Great Britain used to be able to produce wine, and it still does produce wine. We know the current wine is good enough for modern commercial sale, but we know nothing of the quality wine the Romans made.
We do know that while there aren't vast numbers of vineyards now there's no evidence of there ever being more at any time in the past.
So what's your point? Just repeating a stupid denier myth?
I don't need to read up, I only needed to confirm what you intended by the comment before answering.
First of all, you saying nuclear fission is politically explosive doesn't take it off the menu. There's nothing technological to stop nuclear plants being built. And when you say a technology isn't scalable we do mean the technology.
Additionally America hasn't yet touched the surface of what it can do with existing green tech. The existing wind and solar generation is small beer. There's vast deserts for solar, unused farmland for wind, great mountain ranges that could have hydro dams.
And all of those fade into insignificance compared with the energy available from the sea. Wave technology hasn't been very good, but tidal, but from barrages of the countless bays, to tidal turbines could certainly supply all of America's needs.
What's lacking is the will, not the technology. And the will is lacking because the oil industry are such big lobbyists and donors (what would be called corruption in other countries).
But as a country and a world we have to get past that, because fossil fuels are finite.
Other countries are already on course to having 100% of their electricity produced by green tech. America can too.
That wouldn't be scale, that would be portability. Pretty obviously practical EVs are carrying electricity around in their batteries. Range is lower for now, but the technology is improving (scaling).
But you're not the OP that said scaling, so you can;t explain what he meant by it. I think it might have been generation, but it wasn't clear, which is why I asked.
And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.
You misunderstood. Unless all it takes for you to be in a Utopia is to be allowed to wear masks. By your Utopia, I actually referred to "the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so" as the Utopia that cannot exist. That should have been fairly obvious from my reference to the tragedy of the commons.
Your Utopia cannot exist. One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties. Indeed it often leads to a tragedy of the commons where everyone loses.
"(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")"
I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there.
Actually it's very significant. It shows your true colours as a fundamentalist. A belief in one thing that's so strong it outweighs all other concerns. People who treat everything as if it's simple when few things are. Fundamentalists should never be listened to when deciding the best course of action. Whether they come from North Korea or America.
The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.
Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.
To switch away from US law for a second, in the UK it's generally OK to wear masks - we had no KKK history. BUT the police may declare temporary "Section 60 AA" areas for special policing, where slightly different rules apply. One of them is that wearing masks or any other identity concealment is banned. You may be arrested if it's asked to be removed and you refuse. And in any case the mask/disguise it may be seized.
As Section 60 AA is usually used for demonstrations, it's essentially a tool for political policing.
While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat,
There is nothing to be said for it. There are two names for people that respond to social pressure (bullying) not to be fat. Anorexic and Bulimic. For those that actually are fat, bullying won't cause them to become normal weight either. They'll mostly get bigger because they comfort eat.
The difference between a thin person and a fat one in general isn't self control. Generally people that are thin aren't actually trying very hard. That's just the natural state for their body.
Eating is a primal urge that the conscious mind has little control over in the long term, which is why virtually all diets fail, or the weight in put back on within a year or two. And it's not an illness, either, it's an evolutionary trait to cope with seasonal availability of foods. One that doesn't work so well in a world of year round abundance.
Rather than social pressure to be thin, what would help would be social pressure to make food from unprocessed ingredients, rather than eat convenience and processed food.
On what basis? International air gets tax breaks. So the price isn't comparable. In terms of energy, it's more efficient to be supported by rail than by wings & jet fuel. And it's more efficient to cut through the air if you are travelling slower. Although planes do get the benefit of thinner air to cut through.
Furthermore, as fossil fuel becomes rarer, electric trains become far more sustainable and cheaper than fossil fuel jets.
sigh, the mission accomplished was a gaff in that the mission WAS accomplished, for that ship that he was on.
False. In the speech accompanying the picture Bush claimed "major combat operations" in Iraq were over. He was wrong. And that was the context of the banner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
on the other hand obama did in fact make a statement saying terrorism is over
Although to be honest about it, I doubt anything will happen. This would probably be the most extensive and expensive engineering project ever attempted.
The Chinese built the Chinese Wall entirely by hand. And the US Transcontinental railway. This is bigger, but now machines do all the heavy lifting.
Oh, I didn't know that Alaska was bought from the Russians. I see on wiki that it was bought for $7.2 million. Which is $119 million in 2014. Which makes Alaska worth about 1/25th the value of Beats by Dr Dre.
There's also the minor problem of Mother Russia - they would not want this done for free, or without the US doing things in return.
What? Russia wouldn't want a train line that allows them to passenger and freight access to/from the USA and the rest of the Americas - paid for by someone else? What are you smoking?
Slashdot Mirror
Great Britain used to be in the wine belt.
Great Britain used to be able to produce wine, and it still does produce wine. We know the current wine is good enough for modern commercial sale, but we know nothing of the quality wine the Romans made.
We do know that while there aren't vast numbers of vineyards now there's no evidence of there ever being more at any time in the past.
So what's your point? Just repeating a stupid denier myth?
I don't need to read up, I only needed to confirm what you intended by the comment before answering.
First of all, you saying nuclear fission is politically explosive doesn't take it off the menu. There's nothing technological to stop nuclear plants being built. And when you say a technology isn't scalable we do mean the technology.
Additionally America hasn't yet touched the surface of what it can do with existing green tech. The existing wind and solar generation is small beer. There's vast deserts for solar, unused farmland for wind, great mountain ranges that could have hydro dams.
And all of those fade into insignificance compared with the energy available from the sea. Wave technology hasn't been very good, but tidal, but from barrages of the countless bays, to tidal turbines could certainly supply all of America's needs.
What's lacking is the will, not the technology. And the will is lacking because the oil industry are such big lobbyists and donors (what would be called corruption in other countries).
But as a country and a world we have to get past that, because fossil fuels are finite.
Other countries are already on course to having 100% of their electricity produced by green tech. America can too.
That wouldn't be scale, that would be portability. Pretty obviously practical EVs are carrying electricity around in their batteries. Range is lower for now, but the technology is improving (scaling).
But you're not the OP that said scaling, so you can;t explain what he meant by it. I think it might have been generation, but it wasn't clear, which is why I asked.
No, I heard it was 12.1 million. Why is it you never get your story straight?
I remember the days when Apple used to only sell just 12.1 million. It was 2007.
Green energy doesn't scale
In what way does green energy not scale?
Your opinion about what labels apply to me is rather irrelevant.
No more irrelevant than your views on anything.
And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.
You misunderstood. Unless all it takes for you to be in a Utopia is to be allowed to wear masks. By your Utopia, I actually referred to "the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so" as the Utopia that cannot exist. That should have been fairly obvious from my reference to the tragedy of the commons.
Your Utopia cannot exist. One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties. Indeed it often leads to a tragedy of the commons where everyone loses.
"(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")"
I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there.
Actually it's very significant. It shows your true colours as a fundamentalist. A belief in one thing that's so strong it outweighs all other concerns. People who treat everything as if it's simple when few things are. Fundamentalists should never be listened to when deciding the best course of action. Whether they come from North Korea or America.
The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.
Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.
To switch away from US law for a second, in the UK it's generally OK to wear masks - we had no KKK history. BUT the police may declare temporary "Section 60 AA" areas for special policing, where slightly different rules apply. One of them is that wearing masks or any other identity concealment is banned. You may be arrested if it's asked to be removed and you refuse. And in any case the mask/disguise it may be seized.
As Section 60 AA is usually used for demonstrations, it's essentially a tool for political policing.
You're improving. You've learned to do YoY, and compare like with like.
But that was built 20-25 ears ago. And this is probably a project for some time in the future yet. Technology moves on...
While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat,
There is nothing to be said for it. There are two names for people that respond to social pressure (bullying) not to be fat. Anorexic and Bulimic. For those that actually are fat, bullying won't cause them to become normal weight either. They'll mostly get bigger because they comfort eat.
The difference between a thin person and a fat one in general isn't self control. Generally people that are thin aren't actually trying very hard. That's just the natural state for their body.
Eating is a primal urge that the conscious mind has little control over in the long term, which is why virtually all diets fail, or the weight in put back on within a year or two. And it's not an illness, either, it's an evolutionary trait to cope with seasonal availability of foods. One that doesn't work so well in a world of year round abundance.
Rather than social pressure to be thin, what would help would be social pressure to make food from unprocessed ingredients, rather than eat convenience and processed food.
That's not the end of the story. Processed foods that either has large amounts of sugar or fat or both are also a big part of the problem.
You don't have to trust Wikipedia. That's what their citations are for. Here's the text of the speech from the horses mouth. It is as Wiki says it is.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse....
On what basis? International air gets tax breaks. So the price isn't comparable. In terms of energy, it's more efficient to be supported by rail than by wings & jet fuel. And it's more efficient to cut through the air if you are travelling slower. Although planes do get the benefit of thinner air to cut through.
Furthermore, as fossil fuel becomes rarer, electric trains become far more sustainable and cheaper than fossil fuel jets.
It's OK she's not in Alaska any more. She abandoned them halfway through her term to take the filthy lucre from Fox News.
So glad you're liking Obamacare.
Who said that was their goal? The difference with these terrorists over most is that they didn't have any coherent objective.
sigh, the mission accomplished was a gaff in that the mission WAS accomplished, for that ship that he was on.
False. In the speech accompanying the picture Bush claimed "major combat operations" in Iraq were over. He was wrong. And that was the context of the banner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
on the other hand obama did in fact make a statement saying terrorism is over
Also false.
Although to be honest about it, I doubt anything will happen. This would probably be the most extensive and expensive engineering project ever attempted.
The Chinese built the Chinese Wall entirely by hand. And the US Transcontinental railway. This is bigger, but now machines do all the heavy lifting.
It might also overtake passenger air travel.
Come on now, it's not that remote. Putin said he could see Alaska from his house.
Oh, I didn't know that Alaska was bought from the Russians. I see on wiki that it was bought for $7.2 million. Which is $119 million in 2014. Which makes Alaska worth about 1/25th the value of Beats by Dr Dre.
Funny old world.
There's also the minor problem of Mother Russia - they would not want this done for free, or without the US doing things in return.
What? Russia wouldn't want a train line that allows them to passenger and freight access to/from the USA and the rest of the Americas - paid for by someone else? What are you smoking?