Oh, good. All our roads will be circular bumper-car tracks running around power plants. Of course, if you want to use the car for actual travel, you need to account for transmission line and transformer losses also. And battery losses, since charge-discharge cycles aren't 100% efficient.
For automotive power plants, Stirling engines are more expensive and heavier. They don't adapt quickly to changing power requirements and they require a warmup period before they will run at all.
Hillary is a lot closer to Hitler than Trump. She promotes "government-business partnerships" - that's Fascism. She's an accessory before and after the fact to murder. The main similarity of Hitler to Trump is that they're both nationalists.
Why would you want to have something happen naturally, when you can get more political power by using force to make it happen? You also get the applause of the unthinking crowd for environmental care and futuristic planning.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of actual bombshells in the Clinton/DNC leaks however.
Given what Clinton's supporters already have swallowed, I can't imagine anything that they would consider a bombshell, that would cause them to reject her. Putting babies in a blender for her smoothie? No problem. Advocating the actions of Lorena Bobbitt? Right on, sister!
If Jeb could have found and published the dirt, he still wouldn't have won the primary series. For one thing, his platform was boring and few people cared. For another, there's a considerable opposition to hereditary monarchy in the US. Adams, Roosevelt and Bush have all had two Presidents; no family has managed a third. Hopefully, none ever will.
This election is about whether to elect someone who is corrupt (as everyone in Washington seems to be) but qualified, and someone who is not qualified at all, even bordering on dangerously unstable.
To which candidate are you assigning which properties?
You appear to be crediting the Founders with omniscience. Madison and others specifically opposed the development of parties at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It was not designed to result in a 2 party system; that's just how it worked out despite their best intentions.
In some cases it's worse than that. Some managers are physical bullies, and know they can't effectively threaten their subordinates without a physical presence.
I heard a guy say he hoped the riots would come to his neighborhood because he wanted a new TV. There are plenty of low-life opportunists who are willing to turn a crowd to looting.
This is not something that local police or state national guard would do, because it results in death or injury to themselves and their friends. If, as you claim, the government is responsible for turning protests into riots, it has to be coming from the federal level - and that means Obama and his minions.
"Social unrest" is more than just a bunch of people getting together and complaining about something, or every ball game where an official makes a bad call and the fans yell "BOO" would be social unrest. There has to be violence or significant property damage, coming about in a fashion that at least hints at organization. For this to occur for more than one day requires funding, planning, and leader(s) - someone like Soros paying for chartered buses and Al Sharpton's plane tickets. Without money and malicious planning, events blow over pretty quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed. All the references to John Stevens I looked at mentioned only steam engines.
Oh, good. All our roads will be circular bumper-car tracks running around power plants. Of course, if you want to use the car for actual travel, you need to account for transmission line and transformer losses also. And battery losses, since charge-discharge cycles aren't 100% efficient.
For automotive power plants, Stirling engines are more expensive and heavier. They don't adapt quickly to changing power requirements and they require a warmup period before they will run at all.
Free markets - you mean like in the 1970s when Nixon's price controls caused a gasoline shortage?
Hillary is a lot closer to Hitler than Trump. She promotes "government-business partnerships" - that's Fascism. She's an accessory before and after the fact to murder. The main similarity of Hitler to Trump is that they're both nationalists.
Why would you want to have something happen naturally, when you can get more political power by using force to make it happen? You also get the applause of the unthinking crowd for environmental care and futuristic planning.
Our secrets have been compromised. That means they've been lost.
Given what Clinton's supporters already have swallowed, I can't imagine anything that they would consider a bombshell, that would cause them to reject her. Putting babies in a blender for her smoothie? No problem. Advocating the actions of Lorena Bobbitt? Right on, sister!
If Jeb could have found and published the dirt, he still wouldn't have won the primary series. For one thing, his platform was boring and few people cared. For another, there's a considerable opposition to hereditary monarchy in the US. Adams, Roosevelt and Bush have all had two Presidents; no family has managed a third. Hopefully, none ever will.
This practice started with Gerald Ford, and is done by MAJOR candidates, not all.
To which candidate are you assigning which properties?
You appear to be crediting the Founders with omniscience. Madison and others specifically opposed the development of parties at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It was not designed to result in a 2 party system; that's just how it worked out despite their best intentions.
Capturing carbon will protect us from anthropogenic climate change as well as garlic will protect us from vampires, and for the same reason.
In some cases it's worse than that. Some managers are physical bullies, and know they can't effectively threaten their subordinates without a physical presence.
Do you really think that the gov't could murder 60 million of its own citizens and there wouldn't be bad consequences?
Why do you credit Asimov for practices in place for hundreds, or even thousands, of years?
I heard a guy say he hoped the riots would come to his neighborhood because he wanted a new TV. There are plenty of low-life opportunists who are willing to turn a crowd to looting.
This is not something that local police or state national guard would do, because it results in death or injury to themselves and their friends. If, as you claim, the government is responsible for turning protests into riots, it has to be coming from the federal level - and that means Obama and his minions.
"Social unrest" is more than just a bunch of people getting together and complaining about something, or every ball game where an official makes a bad call and the fans yell "BOO" would be social unrest. There has to be violence or significant property damage, coming about in a fashion that at least hints at organization. For this to occur for more than one day requires funding, planning, and leader(s) - someone like Soros paying for chartered buses and Al Sharpton's plane tickets. Without money and malicious planning, events blow over pretty quickly.
Instead of this, how about a 4k - 40 inch - 60 Hz. - wide gamut display that costs less than $1000.
"K"is a variable. In this case it equals 960.
On Beyond Zebra.
I don't like assigned seats. If I'm not familiar with the theater, I can't judge the optimum location by looking at a seating chart.
Don't go to a theater that advertises "gun free zone".
It's a variety of traditional politeness, like saying heck instead of hell. People will think slightly better of you if you use less vulgar language.
“Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”