Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA
If you can prove the strain you are growing (through genetic drift analysis or direct genetic engineering maybe?) and you maintain GMP style documentation than Congress will be resaonably assured that it was not derived from interstate commerce and will not enter interstate commerce.
Like I said, almost impossible to do...but if you weren't stoned out you might be able to do exactly that.
Actually, if you can conclusivly prove that nothing you used to grow it crossed state lines than the Federal government can't touch you...(in practice it is almost impossible to do)
However in the constitution we have:
Thoes right not reserved for the national government or the people belong to the states.
Since smoking Pot is not a "right" specified by the consitution, the state GVOERNMENT can tell you to do what ever it wants.
Remember, in the US the PEOPLE have very few rights EXCEPT what the state decides to give them.
You can shoot protons at it at a few kilowatt energy. You get electrons and anti-protons out. My guess is that the outbound velocity is fairly low since it just climbed out of a very steep gravity well.. The electrons meet up with incoming protons and neutralize them to hydrogen. The anti-protons annihilate some for energy release. Of course you could never turn off the proton guns or the hole will evaporate...quickly.
So long as the thing was large enough to absorb matter faster (under controlled conditions) than it radiates while still being small enough that it can't survive on it's own it "should" make a good power plant.
the moon formed extremly close to it's primary and that regularized it's orbit. In addition it formed out of an accretion disk created by the impact. These discs spontaeously circularize due to internal collisions.
A better example are the moons of mars. They were both captured and both have a moderatly elliptical orbit.
Your argument is exactly the same argument I am making. Planets that form out of an accretion disc will have regular orbits. Planets that are moved to there current position will tend to have eccentric orbits.
Jupiter sized planets can only form out past the "Snow line" where water can form ice. Otherwise you get terrestrial planets that max out a few times bigger than earth.
When a jupiter sized planet moves into a terrestrial orbit it EATS the planet already there.
Since the earth is still here, no hot jupiter ever existed in sol system.
Eccentric orbit's are destabalized during the process of circularization which then either ejects them OR crashes the orbit. But it is also true the eccentric orbits tend to be a bit more stable than true circular ones...but only a little.
I never said the sol system had a hot jupiter. But it had been cited in the grandparent therefore I was adressing the issue. Hot Jupiters happen in specific conditions where the gas that formed the original system was thick enough to not get blown away quickly. Therefore the jupiter sized planet, with it greater porportional size and gravitational field effect due to lower density, are disporportinaly slowed through friction. As they slow they eat or eject all inner planets until they get close enough so that the solar wind HAS cleared everything out.
The sol system did not have these conditions therefore no hot Jupiter.
With the higher density but smaller size of rocky planets they are not as likley to experience the slowing effect before they clear the neighboring space therefore any moving will probably be due to colision or near collision with other large bodies and will be entierly random.
The reason Venus, Earth and Mars probably haven't moved is because the planets chemistries match theory fairly closely. Planetary genesis theories suggest that there will be subtly chemical differences at varius altitudes from the star. Mercury has unexpected chemistry which could come from collision (there is evidence for such an event) or being moved
Anything that moves a super-sized planet will eject smaller planets from the system.
The hot-jupiter orbits start circular and are slowly spiralled in.
Actually, most eccentric orbits will be maintained. Only specific conditions will circularize an orbit and most eccentric orbits that get curcularized become unstable in the process.
It is very unlikely that the inner planets moved much with the possible exception of mercury.
You don't need much power behind the accelerator. You can throw a lot of matter at it to get some absorbed rather than just sending a little very high energy matter.
Very true but the 4 inner planets have almost circular orbits.
Any planet that get flung around will have a very eliptical orbit.
The Hot Jupiters are a different thing. They are caused by the system having enough material to cause drag and slow them down enough to collapse the orbit.
Peronally I am looking forward to mini black holes. So long as the mass is under several thousand tons even dropping a black hole in to the earths core wouldn't hurt the planet.
BUT...
black holes provide pure matter to energy conversion! A tiny black hole feed with matter will radiate generate matter-antimatter pairs which will generate a huge amount of heat!
So..
#1 create tiny black hole and put a charge on it. #2 create powerplant around it to collect the energy #3 PROFIT!
The body is exceptionally good at accomidating a stable force acting on the system. What causes most electricution deaths are the sudden change in voltages throwing the heart out of rhythm or scrambling the brain log enough for the person to die.
The actual physical damage of electricution is usually very minor (first or second degree burns through the path of the current). The alternating nature of AC makes it much more likley to mess up the heart and brain. 120 chances a second. DC only has one chance.
Now DC will cause greater BURNS because the constant voltage at the same power can generate more heat, but the burns are not what kill you.
Neither article you cited mentioned DC vs AC. Almost every mention of current related it to HOUSEHOLD current which suggests AC.
Finally, the blood cannot be "charged." It is a fluid with some conducting ability since it is full of various ions. Any charge it does accumulate would almost immediatly ground out to the rest of the body and from there to the earth.
If you want to make dramatic claims please provide plenty of citations
He stated in the original article that he expects to save 3300 a year...his 6 months of data seems to back this up.
Solar panels typically have a 25 year warranty that assures a minimum 80% nomial efficency. Typically they are still at 90+% after 25 years and thoes are older cell construction.
Cost of power goes up...at least matching inflation and usually more.
This all adds up to a pay off date at about 10-12.5 years.
I went back to his original article (the instalation). He said the estimate is that his anual utility bill will drop from 4400 a year to 1100 a year.
So I made a few assumptions.
#1-his power use will not increase. Not really likely but a future increase shouldn't change the ROI on his current investment.
#2-Utilities will just keep pace with inflation (assumed 2%)...power costs will stay porportinally expensive in the future. This is probably not ture as power prices tend to increase slightly faster than inflation. So this assumption will tend to increase the ROI.
#3-I assume he is financing it through his mortgage at about 5%
Therefore when I calculate out to 25 years I find that he would spend about $141,000 in power over the 25 years without slar. With Solar he would spend $35,233.
And Pangea didn't breakup until about 400-500 million years ago.
There is ample geologic evidence that the continents didn't move much until Pangea broke up. The Pacific basin is the most geologically stable area on the planet.
Please note that I did say I was simplifing the current theory.
But if you want to talk about it, you should read many other posts that point out that the earth's surface is fairly plastic and tends to return to round.
Plus the heat of the impact would be enough to melt most of the surface. Only the current continental lab masses survived the melting. But the sea floor is a very different type of rock than the continents and there is no reason other than a random huge event that could change the rock type so consistently over such a large section of the planet.
Finally you need to remember that less than half of the mass of the moon came from the earth. the rest came from the object that hit the earth.
Remember, the Pacific Ocean isn't the big hole left from the impact. Rather it is the scar left when the earth healed from the impact.
Even the traditional theories suggest that the pacific ocean is a scar created by the impact scraping off the continent and throwing it into orbit (yes I am simplifying).
While this new theory has issues (angular momentum), if it is true, the Pacific Ocean basin is proably the ste it happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Kill off the slow bats and we are left with bats that can dodge turbine blades...
The article mentioned that it was probably caused by the companion star in the binary system.
Eventually this planet will collide with it's star and make a very pretty light show...
Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA
If you can prove the strain you are growing (through genetic drift analysis or direct genetic engineering maybe?) and you maintain GMP style documentation than Congress will be resaonably assured that it was not derived from interstate commerce and will not enter interstate commerce.
Like I said, almost impossible to do...but if you weren't stoned out you might be able to do exactly that.
Actually, if you can conclusivly prove that nothing you used to grow it crossed state lines than the Federal government can't touch you...(in practice it is almost impossible to do)
However in the constitution we have:
Thoes right not reserved for the national government or the people belong to the states.
Since smoking Pot is not a "right" specified by the consitution, the state GVOERNMENT can tell you to do what ever it wants.
Remember, in the US the PEOPLE have very few rights EXCEPT what the state decides to give them.
Because it has not been proven to be more effective than other, signficantly safer drugs.
In addition THC IS legal for some diseases, just in tablet form.
The whole plant will NEVER be legalized because the side effects are so severe that there will never be a suitable time to use it.
Plus another thing to consider...
First, we know with absolut certainty that oil and coal WILL run out. Before they run out they will become prohibitivly expensive anyway.
Sooo...
Why not develop technology that minimizes they use (and reduces CO2) now when it is cheap to do so. Even if GW is wrong we are STILL better off!
I just don't understand what the AGW people are fighting against.
You can shoot protons at it at a few kilowatt energy. You get electrons and anti-protons out. My guess is that the outbound velocity is fairly low since it just climbed out of a very steep gravity well.. The electrons meet up with incoming protons and neutralize them to hydrogen. The anti-protons annihilate some for energy release. Of course you could never turn off the proton guns or the hole will evaporate...quickly.
So long as the thing was large enough to absorb matter faster (under controlled conditions) than it radiates while still being small enough that it can't survive on it's own it "should" make a good power plant.
the moon formed extremly close to it's primary and that regularized it's orbit. In addition it formed out of an accretion disk created by the impact. These discs spontaeously circularize due to internal collisions.
A better example are the moons of mars. They were both captured and both have a moderatly elliptical orbit.
Your argument is exactly the same argument I am making. Planets that form out of an accretion disc will have regular orbits. Planets that are moved to there current position will tend to have eccentric orbits.
Ok, so you just shoot electrons or protons in.
You will maintain the mass and the black hole will still generate antimatter for energy output.
Jupiter sized planets can only form out past the "Snow line" where water can form ice. Otherwise you get terrestrial planets that max out a few times bigger than earth.
When a jupiter sized planet moves into a terrestrial orbit it EATS the planet already there.
Since the earth is still here, no hot jupiter ever existed in sol system.
Eccentric orbit's are destabalized during the process of circularization which then either ejects them OR crashes the orbit. But it is also true the eccentric orbits tend to be a bit more stable than true circular ones...but only a little.
I never said the sol system had a hot jupiter. But it had been cited in the grandparent therefore I was adressing the issue. Hot Jupiters happen in specific conditions where the gas that formed the original system was thick enough to not get blown away quickly. Therefore the jupiter sized planet, with it greater porportional size and gravitational field effect due to lower density, are disporportinaly slowed through friction. As they slow they eat or eject all inner planets until they get close enough so that the solar wind HAS cleared everything out.
The sol system did not have these conditions therefore no hot Jupiter.
With the higher density but smaller size of rocky planets they are not as likley to experience the slowing effect before they clear the neighboring space therefore any moving will probably be due to colision or near collision with other large bodies and will be entierly random.
The reason Venus, Earth and Mars probably haven't moved is because the planets chemistries match theory fairly closely. Planetary genesis theories suggest that there will be subtly chemical differences at varius altitudes from the star. Mercury has unexpected chemistry which could come from collision (there is evidence for such an event) or being moved
Anything that moves a super-sized planet will eject smaller planets from the system.
The hot-jupiter orbits start circular and are slowly spiralled in.
Actually, most eccentric orbits will be maintained. Only specific conditions will circularize an orbit and most eccentric orbits that get curcularized become unstable in the process.
It is very unlikely that the inner planets moved much with the possible exception of mercury.
Charge is maintained. You can't destroy a negative without also destroying an equal positive.
Therefore if you shoot a lot of electrons into the black hole it will develop a charge and the charge can be manipulated.
After it has a charge you just need to shoot equal positive and negative charges
particle accelerator aimed at it...
You don't need much power behind the accelerator. You can throw a lot of matter at it to get some absorbed rather than just sending a little very high energy matter.
Very true but the 4 inner planets have almost circular orbits.
Any planet that get flung around will have a very eliptical orbit.
The Hot Jupiters are a different thing. They are caused by the system having enough material to cause drag and slow them down enough to collapse the orbit.
Peronally I am looking forward to mini black holes. So long as the mass is under several thousand tons even dropping a black hole in to the earths core wouldn't hurt the planet.
BUT...
black holes provide pure matter to energy conversion! A tiny black hole feed with matter will radiate generate matter-antimatter pairs which will generate a huge amount of heat!
So..
#1 create tiny black hole and put a charge on it.
#2 create powerplant around it to collect the energy
#3 PROFIT!
Ummm.....I did say it burns...but fatalities are NOT from the burns...which is why your friend could spit on me.
I call not true!
The body is exceptionally good at accomidating a stable force acting on the system. What causes most electricution deaths are the sudden change in voltages throwing the heart out of rhythm or scrambling the brain log enough for the person to die.
The actual physical damage of electricution is usually very minor (first or second degree burns through the path of the current). The alternating nature of AC makes it much more likley to mess up the heart and brain. 120 chances a second. DC only has one chance.
Now DC will cause greater BURNS because the constant voltage at the same power can generate more heat, but the burns are not what kill you.
Neither article you cited mentioned DC vs AC. Almost every mention of current related it to HOUSEHOLD current which suggests AC.
Finally, the blood cannot be "charged." It is a fluid with some conducting ability since it is full of various ions. Any charge it does accumulate would almost immediatly ground out to the rest of the body and from there to the earth.
If you want to make dramatic claims please provide plenty of citations
You are right....they almost certainly will exceed inflation....which would tend to REDUCE the ROI.
I based that assumption in a way that is hardest on the ROI.
He stated in the original article that he expects to save 3300 a year...his 6 months of data seems to back this up.
Solar panels typically have a 25 year warranty that assures a minimum 80% nomial efficency. Typically they are still at 90+% after 25 years and thoes are older cell construction.
Cost of power goes up...at least matching inflation and usually more.
This all adds up to a pay off date at about 10-12.5 years.
And it increases the sale value of the house...therefore the payback is 12.5 years or until they sell the house, whatever is sooner.
I went back to his original article (the instalation). He said the estimate is that his anual utility bill will drop from 4400 a year to 1100 a year.
So I made a few assumptions.
#1-his power use will not increase. Not really likely but a future increase shouldn't change the ROI on his current investment.
#2-Utilities will just keep pace with inflation (assumed 2%)...power costs will stay porportinally expensive in the future. This is probably not ture as power prices tend to increase slightly faster than inflation. So this assumption will tend to increase the ROI.
#3-I assume he is financing it through his mortgage at about 5%
Therefore when I calculate out to 25 years I find that he would spend about $141,000 in power over the 25 years without slar. With Solar he would spend $35,233.
The Payoff date comes at about 12.5 years.
And Pangea didn't breakup until about 400-500 million years ago.
There is ample geologic evidence that the continents didn't move much until Pangea broke up. The Pacific basin is the most geologically stable area on the planet.
Please note that I did say I was simplifing the current theory.
But if you want to talk about it, you should read many other posts that point out that the earth's surface is fairly plastic and tends to return to round.
Plus the heat of the impact would be enough to melt most of the surface. Only the current continental lab masses survived the melting. But the sea floor is a very different type of rock than the continents and there is no reason other than a random huge event that could change the rock type so consistently over such a large section of the planet.
Finally you need to remember that less than half of the mass of the moon came from the earth. the rest came from the object that hit the earth.
Remember, the Pacific Ocean isn't the big hole left from the impact. Rather it is the scar left when the earth healed from the impact.
It is called the pacific ocean.
Even the traditional theories suggest that the pacific ocean is a scar created by the impact scraping off the continent and throwing it into orbit (yes I am simplifying).
While this new theory has issues (angular momentum), if it is true, the Pacific Ocean basin is proably the ste it happened.