle landed on you. Then it might get ugly for you and anyone in your neighborhood....
Secondly, since the moons in tidal lock with the earth, the side facing us pretty much gets the least amount of light with the exception of the full moon.
Actually, both sides of the moon get about the same amount of light - they're in direct sunlight half the time.
I find myself curious - you're not German, and referring to your age as "mid 20th" (instead of mid 20's) suggests you're not American. So what are you?
That doesn't really follow. 97 billion gallons out of the whole U.S. is nothing, but they don't draw it from the whole U.S., they draw it locally. Imagine, for example, someone drawing a few billion out of a hydrant in your neighborhood.
So, let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the water for fracking is used in CA.
Average water use per person is about 1000 gallons per day (yes, that average covers industrial and agricultural use too, but CA has plenty of both, so bear with me). CA has around 38 milllion people, so CA uses about 38 billion gallons per day. Or 14 trillion per year. So the 97 billion per year would amount to 0.7% of CA's water usage, if it all happened in CA.
Since fracking isn't unique to CA (does it even happen in CA?), and if it were, it would amount to less than 1% of water usage there, I fail to see the problem, and fail to see how that additional 0.7% (MAX) water added to the supply would make a dent in their drought. Which is more due to lack of snowfall than to anything else.
Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community.
A quick check shows that the nation uses something more than 300 billion gallons of water PER DAY.
SO 97 billion gallons per year is less than 0.1% of that total.
In other words, stopping fracking right now, and diverting that water to drought-plagued areas, would have negligible effect, if any.
Slashdot Mirror
So, a trillion dollars to do the whole USA, then?
Yeah, we'll get right on that.
Funny thing, I did the same thing when Sandy hit New York. Poor babies, hit by a weak tropical storm, and they're carrying on like it was the end of the world...
Well, in New Orleans, it's not done because if you dig down as much as a foot, you hit the water table....
Of course, that's not what happened. First Appeal ruled that the conviction was invalid and ordered a new trial. Second conviction was as a result of the new trial.
Of course, he spent YEARS in the UK while the Swedes' extradition request worked its way through the courts. If the USA wanted him, why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time?
Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange.
Obama has been willing to assassinate US citizens (twice, at least, and they're debating how to go about doing it again, I see in the news), so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
Citation?
I've seen that asserted a lot, never seen any evidence offered.
So, a pro-Assange website asserts this. Is there any REAL evidence that this is true?
Last I checked, the only "military conflict" that Article II recognizes is a state of War. Which we don't have, since Congress has never declared war...
Last I checked, those KN-08 ICBM's were mock-ups, not real missiles.
Note that apparently the KN-08 is a liquid-fueled ICBM, which means it is completely useless for defensive purposes (you don't store liquid fueled missiles fueled-up, you fuel them just before launch - which would take too long to allow them to be used to react to an attack), and only really useful for a first strike.
A Nazi gun??? The parabellum (aka Luger) was patented in 1898, and began production in 1900.
Which, if you're not aware, predated the Nazis by a few years.
If you're looking for a real "Nazi gun", you might want to look at the Walther P-38, which replaced the Luger as the German Army's standard sidearm starting in 1938.
Thief, you mean?
Well...
His Executive Order for closing same pretty much had all the loopholes it needed, since it required that prisoners be returned to their countries of origin if possible (and most of the countries of origin didn't want those guys back).
Plus there was the part about "The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃnamo are eligible for such transfer or release.", which implies strongly that there are also a number NOT so eligible.
Then there's the "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." part, which provides plenty of cover for the DoJ to determine that any particular inmate is NOT eligible for release.
In other words, the Executive Order was written so as to cover Obama's ass first and foremost, with the actual closing of Gitmo a bonus, if it happened.
Are you REALLY suggesting that reentry produces enough energy to initiate fusion???
If so, might want to look at some actual numbers for a change...
Deuterium-tritium fusion requires about 100,000 eV. Which translates to a reentry speed in the vicinity of 1800 km/s, assuming that basically everything were perfect to induce fusion.
Note that reentry speed from the Moon is about 11.2 km/s.
Note further that everything will NOT be perfect to induce fusion.
The only danger from dropping tritium from the Moon would be if the reentry vehicle landed on you. Then it might get ugly for you and anyone in your neighborhood....
Hmm, a strip mine on the moon that was 10km on a side would be about 1/38440 radians wide from Earth.
Which is about the same size as an airplane window appears to be from the ground, when passing overhead at cruising altitude.
So, when was the last time you could pick out an individual 767 window as a plane flew overhead at cruising altitude?
Actually, both sides of the moon get about the same amount of light - they're in direct sunlight half the time.
I find myself curious - you're not German, and referring to your age as "mid 20th" (instead of mid 20's) suggests you're not American. So what are you?
Laissez faire".
See me earlier comment about trying to spell things if you've only heard the word and not read it.
So sorry, but it's Heidelberg here in the States too.
"berg" = hill, "burg" = city/town.
Which is not to imply that there are people who can't spell Heidelberg here - after all, there are people who can't spell "their" here....
No, this isn't about "appealing to countries". It's about "appealing to PEOPLE".
Bitcoin is (possibly) a useful alternative to the individual citizens of countries that are trying to solve economic problems by printing money.
It is not, on the other hand, a useful alternative for the governments that are just printing money....
Wow, 0.04% of the money was spent for lobbying!
Isn't it frightening to think about how much more money could have gone toward the charter schools if it wasn't for that 0.04% lobbying?
Voila.
Never try to write a word you've only heard spoken - you'll look like an idiot if you guess wrong in a spectacular way.
So, let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the water for fracking is used in CA.
Average water use per person is about 1000 gallons per day (yes, that average covers industrial and agricultural use too, but CA has plenty of both, so bear with me). CA has around 38 milllion people, so CA uses about 38 billion gallons per day. Or 14 trillion per year. So the 97 billion per year would amount to 0.7% of CA's water usage, if it all happened in CA.
Since fracking isn't unique to CA (does it even happen in CA?), and if it were, it would amount to less than 1% of water usage there, I fail to see the problem, and fail to see how that additional 0.7% (MAX) water added to the supply would make a dent in their drought. Which is more due to lack of snowfall than to anything else.
Government entities to not have Rights. They only have Powers. And only such Powers as are granted to them by the People.
The People have Rights.
At least, that's the theory.
A quick check shows that the nation uses something more than 300 billion gallons of water PER DAY.
SO 97 billion gallons per year is less than 0.1% of that total.
In other words, stopping fracking right now, and diverting that water to drought-plagued areas, would have negligible effect, if any.
Since India has had nuclear weapons for 40 years, nuclear proliferation is not an issue here.