Maybe we should also mention something else, like the real real reason Solyndra failed. They had a very innovative idea that seemed like a winner at the time, but was based on a false premise - that the 2008 cost of polysilicon ($400/kg) would remain very high rather than collapsing to $30/kg within 4 years.
The biggest reason for the big breakthrough in polysilicon cost? Not Chinese dumping. US industry investments in production.
On the other hand, the collossal "anti-dumping" tariffs put in place against Chinese solar panels backfired. The reason? The US was actually exporting now-cheap polysilicon to China to be made into solar panels. But the Chinese imposed a retaliative tariff on those imports into China. That is not good news for the polysilicon manufacturers. Will the price of polysilicon zoom again?
Question: can you name the last time Congress impeached and removed a Supreme Court Justice? I'll make it easy for you. You'll have to go back to 1805, when there were still Congressmen with principles and balls.
Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two.
But it's NOT like the other two, is it. Congress and the President can be overruled by the Supreme Court, but not the other way round. There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant. There is no appeal, period. Supreme Court justices serve FOREVER without accountability. The only way they can ever come to an end is (1) death, (2) voluntary retirement or resignation, or (3) impeachment. I can't even think of a case where incapacitation of a judge was ever tested. The nearest case was probably Justice McKenna serving with severe cognitive disability for ten years after a stroke, and then only retiring after being pressured by Chief Justive Taft.
Look, I'm not ready to present a detailed plan to fix that. I'm not even absolutely sure there is anything wrong with the design as-is. I'm just saying, the Supreme Court has completely unique power.
And just in case you hadn't read your Constitution lately: SCOTUS judges are not "appointed for life." They are appointed during "good behavior". If they exhibit something that is not "good behavior"... they CAN be removed from office.
Yes, but only through impeachment. That is about as likely as a puff of smoke, organ music, and a voice from heaven appearing and saying "this is wrong". And when I said above that there is no recourse, consider this. Even if the Second Coming happens and a Justice is impeached and removed, that still does NOT vacate any of the rulings made while he was serving.
Erm, did you miss the part where Norway declared Bitcoins an asset rather than currency? That's the whole point. So you're NOT just trading currency between two different forms. Not in Norway.
e.g. if one day your undisclosed profits amount to something significant and you have a more lavish lifestyle, more expensive house and car than explainable by your tax filings the Tax Dept may require you to prove yourself innocent or get in big trouble.
Maybe I should stop complaining about the US government, maybe it isn't so bad if such nonsense happens in Europe.
How I live is none of the government's business, unless they have cause to investigate, most private financial transactions are out of reach of the IRS.
The only real exception would be the NSA looking for national security reasons, but frankly the NSA doesn't care about tax cheats, they are concerned with terrorism. Since I have zero intention of ever being a terrorist, I'm not really worried about the NSA.
Why do you evidently believe the circumstances are any different whatsoever in the US? It's the same with the IRS. They can suspect via exactly the same kind of observations that you are living beyond your means, they can audit you for that, and in that audit you will have to account for how you acquired your extravagant toys. Otherwise it's going to be a charge of tax evasion and that can be sustained in court through simply making a convincing case against you which you fail to take part. How do you think they nailed Alphonse Capone?
Yes, you are innocent until proved guilty, but that proof of guilt doesn't have to be mathematically perfect. Innocent people are locked up pending trial all the time. Not all of them can make bail. Then they might be freed by winning at the trial, or they might not. Innocent people are convicted at trial and locked up all the time. We might like to think that things have improved since Hitchcock's The Wrong Man, and they may have (or maybe not), but the same type of thing still happens. It is certain that if you are actually guilty, you have even a lot better chance of being convicted.
non-cash transactions don't count unless the bank has a reason to suspect you're committing a crime
If you are trying to induce me to laugh, you succeeded. Anybody can suspect anybody of anything for any reason. I bet there is no penalty for "false suspicion" either.
Thank you. It appears I was mistaken. Particularly France and Russia and maybe Japan would be good cases in point. Britain I would consider much less so, since nuclear appears all but dead there. Japan seems unresolved at this time. I understand zero of the 50 existing reactors in Japan were online at one point in the last few months. I have to wonder if that reprocessing plant will ever come online in Japan.
Still, we have 437 reactors worldwide, only 157 of which are in the four countries mentioned.
Of course countries could ship their fuel to other countries for reprocessing.
It could be taken as a helpful suggestion. Characterizing the suggestion as "tell[ing] them they need to work at making their laws more like your own" is rather loaded. Why is the suggestion not "suggesting their laws do not protect human rights adequately"?
I could, hypothetically, say the words "Christianity is a myth" and be arrested under 18 USC 245. All you need is to have a different religion from me, and claim I made you feel "intimidated" or I "interfered" with you.
No. Just no. Only a grossly perverted interpretation could possibly say that is intimidation, and only an insane interpretation could say that it is interference. You can claim anything you want as a self-annointed victim, but that does not make it so. In essence, an arrest under 18 USC 245, in the described circumstances, is an egregiously improper act. The arresting agent would in fact be a renegade.
Problem is, we do have grossly perverted interpretation of laws (and the constitution) in the courts, and renegade police.
If you call a black a "[n-word redacted]" is it a hate speech ?
Yes. It is 100% agreed that the use of that word by non-blacks in the present day is grossly hateful and in fact a "fighting word". This gradually came about. The word is a derivative of the word "negro", which is simply a spanish word meaning "black". However, even "negro" (almost universally) and "black" (by some people) are now considered disrespectful. Heck, even "african american" is considered offensive by some. Sensitivities are deeply personal.
Then what if a black person calls another black person a "[n-word redacted]", is that a hate speech too ??
No, because it is not said with hateful intent. It is an affectionate insider greeting in this context. It is much the same as other ethnic groups can use words referent to their own group, which are considered gross insults if used by others.
In the abstract it all seems silly. So does the fact that you can be arrested for wearing only the covering nature gave you in public. Or that public displays of affection beyond a certain degree are considered rude and can even get you arrested. But it is only silly in the abstract. There has to be a minimum agreed common ground in the social compact that is civilization and governance.
What exactly is "racist behavior?" And why should it be punished? Or are you just trying to tell people how they should think?
I agree with what I think you are suggesting - that the intent and the motivation behind this is to "fix" people's "naughtiness". I think it is more than just putting a damper on propagating that "naughtiness". And I strongly disapprove of this precise kind of punishment. Just as much as I disapprove of this behavior.
However, it must be admitted that there is a difference between thought and action. Giving voice to your thoughts is an action; an action that can harm psyches and can spread evil intent. So far nobody is trying to control what anybody thinks as long as those thoughts are kept private. Now, it may well be that the only reason is because they know they can't do so - yet.
Problem is, hardly anyone is recycling spent fuel even if it is possible. In view of that, pebbles would be infinitely preferable to what we put up with now.
Nobody is buying it, unless very short to you is 30 years. That is the half-life of Cesium-137, and Cesium-137 is hideously harmful.
Nothing magic happens after 30 years, either. In 30 years it is half as hideously harmful as it is now. In 60 years, 1/4. In 90 years, 1/8. Still hideously harmful.
Actually it's a good bit more than a 20 m cube; not less.
5 million gallons of fresh water times 8.33 lb/gal = 41.7 million lb divided by 2000 lb/ton = 20,900 tons = 19,000 tonnes
19,000 tonnes = 19,000 m^3 = 26.7 x 26.7 x 26.7 m
(minor roundoff errors are of no significance to the point)
That is one hell of a lot of water. Not from a use standpoint; normally there would be zero usage once filled; but in case it gets contaminated and then leaks away.
Every time I compare SSD to HD, I don't see the power saving GB for GB unless you are talking trivial amounts of GB.
For example, Intel P3700 series SSD (2 TB max size) has a power consumption of 25 watts writing and 10 watts idle. Look at the collossal heat sink on that thing.
A Seagate ES.3 7200 rpm 2 TB SAS enterprise HD has a power consumption of 10 watts random read and 6 watts idle. Considering that the 4 TB model doesn't take much more power than that, the comparison for substantial storage sizes favors the HD even more.
Yeah, if you built an HD array to try to come close to the performance of that rip roaring SSD, the latter would come out ahead on power, but GB for GB it is actually a loser on power.
Wickard v. Filburn was a lunatic decision. What should have happened is that every one of those dick justices be instantly impeached and removed for that decision alone. Not some absurd amendment when the Constitution already makes it clear that power to legislate such absurdities does not exist under the Constitution.
Yes, I realize that the bozos in Congress at that time (or this) would not be inclined in the slightest to do this, but I said should.
Legislating whether airplane passenger can or cannot use their phones is NOT REGULATING COMMERCE. Anyone with an IQ above a monkey knows that.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. Maybe the taxpayers have a very incompetent portfolio manager. The federal government.
Maybe we should also mention something else, like the real real reason Solyndra failed. They had a very innovative idea that seemed like a winner at the time, but was based on a false premise - that the 2008 cost of polysilicon ($400/kg) would remain very high rather than collapsing to $30/kg within 4 years.
The biggest reason for the big breakthrough in polysilicon cost? Not Chinese dumping. US industry investments in production.
On the other hand, the collossal "anti-dumping" tariffs put in place against Chinese solar panels backfired. The reason? The US was actually exporting now-cheap polysilicon to China to be made into solar panels. But the Chinese imposed a retaliative tariff on those imports into China. That is not good news for the polysilicon manufacturers. Will the price of polysilicon zoom again?
Just what are these alleged "secrets" you claim he gave them?
And who would be doing the arresting?
Question: can you name the last time Congress impeached and removed a Supreme Court Justice? I'll make it easy for you. You'll have to go back to 1805, when there were still Congressmen with principles and balls.
But it's NOT like the other two, is it. Congress and the President can be overruled by the Supreme Court, but not the other way round. There is absolutely no recourse whatsoever to a Supreme Court decision, no matter how transparently false and arrogant. There is no appeal, period. Supreme Court justices serve FOREVER without accountability. The only way they can ever come to an end is (1) death, (2) voluntary retirement or resignation, or (3) impeachment. I can't even think of a case where incapacitation of a judge was ever tested. The nearest case was probably Justice McKenna serving with severe cognitive disability for ten years after a stroke, and then only retiring after being pressured by Chief Justive Taft.
Look, I'm not ready to present a detailed plan to fix that. I'm not even absolutely sure there is anything wrong with the design as-is. I'm just saying, the Supreme Court has completely unique power.
Yes, but only through impeachment. That is about as likely as a puff of smoke, organ music, and a voice from heaven appearing and saying "this is wrong". And when I said above that there is no recourse, consider this. Even if the Second Coming happens and a Justice is impeached and removed, that still does NOT vacate any of the rulings made while he was serving.
Erm, did you miss the part where Norway declared Bitcoins an asset rather than currency? That's the whole point. So you're NOT just trading currency between two different forms. Not in Norway.
Arbitrary regulations are a bitch.
Why do you evidently believe the circumstances are any different whatsoever in the US? It's the same with the IRS. They can suspect via exactly the same kind of observations that you are living beyond your means, they can audit you for that, and in that audit you will have to account for how you acquired your extravagant toys. Otherwise it's going to be a charge of tax evasion and that can be sustained in court through simply making a convincing case against you which you fail to take part. How do you think they nailed Alphonse Capone?
Yes, you are innocent until proved guilty, but that proof of guilt doesn't have to be mathematically perfect. Innocent people are locked up pending trial all the time. Not all of them can make bail. Then they might be freed by winning at the trial, or they might not. Innocent people are convicted at trial and locked up all the time. We might like to think that things have improved since Hitchcock's The Wrong Man , and they may have (or maybe not), but the same type of thing still happens. It is certain that if you are actually guilty, you have even a lot better chance of being convicted.
If you are trying to induce me to laugh, you succeeded. Anybody can suspect anybody of anything for any reason. I bet there is no penalty for "false suspicion" either.
Thank you. It appears I was mistaken. Particularly France and Russia and maybe Japan would be good cases in point. Britain I would consider much less so, since nuclear appears all but dead there. Japan seems unresolved at this time. I understand zero of the 50 existing reactors in Japan were online at one point in the last few months. I have to wonder if that reprocessing plant will ever come online in Japan.
Still, we have 437 reactors worldwide, only 157 of which are in the four countries mentioned.
Of course countries could ship their fuel to other countries for reprocessing.
Precisely what gave you that bizarre idea? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
Uh, no, I don't recall saying anything like that. I certainly don't believe anything like that.
It could be taken as a helpful suggestion. Characterizing the suggestion as "tell[ing] them they need to work at making their laws more like your own" is rather loaded. Why is the suggestion not "suggesting their laws do not protect human rights adequately"?
No. Just no. Only a grossly perverted interpretation could possibly say that is intimidation, and only an insane interpretation could say that it is interference. You can claim anything you want as a self-annointed victim, but that does not make it so. In essence, an arrest under 18 USC 245, in the described circumstances, is an egregiously improper act. The arresting agent would in fact be a renegade.
Problem is, we do have grossly perverted interpretation of laws (and the constitution) in the courts, and renegade police.
Yes. It is 100% agreed that the use of that word by non-blacks in the present day is grossly hateful and in fact a "fighting word". This gradually came about. The word is a derivative of the word "negro", which is simply a spanish word meaning "black". However, even "negro" (almost universally) and "black" (by some people) are now considered disrespectful. Heck, even "african american" is considered offensive by some. Sensitivities are deeply personal.
No, because it is not said with hateful intent. It is an affectionate insider greeting in this context. It is much the same as other ethnic groups can use words referent to their own group, which are considered gross insults if used by others.
In the abstract it all seems silly. So does the fact that you can be arrested for wearing only the covering nature gave you in public. Or that public displays of affection beyond a certain degree are considered rude and can even get you arrested. But it is only silly in the abstract. There has to be a minimum agreed common ground in the social compact that is civilization and governance.
I agree with what I think you are suggesting - that the intent and the motivation behind this is to "fix" people's "naughtiness". I think it is more than just putting a damper on propagating that "naughtiness". And I strongly disapprove of this precise kind of punishment. Just as much as I disapprove of this behavior.
However, it must be admitted that there is a difference between thought and action. Giving voice to your thoughts is an action; an action that can harm psyches and can spread evil intent. So far nobody is trying to control what anybody thinks as long as those thoughts are kept private. Now, it may well be that the only reason is because they know they can't do so - yet.
Agreed it was a dumb objection.
Problem is, hardly anyone is recycling spent fuel even if it is possible. In view of that, pebbles would be infinitely preferable to what we put up with now.
Nobody is buying it, unless very short to you is 30 years. That is the half-life of Cesium-137, and Cesium-137 is hideously harmful.
Nothing magic happens after 30 years, either. In 30 years it is half as hideously harmful as it is now. In 60 years, 1/4. In 90 years, 1/8. Still hideously harmful.
No. I'm interested that you are. Very odd.
It wouldn't be hard to contain the water ... unless, like, a big earthquake happened and split your container all to hell. Think.
Actually it's a good bit more than a 20 m cube; not less.
5 million gallons of fresh water times 8.33 lb/gal = 41.7 million lb divided by 2000 lb/ton = 20,900 tons = 19,000 tonnes
19,000 tonnes = 19,000 m^3 = 26.7 x 26.7 x 26.7 m
(minor roundoff errors are of no significance to the point)
That is one hell of a lot of water. Not from a use standpoint; normally there would be zero usage once filled; but in case it gets contaminated and then leaks away.
Every time I compare SSD to HD, I don't see the power saving GB for GB unless you are talking trivial amounts of GB.
For example, Intel P3700 series SSD (2 TB max size) has a power consumption of 25 watts writing and 10 watts idle. Look at the collossal heat sink on that thing.
A Seagate ES.3 7200 rpm 2 TB SAS enterprise HD has a power consumption of 10 watts random read and 6 watts idle. Considering that the 4 TB model doesn't take much more power than that, the comparison for substantial storage sizes favors the HD even more.
Yeah, if you built an HD array to try to come close to the performance of that rip roaring SSD, the latter would come out ahead on power, but GB for GB it is actually a loser on power.
Wickard v. Filburn was a lunatic decision. What should have happened is that every one of those dick justices be instantly impeached and removed for that decision alone. Not some absurd amendment when the Constitution already makes it clear that power to legislate such absurdities does not exist under the Constitution.
Yes, I realize that the bozos in Congress at that time (or this) would not be inclined in the slightest to do this, but I said should.
Legislating whether airplane passenger can or cannot use their phones is NOT REGULATING COMMERCE. Anyone with an IQ above a monkey knows that.
Purposely distorting your quote in order to rag on the poster is asshattish. NOT nice strawman there.