it was first about preventing the Japanese from a separatist peace treaty with the USSR
Why would we care if the Japanese made a separate peace with the USSR? It's not like the USSR was actually fighting the Japanese until just after Hiroshima was bombed (the Soviets declared war on Japan on 9 AUG 1945, the day that Nagasaki was bombed)...
Note, for record, that the USSR was NEUTRAL in the war between the USA and Japan. Which, among other things produced the oddity of the Japanese not mucking with Lend/Lease shipments from the USA (their enemy) which were intended to be used against the Germans (their ally)...
Note also that the USSR, lacking a meaningful Navy, was never a threat to Japan. They could, at best finish kicking the Imperial Japanese Army out of China over a period of months. But since Japan surrendered less than one week after the Soviets entered the war, that was unlikely, at best.
He hasn't repealed the gross violations implemented by the previous administration.
But the violations he has implemented are much less horrific in comparison to what Bush/Cheney put into effect.
To put it in perspective, things are still going down hill, but we are not jumping off another cliff at the moment.
So, what you're saying is that He is not making things better, but that he's not making them worse as quickly as he might?
Does the phrase "damn him with faint praise" mean anything to you?
Going to war over a few deaths (~3000) is ridiculous and juvenile.
Note, for reference, that the attack on Pearl Harbor caused fewer than 3000 deaths. And the damage to the Pacific Fleet was cheaper (in constant dollars) to repair than the damage to NYC on 9/11.
For that matter, we entered WW1 as a result of fewer than 3000 deaths.
The US has more than enough sun to be totally energy self-sufficient using only solar power if they wanted.
Which noone is arguing.
What is being argued is whether Solar is really cheaper than Nuclear. Since Solar only works part time, more installed capacity is required to deal with those times it can't do its thing (night, for one example). The question is "did the analysis we're all commenting on take into account the extra capacity required to deal with stockpiling energy overnight every night?".
I don't know the answer to that. Considering your digression, I assume you don't know either.
Note further that you assume we could provide sufficient Solar power for the entire USA in the desert southwest (California and Nevada were mentioned). Since the last time a large Solar project was proposed for that region (earlier this year, I believe), lawsuits were immediately started to prevent such a thing from being built, I suspect it would be harder than you might think.
And no, it wasn't the nuclear lobby that was suing. or the fossil fuel lobby. It was the environmental lobby....
Minutemen trying to prevent Latino voters from voting by pointing guns at them,
While I can find references in the Liberal Media to what you are talking about here, not even the Liberal Media is saying the guy(s) pointed guns at anyone. Just that he was wearing a gun. Which is legal, if in bad taste at the polls.
In other words, might want to verify your sources a bit better if you don't want to be perceived as just a bit biased here.
Except, it's always day on some part of the planet...
True enough. Did we factor into the cost of Solar the cost of electrical transmission lines under the Atlantic Ocean sufficient to supply North America's power needs?
I didn't think so.
Oh, and how much extra capacity did we assume for Solar in our price comparison to allow for pumping water uphill, or melting salt, or whatever, to deal with night/clouds/etc? None?
Yes it can be used to spread FUD and yes it has adverse effects, but in general giving the consumer more information about a product is a good thing for the market.
So, you're suggesting we should have labels specifying the number of ponies killed in the manufacture of anything, eh? After all, more information is a good thing for the market.
Face it, the RF emissions of a cell phone aren't "more information", but rather just more FUD to herd the idiots...
The summary fails to mention that the liked study only focuses on blind people. So blind pedestrians are no more likely to get hit by a hybrid then full sighted pedestrians.
Unless there are a lot more hybrids on the road than I think, the conclusion you mention is drivel - there aren't enough hybrids to produce any meaningful change in the statistics yet.
Yet nobody seems to have a problem with employers censoring their employees speech ? There's your exception right there. Clearly the U.S. constitution is NOT held to apply to corporations.
Until and unless the Supremes rule on the particular matter in question, it is still open to debate. And even if they rule that a corporation can restrict an employees speech (as far as I know they have not so ruled), this is irrelevant to the question of whether this particular case (Google and Streetview) are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Remember, if you think that your employer is violating your civil rights, you have to bring suit to stop it - the courts won't, of their own initiative, decide to stop it for you....
Well I was showing you limits to your 4th amendment -either way the US constitution restricts the government, you've made it abundantly clear that it does not apparently restrict corporations.
Depends on the extent to which it has been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment. Which has to be decided by the Supremes. If this ever gets as far as the Supremes, they can declare what was done by Google an unconstitutional infringement of the 4th Amendment. Or not. Until then, no-one will know for sure....
Note that the entire Bill of Rights once only limited the Federal government, not the State governments. Then the States passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the Bill of Rights (and every other Constitutional provision) to everyone in the USA, against anyone who'd care to try to infringe upon them.
Regardless, it is nice to see that the government and private sectors will soon have an ability to choose, it sure beats the old system.
Well, it's not like they've actually done more than draw a couple of not-terribly-pretty pictures of their hypothetical spacecraft.
All we're really seeing here is what Boeing promises to build if the Feds will give them a buttload of money to do the real engineering required.
Note one key difference between the "previous system" and this announcement - Shuttle actually exists as something more than an advertising brochure....
Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.
If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.
Note that Obama's Healthcare law also bounces off the Interstate Commerce clause. Among others.
It will be very hard for the current Administration to argue that they don't have the power to deal with California's mj, but do have the power to regulate the health insurance of everyone in America.
Even worse, if the Supremes rule that the Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply to California's mj, then the number of lawsuits that will go winging their way up to the Supremes arguing for similar interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause for their pet peeve will be awe-inspiring.
Note that virtually the entire growth of the Federal government since 1933 has depended on the Interstate Commerce clause being interpreted loosely enough to allow the Feds to do whatever they wanted.
Quite so. "Economical" changes from place to place and time to time. So no telling where we are now as regards "economically feasible" dam sites.
But dams are still pretty expensive upfront costs, so I wouldn't think that there could be all that many significant opportunities for that sort of thing in the USA.
And the problem of the Greens suing over new dams hasn't gone away, and won't. Note their lawsuit to stop a Solar plant in California (?) recently over a turtle....
Alas, no. I heard it during a discussion with a TVA engineer almost 30 years ago. I took his word for it, since designing and building dams was pretty much what he did for a living.
.what about falsification of photographic documentation of their crisis response activity?
Their "crisis response" is happening in the Gulf. What's happening in their "crisis response center" has little, if anything, to do with their actual crisis response.
What's happening in photos of their crisis response center has even less to do with their crisis response.
Isn't there room for quite a lot more hydroelectric power in the USA?
No.
Pretty much anywhere it makes economic sense to build a dam, we've already done so.
Note also that dam building pretty much ground to a halt when the Greens starting bringing Federal lawsuits on behalf of wee little fishies against dam-makers....
I've always wondered, I mean I have a vague idea of how nuclear plants work - do subs and warships use the ocean as their water source for the reactor? Is that why it's essentially so small?
No, the primary loop on a Naval reactor does not use seawater.
Naval reactors are so small because the uranium they use is more highly enriched than the uranium in civilian plants.
First, we're talking about new books, not classics that you can get for free from a number of sources, and that can be read by a number of different e-readers on top of free software you can download.
Note that Baen's eBooks have no DRM, and can be read natively by any current eBook Readers.
In a semi-related note, I think that DC should do a Superman storyline where Clark gets laid-off because the Planet can't support his job anymore.
I doubt Clark would really be all that bothered. He's been a published author for a long time now - he makes more money from his books than he does at the Planet....
I expect that we'll never be able to tell whether this has done any good at all...
Actually, if any turtle populations are established on the east coast, we'll know if it's done any good at all. Especially if populations decline in the gulf, which they are almost guaranteed to do.
Since there are already turtle populations on the east coast, we won't notice the addition of about 70 adult turtles in a few years.
And even the Kemp Ridley sea turtles can be found in the Atlantic from time to time, so finding a few more of them doesn't really tell us much.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would we care if the Japanese made a separate peace with the USSR? It's not like the USSR was actually fighting the Japanese until just after Hiroshima was bombed (the Soviets declared war on Japan on 9 AUG 1945, the day that Nagasaki was bombed)...
Note, for record, that the USSR was NEUTRAL in the war between the USA and Japan. Which, among other things produced the oddity of the Japanese not mucking with Lend/Lease shipments from the USA (their enemy) which were intended to be used against the Germans (their ally)...
Note also that the USSR, lacking a meaningful Navy, was never a threat to Japan. They could, at best finish kicking the Imperial Japanese Army out of China over a period of months. But since Japan surrendered less than one week after the Soviets entered the war, that was unlikely, at best.
So, what you're saying is that He is not making things better, but that he's not making them worse as quickly as he might?
Does the phrase "damn him with faint praise" mean anything to you?
Note, for reference, that the attack on Pearl Harbor caused fewer than 3000 deaths. And the damage to the Pacific Fleet was cheaper (in constant dollars) to repair than the damage to NYC on 9/11.
For that matter, we entered WW1 as a result of fewer than 3000 deaths.
And the Civil War...
And....
Which noone is arguing.
What is being argued is whether Solar is really cheaper than Nuclear. Since Solar only works part time, more installed capacity is required to deal with those times it can't do its thing (night, for one example). The question is "did the analysis we're all commenting on take into account the extra capacity required to deal with stockpiling energy overnight every night?".
I don't know the answer to that. Considering your digression, I assume you don't know either.
Note further that you assume we could provide sufficient Solar power for the entire USA in the desert southwest (California and Nevada were mentioned). Since the last time a large Solar project was proposed for that region (earlier this year, I believe), lawsuits were immediately started to prevent such a thing from being built, I suspect it would be harder than you might think.
And no, it wasn't the nuclear lobby that was suing. or the fossil fuel lobby. It was the environmental lobby....
In general, I agree. However...
While I can find references in the Liberal Media to what you are talking about here, not even the Liberal Media is saying the guy(s) pointed guns at anyone. Just that he was wearing a gun. Which is legal, if in bad taste at the polls.
In other words, might want to verify your sources a bit better if you don't want to be perceived as just a bit biased here.
Note, by the by, that "efficient society" pretty much reduces to "fascist society".
The aim of society isn't "efficiency"....
True enough. Did we factor into the cost of Solar the cost of electrical transmission lines under the Atlantic Ocean sufficient to supply North America's power needs?
I didn't think so.
Oh, and how much extra capacity did we assume for Solar in our price comparison to allow for pumping water uphill, or melting salt, or whatever, to deal with night/clouds/etc? None?
Most, if not all, of us understand "petrol", so you needn't bother compromising your normal writing for our benefits.
Note, by the by, that "gas" (in this context) is short for "gasoline", just as "petrol" is short for "petroleum spirit".
So, you're suggesting we should have labels specifying the number of ponies killed in the manufacture of anything, eh? After all, more information is a good thing for the market.
Face it, the RF emissions of a cell phone aren't "more information", but rather just more FUD to herd the idiots...
Unless there are a lot more hybrids on the road than I think, the conclusion you mention is drivel - there aren't enough hybrids to produce any meaningful change in the statistics yet.
Until and unless the Supremes rule on the particular matter in question, it is still open to debate. And even if they rule that a corporation can restrict an employees speech (as far as I know they have not so ruled), this is irrelevant to the question of whether this particular case (Google and Streetview) are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Remember, if you think that your employer is violating your civil rights, you have to bring suit to stop it - the courts won't, of their own initiative, decide to stop it for you....
Depends on the extent to which it has been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment. Which has to be decided by the Supremes. If this ever gets as far as the Supremes, they can declare what was done by Google an unconstitutional infringement of the 4th Amendment. Or not. Until then, no-one will know for sure....
Note that the entire Bill of Rights once only limited the Federal government, not the State governments. Then the States passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the Bill of Rights (and every other Constitutional provision) to everyone in the USA, against anyone who'd care to try to infringe upon them.
Well, it's not like they've actually done more than draw a couple of not-terribly-pretty pictures of their hypothetical spacecraft.
All we're really seeing here is what Boeing promises to build if the Feds will give them a buttload of money to do the real engineering required.
Note one key difference between the "previous system" and this announcement - Shuttle actually exists as something more than an advertising brochure....
Note that Obama's Healthcare law also bounces off the Interstate Commerce clause. Among others.
It will be very hard for the current Administration to argue that they don't have the power to deal with California's mj, but do have the power to regulate the health insurance of everyone in America.
Even worse, if the Supremes rule that the Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply to California's mj, then the number of lawsuits that will go winging their way up to the Supremes arguing for similar interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause for their pet peeve will be awe-inspiring.
Note that virtually the entire growth of the Federal government since 1933 has depended on the Interstate Commerce clause being interpreted loosely enough to allow the Feds to do whatever they wanted.
Quite so. "Economical" changes from place to place and time to time. So no telling where we are now as regards "economically feasible" dam sites.
But dams are still pretty expensive upfront costs, so I wouldn't think that there could be all that many significant opportunities for that sort of thing in the USA.
And the problem of the Greens suing over new dams hasn't gone away, and won't. Note their lawsuit to stop a Solar plant in California (?) recently over a turtle....
Alas, no. I heard it during a discussion with a TVA engineer almost 30 years ago. I took his word for it, since designing and building dams was pretty much what he did for a living.
Their "crisis response" is happening in the Gulf. What's happening in their "crisis response center" has little, if anything, to do with their actual crisis response.
What's happening in photos of their crisis response center has even less to do with their crisis response.
No.
Pretty much anywhere it makes economic sense to build a dam, we've already done so.
Note also that dam building pretty much ground to a halt when the Greens starting bringing Federal lawsuits on behalf of wee little fishies against dam-makers....
No, the primary loop on a Naval reactor does not use seawater.
Naval reactors are so small because the uranium they use is more highly enriched than the uranium in civilian plants.
Note that Baen's eBooks have no DRM, and can be read natively by any current eBook Readers.
I doubt Clark would really be all that bothered. He's been a published author for a long time now - he makes more money from his books than he does at the Planet....
It was a joke, looks like.
Though there are 27 year old grandmothers out there. Get knocked up at 13, then if your daughter does the same....
Since there are already turtle populations on the east coast, we won't notice the addition of about 70 adult turtles in a few years.
And even the Kemp Ridley sea turtles can be found in the Atlantic from time to time, so finding a few more of them doesn't really tell us much.
Note, for reference, that on average, 1 sea turtle in 1000 lives to adulthood. So we'd normally expect 70 of them to survive.
I expect that we'll never be able to tell whether this has done any good at all...
Note that none of your launchers are currently man-rated.
And note also that Taurus II isn't actually available. It's never flown, and isn't even expected to fly for almost a year.