Schultz can cut the budget? How? The DNC controls the budget of the Capitol Police?
In any case, I'm sure that police chiefs get threatened with firing and worse all the time, particularly from people who can't carry through. If they can't brush it off, they're in the wrong job.
We don't? Years in prison does seem to me to be a punishment.
As far as Clinton goes, it appears she mishandled classified information without intent, and nobody's prosecuted for that. Manning deliberately mishandled it, and received a prison sentence. That's how things have worked as far back as I've found out.
Inadvertantly mishandling classified information will get you unfavorable attention from your superiors, and might get you fired and/or get your clearance revoked or suspended. I'm unaware of people who did that and served time. Deliberately doing it will probably get you a few years in prison, no matter how innocuous your motives. Sharing it with journalists pretty well establishes intent, but I don't know that it's any worse than that. It might affect the length of the sentence. The journalist, once given classified information, can publish it in the US perfectly legally.
The engine in the article you mention sounds like it's not ready for prime time, and from TFS it appears that it separates out the CO2 into its own stream, presumably for sequestering.
A gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2, so one fill of my tank would produce about 300 pounds. Call that roughly 140 kilos. About 22 liters of CO2 at standard temperature and pressure will weigh 44 grams, call that 440 liters per kilo. That's going to be a serious storage problem on a vehicle, or even a large stationary installation.
Air travel is not a total luxury. Lots of people have to travel, and if they're traveling alone there's no real environmental advantage to driving. Over long distances, flying becomes more attractive, as aircraft are more efficient at cruising altitude while the delay of driving mounts up.
Moreover, we aren't trying to crash the economy and return to technology that can support maybe a billion or two humans on this planet. It's worthwhile slowing carbon emissions down while we do more research and development. We're not going to get all fossil fuels abolished for a long time to come, and we need to develop technology (carbon sequestration, geoengineering, whatever) to make up for that.
My carbon footprint is trivial, and completely eliminating it will do nothing noticeable for the planet. The only way any reduction I make can be significant is in concert with hundreds of millions of other people, and that generally requires government action, so I don't see where the "authoritarian" comes in for Heinberg. However, I don't take anyone who is flat against GMO food too seriously. You'll notice he wants scrutiny of global trade agreements, but not of GMO.
We've had environmental problems before. We got a lot of people interested in helping out, but the way we got results was government action.
Generally, intelligent people concerned about AGW have not been suggesting measures that would trash the economy, for various good reasons. Also, what makes you think they're going to continue to produce CO2 as usual while calling for others to sacrifice?
My expected remaining lifespan is very roughly 20 years, and I'm pretty well-off financially. I really doubt that the next 30 years of global warming would ruin my life. It might inconvenience me (chocolate might get very scarce, for example, and food prices will probably rise), but I'll be OK.
However, we have seen examples of willing lifestyle changes in wartime. Most civilians have been willing to make sacrifices to wage war, as long as they believed the war was a good idea, even when their own sacrifice had only a miniscule effect.
Clearly, the primary cause is us burning fossil fuels. That's been nailed down pretty well. We're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, and the CO2 from fossil fuels is getting in there. More CO2 is more warming, as we've known for over a century. The amount of warming is pretty much what is to be expected given the increased CO2 (there's a range there). If we're not causing most global warming, we've got some research to do about why not.
In any case, putting less CO2 into the air will mean we warm up more slowly.
Those changes would kill most of the human race anyway, so less major changes to slow down global warming are likely to save many more lives. We're more likely to do well with functioning economies and technological development. With a catastrophic return to medieval technology, for example, we're never going to do any geoengineering.
We're trying to avoid sinking the economy here, and requirements for fossil fuel burners to catch all emissions would be a disaster, particularly for fossil fuel-burning cars, trucks, motorcycles, ships, trains, and planes. We'd have approximately no vehicles, and certainly none that could carry significant freight. Carbon taxes would not require the complete replacement of all vehicle engines, but would encourage less use of fossil fuels.
Seriously, I don't have a measurable impact on the climate. Now, if you lump in about three hundred million of my best friends, we have a lot of impact. It's a tragedy of the commons.
Now the only question is, could this possibly make the administration look bad? Print it.
The only question is, could this attract more eyeballs? Print it. Making the administration look bad may attract eyeballs, but that's not what they're worrying about.
You do realize, don't you, that destroying the MSM will accomplish nothing constructive, since we'll be in a situation where we have no reporting but only rumor?
The use of "she" recognizes Manning's gender dysphoria, which acknowledges her problems. Also, what do you mean by rejecting as opposed to catering to mental illness? Are you saying we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to get treatment? Manning is getting treatment for her problem. Personally, I never intended to have sexual relations with that person, so I don't really care what pronoun gets used. What's your problem with it?
The biological situation is also a lot more complicated than you realize.
Obama didn't pardon Manning, he reduced Manning's sentence, which was still a fair number of years behind bars. I fail to see why years of imprisonment is meaningless.
And, of course, this is the first time in the history of the world that a police chief was threatened with firing. Exactly what authority did Schultz have over the chief's job, anyway?
That assumes that people will pay a megabuck for a bitcoin in 2027. There's plenty of unregulated things in limited supply that aren't worth a million dollars, and I can (indirectly) use these to pay for things.
USD is backed by the US economy, and the fact that it runs on USD. USD are used in all payments to and from government, and in all judicial transfers of money, so everybody needs some, and everybody needs to do accounting in USD. The US military has nothing to do with it other than as part of the economy, and as a guarantor that the US government will continue to run things here.
If the technology is adopted, there's still no guarantee that BTC is going to be worth anything. There's lots of ways to use blockchains that don't involve BTC.
Moreover, BTC isn't a very practical currency for general use, since it's hard to transfer from one person to another.
2% annual inflation over maybe thirty or forty years? An online CPI calculator says that $100 in 1954 dollars is worth about $900 in 2017 dollars, so that's about a nominal 90% fall over my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Schultz can cut the budget? How? The DNC controls the budget of the Capitol Police?
In any case, I'm sure that police chiefs get threatened with firing and worse all the time, particularly from people who can't carry through. If they can't brush it off, they're in the wrong job.
We don't? Years in prison does seem to me to be a punishment.
As far as Clinton goes, it appears she mishandled classified information without intent, and nobody's prosecuted for that. Manning deliberately mishandled it, and received a prison sentence. That's how things have worked as far back as I've found out.
Inadvertantly mishandling classified information will get you unfavorable attention from your superiors, and might get you fired and/or get your clearance revoked or suspended. I'm unaware of people who did that and served time. Deliberately doing it will probably get you a few years in prison, no matter how innocuous your motives. Sharing it with journalists pretty well establishes intent, but I don't know that it's any worse than that. It might affect the length of the sentence. The journalist, once given classified information, can publish it in the US perfectly legally.
The engine in the article you mention sounds like it's not ready for prime time, and from TFS it appears that it separates out the CO2 into its own stream, presumably for sequestering.
A gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2, so one fill of my tank would produce about 300 pounds. Call that roughly 140 kilos. About 22 liters of CO2 at standard temperature and pressure will weigh 44 grams, call that 440 liters per kilo. That's going to be a serious storage problem on a vehicle, or even a large stationary installation.
Air travel is not a total luxury. Lots of people have to travel, and if they're traveling alone there's no real environmental advantage to driving. Over long distances, flying becomes more attractive, as aircraft are more efficient at cruising altitude while the delay of driving mounts up.
Moreover, we aren't trying to crash the economy and return to technology that can support maybe a billion or two humans on this planet. It's worthwhile slowing carbon emissions down while we do more research and development. We're not going to get all fossil fuels abolished for a long time to come, and we need to develop technology (carbon sequestration, geoengineering, whatever) to make up for that.
My carbon footprint is trivial, and completely eliminating it will do nothing noticeable for the planet. The only way any reduction I make can be significant is in concert with hundreds of millions of other people, and that generally requires government action, so I don't see where the "authoritarian" comes in for Heinberg. However, I don't take anyone who is flat against GMO food too seriously. You'll notice he wants scrutiny of global trade agreements, but not of GMO.
We've had environmental problems before. We got a lot of people interested in helping out, but the way we got results was government action.
Generally, intelligent people concerned about AGW have not been suggesting measures that would trash the economy, for various good reasons. Also, what makes you think they're going to continue to produce CO2 as usual while calling for others to sacrifice?
My expected remaining lifespan is very roughly 20 years, and I'm pretty well-off financially. I really doubt that the next 30 years of global warming would ruin my life. It might inconvenience me (chocolate might get very scarce, for example, and food prices will probably rise), but I'll be OK.
However, we have seen examples of willing lifestyle changes in wartime. Most civilians have been willing to make sacrifices to wage war, as long as they believed the war was a good idea, even when their own sacrifice had only a miniscule effect.
Clearly, the primary cause is us burning fossil fuels. That's been nailed down pretty well. We're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, and the CO2 from fossil fuels is getting in there. More CO2 is more warming, as we've known for over a century. The amount of warming is pretty much what is to be expected given the increased CO2 (there's a range there). If we're not causing most global warming, we've got some research to do about why not.
In any case, putting less CO2 into the air will mean we warm up more slowly.
Those changes would kill most of the human race anyway, so less major changes to slow down global warming are likely to save many more lives. We're more likely to do well with functioning economies and technological development. With a catastrophic return to medieval technology, for example, we're never going to do any geoengineering.
That's one of the things government does: get everybody doing the same thing when necessary.
We're trying to avoid sinking the economy here, and requirements for fossil fuel burners to catch all emissions would be a disaster, particularly for fossil fuel-burning cars, trucks, motorcycles, ships, trains, and planes. We'd have approximately no vehicles, and certainly none that could carry significant freight. Carbon taxes would not require the complete replacement of all vehicle engines, but would encourage less use of fossil fuels.
Seriously, I don't have a measurable impact on the climate. Now, if you lump in about three hundred million of my best friends, we have a lot of impact. It's a tragedy of the commons.
The only question is, could this attract more eyeballs? Print it. Making the administration look bad may attract eyeballs, but that's not what they're worrying about.
You do realize, don't you, that destroying the MSM will accomplish nothing constructive, since we'll be in a situation where we have no reporting but only rumor?
Well, I'm of the opinion that you're delusional, so I guess that evens out.
Your use of Clinton is ambiguous here. How many people are defending Bill Clinton from accusations of misogyny?
The use of "she" recognizes Manning's gender dysphoria, which acknowledges her problems. Also, what do you mean by rejecting as opposed to catering to mental illness? Are you saying we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to get treatment? Manning is getting treatment for her problem. Personally, I never intended to have sexual relations with that person, so I don't really care what pronoun gets used. What's your problem with it?
The biological situation is also a lot more complicated than you realize.
Not in the US; publicly sharing classified material is legal once it's been leaked to you. That was established in the 1960s.
That's part of what he exposed, and I'm cool with that. He also exposed intelligence operations outside the US, which I'm not.
Obama didn't pardon Manning, he reduced Manning's sentence, which was still a fair number of years behind bars. I fail to see why years of imprisonment is meaningless.
The general location of British submarines, and who knew, was quite significant in the 1982 Falklands war.
And, of course, this is the first time in the history of the world that a police chief was threatened with firing. Exactly what authority did Schultz have over the chief's job, anyway?
That assumes that people will pay a megabuck for a bitcoin in 2027. There's plenty of unregulated things in limited supply that aren't worth a million dollars, and I can (indirectly) use these to pay for things.
USD is backed by the US economy, and the fact that it runs on USD. USD are used in all payments to and from government, and in all judicial transfers of money, so everybody needs some, and everybody needs to do accounting in USD. The US military has nothing to do with it other than as part of the economy, and as a guarantor that the US government will continue to run things here.
If the technology is adopted, there's still no guarantee that BTC is going to be worth anything. There's lots of ways to use blockchains that don't involve BTC.
Moreover, BTC isn't a very practical currency for general use, since it's hard to transfer from one person to another.
2% annual inflation over maybe thirty or forty years? An online CPI calculator says that $100 in 1954 dollars is worth about $900 in 2017 dollars, so that's about a nominal 90% fall over my lifetime.
Modern infantry rifles would be useful to militias, and they're not held to be protected under the Second.