I think the crux of how slanted your view is is nicely summed up by your use of the word mislead. The law is a complex area. What nycl gives us very generously is succinct cogent explanations of the case, the body of law and precident that relates, and an interpretation based on his subjective view. You are welcome to take the first two and provide your own interpretation.
Solar power is going to be good, but PV is not clean by a long shot (manufacturing). We also need to distribute over a wide area, and don't have storage alternatives that get us through the night. So most of the field recognizes that you need an always on baseline power source that is evenly distributed. Solar (especially solar thermal) and wind will be welcome additions to the energy portfolio. No one technology is ever going to be the answer, the idea of "the answer" is a myth. For now, adding nuclear to offset the need to build even more coal plants is a good idea.
If you want solar panels on your house then go get them. Why are you waiting for a government handout?
Environmentalists are split on nuclear power, but most of them that I know are pro-nuclear. Don't be fooled into thinking that environmentalists are like Democrats or Republicans, ie, a group of people with a singular and perfectly cohesive mindset.
I was a big clean coal advocate when I first read about it. But it ignores most of the real damage done through the mining and processing of the coal. Until "clean coal" can deal with the mercury and radioactive particulate then it isn't really clean. We can say the same about uranium mining, but on the whole it is better than coal mining. When I advocate for nuclear power I still make this a caveat. As it is, clean coal is marketing more than solving any problems.
The problem with coal is a little bit carbon, a lot of mercury poisoning and a bit of radioactive material spewed into the atmosphere. Storing nuclear waste is not the best idea. Better is reprocessing. Saying that we should use all of our coal reserves by burning them away in the current manner, even with CO2 scrubbers is ignorant in that it ignores the much larger problems with the coal to electricity cycle. Right now I believe as an environmentalist that nuclear is our best option for baseline power. Which plant (nuclear or coal) would you rather live next to?
The right is not mentioned in the constitution. But, the constitution enumerates ways that the government (federal) can impinge on the people's (and state's) rights. It never grants specific rights to people, rather says that all rights are inferred upon people unless otherwise stated here. Of course that has been debated very much, especially with the right to bear arms (I like the Family Guys take on that one). I agree with most of the rest of what you say, except for the "very little legal weight" that the Declaration of Independence has. If by very little you mean absolutely none, then I do agree.
I'm surprised that the Lisa did not show up on the list. At the time it became the favorite whipping boy . . . like the newton it was a really great concept, ahead of the technology, but both have informed the products that are great successes today. So hindsight took both off the list perhaps.
Also, a sedentary lifestyle would most likely lead to a general boredom. Contrast to a lifestyle that includes a couple hours of exercise, which IMO leads to a more balanced mental state. So, in this study perhaps boredom and death are both effects of the same underlying problem.
While I don't disagree on it's face, I would like to see some citations. But parent poster is correct that Obama did inherit 2 wars, and was against the Iraq war, but gets a free pass in a way because he was not in the Senate when that vote was taken. Plenty of Democrats did vote for it, as did plenty of Republicans. So at least in the Senate Iraq is in no way a partisan war.
I've yet to see a 40mph road that did not allow for a car to safely pass a cyclist, and have been on both sides of that equation. The idea that a bike can slow a car down for any meaningful time is ridiculous. More often I've (in a car) been slowed down to 25 in a 40 zone by a slow car, where there is no safe or legal way to pass that car. Trying to understand the angry point of view is like trying to think of an appropriate and equally impossible metaphor (sorry . . . can't do it right now, but you get it . . . it's impossible).
A nitpick, but propaganda is neither good nor bad on the face of it. For instance the declaration of independance is a propaganda piece. To the Brits maybe it was bad, but to many it is good. The actual legal document declaring our independance is much less interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Xenu's intergalactic war on volcanoes.
Keyboard, nose, coffee ... well done.
I think the crux of how slanted your view is is nicely summed up by your use of the word mislead. The law is a complex area. What nycl gives us very generously is succinct cogent explanations of the case, the body of law and precident that relates, and an interpretation based on his subjective view. You are welcome to take the first two and provide your own interpretation.
Volume.
Solar power is going to be good, but PV is not clean by a long shot (manufacturing). We also need to distribute over a wide area, and don't have storage alternatives that get us through the night. So most of the field recognizes that you need an always on baseline power source that is evenly distributed. Solar (especially solar thermal) and wind will be welcome additions to the energy portfolio. No one technology is ever going to be the answer, the idea of "the answer" is a myth. For now, adding nuclear to offset the need to build even more coal plants is a good idea.
If you want solar panels on your house then go get them. Why are you waiting for a government handout?
Environmentalists are split on nuclear power, but most of them that I know are pro-nuclear. Don't be fooled into thinking that environmentalists are like Democrats or Republicans, ie, a group of people with a singular and perfectly cohesive mindset.
I was a big clean coal advocate when I first read about it. But it ignores most of the real damage done through the mining and processing of the coal. Until "clean coal" can deal with the mercury and radioactive particulate then it isn't really clean. We can say the same about uranium mining, but on the whole it is better than coal mining. When I advocate for nuclear power I still make this a caveat. As it is, clean coal is marketing more than solving any problems.
The problem with coal is a little bit carbon, a lot of mercury poisoning and a bit of radioactive material spewed into the atmosphere. Storing nuclear waste is not the best idea. Better is reprocessing. Saying that we should use all of our coal reserves by burning them away in the current manner, even with CO2 scrubbers is ignorant in that it ignores the much larger problems with the coal to electricity cycle. Right now I believe as an environmentalist that nuclear is our best option for baseline power. Which plant (nuclear or coal) would you rather live next to?
Nice. 300 mpg is pretty sweet indeed. Wait, why are you upset?
The right is not mentioned in the constitution. But, the constitution enumerates ways that the government (federal) can impinge on the people's (and state's) rights. It never grants specific rights to people, rather says that all rights are inferred upon people unless otherwise stated here. Of course that has been debated very much, especially with the right to bear arms (I like the Family Guys take on that one). I agree with most of the rest of what you say, except for the "very little legal weight" that the Declaration of Independence has. If by very little you mean absolutely none, then I do agree.
I'm surprised that the Lisa did not show up on the list. At the time it became the favorite whipping boy . . . like the newton it was a really great concept, ahead of the technology, but both have informed the products that are great successes today. So hindsight took both off the list perhaps.
They didn't with dubyastation, why would they start now?
Also, a sedentary lifestyle would most likely lead to a general boredom. Contrast to a lifestyle that includes a couple hours of exercise, which IMO leads to a more balanced mental state. So, in this study perhaps boredom and death are both effects of the same underlying problem.
Get with the times man. It's all email now.
not in the original
While I don't disagree on it's face, I would like to see some citations. But parent poster is correct that Obama did inherit 2 wars, and was against the Iraq war, but gets a free pass in a way because he was not in the Senate when that vote was taken. Plenty of Democrats did vote for it, as did plenty of Republicans. So at least in the Senate Iraq is in no way a partisan war.
I don't think the couple in question is going to maintain that their country's position is obviously right.
A hospital environment is by far the best environment to catch an illness.
No. It's anthropomorphic entropy. And it's angry . . .
But rocket science isn't really rocket science. IAARS
Nice. We'll give you change combinations you haven't even thought of. How do we make money? It's easy. Volume.
Really? HO2? I can't think of a joke. Sorry
I've yet to see a 40mph road that did not allow for a car to safely pass a cyclist, and have been on both sides of that equation. The idea that a bike can slow a car down for any meaningful time is ridiculous. More often I've (in a car) been slowed down to 25 in a 40 zone by a slow car, where there is no safe or legal way to pass that car. Trying to understand the angry point of view is like trying to think of an appropriate and equally impossible metaphor (sorry . . . can't do it right now, but you get it . . . it's impossible).
A nitpick, but propaganda is neither good nor bad on the face of it. For instance the declaration of independance is a propaganda piece. To the Brits maybe it was bad, but to many it is good. The actual legal document declaring our independance is much less interesting.
They will add the iBall interface to iLife.