Oh, well the fact you have old vehicles means all those cases of ICE cars bursting into flames are all lies, put out by the auto manufacturers themselves, who issued recalls for the hell of it, damaging their stock price to make me look bad? Eh? Your "logic" is pathetic. The fact of the matter is recalls happen frequently for cars which spontaneously combust. You clinging to your fantasy isn't changing reality, merely making you look absolutely stupid. You're right, though - those ICE cars don't catch fire because they get plugged in (as they don't get plugged in) or getting wet, but plenty do catch fire due to poor, factory-fresh wiring, or bad design. This is established fact, but I guess you know better than reality.
Sure - the jury of their peers. Or the plea bargain they were arm-twisted into taking to dodge a lengthy trial that would destroy them financially or emotionally. And yes - some are put in solitary because they are horrific people. Others, however, for simply talking back (see the post above from someone put in solitary for just that), or for their own protection because of the beatings/rapes they are subjected to on a daily basis. 80,000 people in solitary? Only ~3,500 are on a life sentence, so that means ~76,500 are going to re-enter society messed up in the head because the system can only decide between "unfettered general population" and "stuck in a hole". Those people are not going to readjust to society as well as they could be, furthering the issue. As long as you think all solitary confinement is justified, you won't see the problem.
I assume you honestly don't know, and are not being dense for some dramatic effect to highlight your point.
"Underprivileged" means just that. For instance, black people are predominantly less-well-off than people of other races, due to a whole host of things (institutionalised racism, past civil rights effects which are still felt within communities, etc.). It does not mean that all black people are less-well-off than everyone else. Asian people in certain areas and times were also underprivileged, but successive mass waves of immigration (from wealthy and well-educated places) forcibly changed the perception and performance of those areas, restoring them to closer to normality. Some areas and races were not equally represented or helped by such waves of immigration, hence the disparity between different races who immigrated at different times from different places to different areas in the US.
The part of your post comparing one person (you) to a whole host of other people is illogical beyond belief. The other part comparing all African immigrants to native black people is also laughably illogical, and speaks more of your lack of compassion, understanding, and over-abundance of ego than it does of anyone else.
"Underprivileged" exists. You not wanting to think it does doesn't change that. I agree that one's life is under one's mastership, but one's life does not exist in a vacuum, and the bad or injust decisions made by others can and do affect one's life - more for some, and less for others. You wanting to live in your fantasy doesn't change that one iota. Hell, you are well off not just because of your own hard work, but because of the countless Asians who arrived before you did, who challenged the institutionalised racism endemic in the US during the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, allowing you to arrive with fewer barriers, more support, and a greater chance of thriving. The fact you don't know that makes you seem, well, ignorant beyond belief, selfish, and so far up your own ass that to listen to you is a sure waste of time.
s/whom/who. Don't use "whom" unless you know when to, otherwise you look silly. Plus no one here cares, or has ever cared, what your job position is - writing that out makes you look like a boastful egomaniac:)
You couldn't get what you wanted, so you made sure others couldn't to. What a wonderful person you are. The righteous thing to do would be to not oppose the ban, and instead campaign for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. That's what sane, normal people would do. You sound like you're either ignorant, or looking for an excuse to mess with gay people. Neither choices reflect well on you.
They're rolling out battery swap sometime in the not-too-distant future. It takes 90 seconds to swap a battery, at the cost of about a normal tank of gas.
?? You're really desperate to make Teslas sound terrible. Keeping an eye on an electronic fuel gauge which can tell you exactly how far you can go (as opposed to simply guessing, as in the majority of ICEs) isn't exactly difficult. Plus the tow truck you mentioned can tow a car. Plus ICE cars break down frequently (due to the greater number of moving parts) etc. You really need to try harder. In a few years people will look back at folks like you and scratch their heads that you ever graced the world with your short-sighted, Luddite presence. It's the 21st century. You're boring.
If that was the case then every US city would have excellent, cheap broadband and the countryside would have terrible broadband. As it is, most of the US has terrible broadband, whether it be in the city or otherwise. Why are you so determined to make excuses for a broken system that is actively hurting you?
Nonsense. The reason the US looks slow is because it IS slow. Major cities have terrible service due to monopolies or duopolies. This nonsensical rhetoric of "we're too big!" or "we're too populous!" or your bizarre "we've had it too long!" is nonsensical hand-waving trying to explain away an intrinsic problem in the US. Does it pain you to admit the US is just flawed when it comes to promoting companies above the common good? Don't you realise you are hurting the US by sticking to your ridiculous explanations?
Are you really this stupid? Do you know who gets the most funding? Scientists who overturn the commonly-accepted and develop new fields of research. They can name their price. They can work anywhere they want, with anyone they want, with any equipment they want. They get all the academic glory they could ever hope for. This nonsense about getting grant money is pathetic. You don't think the oil companies wouldn't throw cash at scientists to try to debunk this stuff? Well, they already do, and so far they've not found anything, because AGW is real. The science behind it is real and understood. AGW means the world is warming way faster than it would without us (in fact, it would be cooling at the moment if it weren't for humans). You know nothing, and seem to relish it, because it makes you feel superior and not at all guilty for living a wasteful experience at the expense of those who come after you. If you have kids you are a terrible parent. If you don't, well, I can see why.
So we just need to continually uproot the agriculture industry and move it where the suitable climate goes, bringing the associated infrastructure, technologies, training and communication lines with it? Brilliant! You're a genius! Not to mention that when Siberia becomes good for farming, the methane-soaked permafrost would have melted, increasing the amount of warming, meaning it might not stay very suitable for farming for any good length of time. And what happens when Siberia finally gets too hot? Move all farming to Antarctica? What happens when *that* gets too hot? Starve to death or hope that we've moved to another planet? Your logic is childish at best, and moronic at worst.
1. The planet is getting warmer. There is consensus.
2. The warming is mainly due to human action - the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the various feedback cycles that's causing. The CO2 is measurable, as are its effects.
3. Lessening one's impact on the planet is not as expensive as you seem to think it is. Most of it is things like not buying so much stuff, not farming massive amounts of livestock (e.g. Harris Ranch), and living responsibly with what we have. Yes, improving industry to not pollute so much would also benefit, but that's just sound economics, as a business can't sell in a market devoid of human beings.
They have been debated in depth, and the action they call for is not drastic. It appears, sadly, that you have fallen for the line created by those industrialists who seek to "keep on keepin' on" doing what they want to the world. Comparing the stance of AGW to those of "Earth-centricists" or murderous religious zealots is pathetic, quite frankly, as the latter two didn't have thousands of peer-reviewed papers backing up their positions, and were not arguing from a position of scientific understanding. Disagree all you want, but please remember it just shows your ignorance, and doesn't speak ill of the science or the scientists.
Yes, they have changed in the past, and will in the future, due to things outside of human control. However, they are currently changing because of human influence. By your logic it's fine if someone stabs you in the face, as you will die at some point anyway, so nothing is lost. We can reduce the amount by which the climate changes by altering our behaviour, which ensures us a smoother transition from our current climactic situation to whatever the distant-future holds. Or we can just play by your rules, scream "fuck it - dinosaurs were hotter!", and mess up the atmosphere even more, hoping somehow it won't end up severely changing the way humanity lives. You're not very sensible.
There is no debate over the source of the change. None. Well, none in the scientific community. There's plenty in the media, as that's where money can be used to influence public opinion, such as yours. You sound like a creationist barking that evolution is just a theory and that you don't believe in it. It's pathetic.
There will, of course, be money in it. The science points to AGW being true, and that it will affect human society, especially various industries that we, as a species, rely upon. How can there not be money involved in talking about it? The fact that money is involved has nothing to do with the veracity of the science involved (indeed, the science is good, regardless of the politics which it causes). Pushing the "panic" button shouldn't be necessary, but because of the screams of "AGW doesn't exist" from the people seeking to not change their industries/companies/ways, it most certainly is necessary, otherwise rational people won't get to hear about how they can help. The most disturbing thing about this AGW stuff is how the nay-sayers ignore science, then get all complainy when the science is shown to be good time and time again, and then get even more complainy when people have to shout to be heard above the complainers' nonsense.
It doesn't help that people also confuse the politics with the science. If the politics sucks, that says nothing about the science, or what the science says will happen. You seem to be in this camp, which is a shame.
France is doing just fine. You should try learning about it, and you'd see. Have fun with your expensive healthcare, no vacation, joke of a government, and insecure job!
You don't appear to understand what happened in Fukushima. That's fair enough - it's rather complicated, and some of the words are scary. The reactors melted down because the system that provided electricity and coolant to the reactors failed. That bit wasn't made by General Electric. That bit wouldn't even be allowed in that configuration in the US or Europe or anywhere else that cared about safety. That's the problem - not the reactors. Most (if not all) plants have a back-up power system which can provide coolant long enough to safely shut the reactors down. That's because they're not built next to the sea in tsunami-prone areas, with their generators under sea level, and easily-damaged back-up power supply cables. But I guess it's easier to just throw the baby out with the bath water and scream and shout how every single nuclear reactor and configuration is exactly the same, showing everyone that you are far more emotional than you are knowledgeable, and that you simply shouldn't be listened to by anyone who cares to either learn something, or impart knowledge to you.
Energy density is a bit weird of a comparison, seeing as how inefficient gasoline cars are. If they're only 10% efficient, then the batteries only need 10% of the energy density to be comparable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, well the fact you have old vehicles means all those cases of ICE cars bursting into flames are all lies, put out by the auto manufacturers themselves, who issued recalls for the hell of it, damaging their stock price to make me look bad? Eh? Your "logic" is pathetic. The fact of the matter is recalls happen frequently for cars which spontaneously combust. You clinging to your fantasy isn't changing reality, merely making you look absolutely stupid. You're right, though - those ICE cars don't catch fire because they get plugged in (as they don't get plugged in) or getting wet, but plenty do catch fire due to poor, factory-fresh wiring, or bad design. This is established fact, but I guess you know better than reality.
Sure - the jury of their peers. Or the plea bargain they were arm-twisted into taking to dodge a lengthy trial that would destroy them financially or emotionally. And yes - some are put in solitary because they are horrific people. Others, however, for simply talking back (see the post above from someone put in solitary for just that), or for their own protection because of the beatings/rapes they are subjected to on a daily basis. 80,000 people in solitary? Only ~3,500 are on a life sentence, so that means ~76,500 are going to re-enter society messed up in the head because the system can only decide between "unfettered general population" and "stuck in a hole". Those people are not going to readjust to society as well as they could be, furthering the issue. As long as you think all solitary confinement is justified, you won't see the problem.
I assume you honestly don't know, and are not being dense for some dramatic effect to highlight your point.
"Underprivileged" means just that. For instance, black people are predominantly less-well-off than people of other races, due to a whole host of things (institutionalised racism, past civil rights effects which are still felt within communities, etc.). It does not mean that all black people are less-well-off than everyone else. Asian people in certain areas and times were also underprivileged, but successive mass waves of immigration (from wealthy and well-educated places) forcibly changed the perception and performance of those areas, restoring them to closer to normality. Some areas and races were not equally represented or helped by such waves of immigration, hence the disparity between different races who immigrated at different times from different places to different areas in the US.
The part of your post comparing one person (you) to a whole host of other people is illogical beyond belief. The other part comparing all African immigrants to native black people is also laughably illogical, and speaks more of your lack of compassion, understanding, and over-abundance of ego than it does of anyone else.
"Underprivileged" exists. You not wanting to think it does doesn't change that. I agree that one's life is under one's mastership, but one's life does not exist in a vacuum, and the bad or injust decisions made by others can and do affect one's life - more for some, and less for others. You wanting to live in your fantasy doesn't change that one iota. Hell, you are well off not just because of your own hard work, but because of the countless Asians who arrived before you did, who challenged the institutionalised racism endemic in the US during the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, allowing you to arrive with fewer barriers, more support, and a greater chance of thriving. The fact you don't know that makes you seem, well, ignorant beyond belief, selfish, and so far up your own ass that to listen to you is a sure waste of time.
s/whom/who. Don't use "whom" unless you know when to, otherwise you look silly. Plus no one here cares, or has ever cared, what your job position is - writing that out makes you look like a boastful egomaniac :)
That's a pre-pre-pre-production prototype. The final product is at least a year off.
You couldn't get what you wanted, so you made sure others couldn't to. What a wonderful person you are. The righteous thing to do would be to not oppose the ban, and instead campaign for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. That's what sane, normal people would do. You sound like you're either ignorant, or looking for an excuse to mess with gay people. Neither choices reflect well on you.
They're rolling out battery swap sometime in the not-too-distant future. It takes 90 seconds to swap a battery, at the cost of about a normal tank of gas.
?? You're really desperate to make Teslas sound terrible. Keeping an eye on an electronic fuel gauge which can tell you exactly how far you can go (as opposed to simply guessing, as in the majority of ICEs) isn't exactly difficult. Plus the tow truck you mentioned can tow a car. Plus ICE cars break down frequently (due to the greater number of moving parts) etc. You really need to try harder. In a few years people will look back at folks like you and scratch their heads that you ever graced the world with your short-sighted, Luddite presence. It's the 21st century. You're boring.
Take a look at how many gasonline-powered cars catch fire in people's garages, and then realise how ignorant you are.
Not to mention the fact that sensors around the receiving station could instantly report a misalignment, and help steer the beam to the correct place.
If that was the case then every US city would have excellent, cheap broadband and the countryside would have terrible broadband. As it is, most of the US has terrible broadband, whether it be in the city or otherwise. Why are you so determined to make excuses for a broken system that is actively hurting you?
Nonsense. The reason the US looks slow is because it IS slow. Major cities have terrible service due to monopolies or duopolies. This nonsensical rhetoric of "we're too big!" or "we're too populous!" or your bizarre "we've had it too long!" is nonsensical hand-waving trying to explain away an intrinsic problem in the US. Does it pain you to admit the US is just flawed when it comes to promoting companies above the common good? Don't you realise you are hurting the US by sticking to your ridiculous explanations?
Are you really this stupid? Do you know who gets the most funding? Scientists who overturn the commonly-accepted and develop new fields of research. They can name their price. They can work anywhere they want, with anyone they want, with any equipment they want. They get all the academic glory they could ever hope for. This nonsense about getting grant money is pathetic. You don't think the oil companies wouldn't throw cash at scientists to try to debunk this stuff? Well, they already do, and so far they've not found anything, because AGW is real. The science behind it is real and understood. AGW means the world is warming way faster than it would without us (in fact, it would be cooling at the moment if it weren't for humans). You know nothing, and seem to relish it, because it makes you feel superior and not at all guilty for living a wasteful experience at the expense of those who come after you. If you have kids you are a terrible parent. If you don't, well, I can see why.
So we just need to continually uproot the agriculture industry and move it where the suitable climate goes, bringing the associated infrastructure, technologies, training and communication lines with it? Brilliant! You're a genius! Not to mention that when Siberia becomes good for farming, the methane-soaked permafrost would have melted, increasing the amount of warming, meaning it might not stay very suitable for farming for any good length of time. And what happens when Siberia finally gets too hot? Move all farming to Antarctica? What happens when *that* gets too hot? Starve to death or hope that we've moved to another planet? Your logic is childish at best, and moronic at worst.
You don't seem to understand what the guy was saying. Shame. You might have learned something.
"All"? Amazing. That one word has destroyed your argument, as clearly that can't be the case. Calm down.
1. The planet is getting warmer. There is consensus.
2. The warming is mainly due to human action - the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the various feedback cycles that's causing. The CO2 is measurable, as are its effects.
3. Lessening one's impact on the planet is not as expensive as you seem to think it is. Most of it is things like not buying so much stuff, not farming massive amounts of livestock (e.g. Harris Ranch), and living responsibly with what we have. Yes, improving industry to not pollute so much would also benefit, but that's just sound economics, as a business can't sell in a market devoid of human beings.
They have been debated in depth, and the action they call for is not drastic. It appears, sadly, that you have fallen for the line created by those industrialists who seek to "keep on keepin' on" doing what they want to the world. Comparing the stance of AGW to those of "Earth-centricists" or murderous religious zealots is pathetic, quite frankly, as the latter two didn't have thousands of peer-reviewed papers backing up their positions, and were not arguing from a position of scientific understanding. Disagree all you want, but please remember it just shows your ignorance, and doesn't speak ill of the science or the scientists.
Yes, they have changed in the past, and will in the future, due to things outside of human control. However, they are currently changing because of human influence. By your logic it's fine if someone stabs you in the face, as you will die at some point anyway, so nothing is lost. We can reduce the amount by which the climate changes by altering our behaviour, which ensures us a smoother transition from our current climactic situation to whatever the distant-future holds. Or we can just play by your rules, scream "fuck it - dinosaurs were hotter!", and mess up the atmosphere even more, hoping somehow it won't end up severely changing the way humanity lives. You're not very sensible.
You are hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.
There is no debate over the source of the change. None. Well, none in the scientific community. There's plenty in the media, as that's where money can be used to influence public opinion, such as yours. You sound like a creationist barking that evolution is just a theory and that you don't believe in it. It's pathetic.
There will, of course, be money in it. The science points to AGW being true, and that it will affect human society, especially various industries that we, as a species, rely upon. How can there not be money involved in talking about it? The fact that money is involved has nothing to do with the veracity of the science involved (indeed, the science is good, regardless of the politics which it causes). Pushing the "panic" button shouldn't be necessary, but because of the screams of "AGW doesn't exist" from the people seeking to not change their industries/companies/ways, it most certainly is necessary, otherwise rational people won't get to hear about how they can help. The most disturbing thing about this AGW stuff is how the nay-sayers ignore science, then get all complainy when the science is shown to be good time and time again, and then get even more complainy when people have to shout to be heard above the complainers' nonsense.
It doesn't help that people also confuse the politics with the science. If the politics sucks, that says nothing about the science, or what the science says will happen. You seem to be in this camp, which is a shame.
France is doing just fine. You should try learning about it, and you'd see. Have fun with your expensive healthcare, no vacation, joke of a government, and insecure job!
These doors are not like gull-wing doors - they don't operate the same, and take up different amounts of space. Tone down your hatred slightly :)
You don't appear to understand what happened in Fukushima. That's fair enough - it's rather complicated, and some of the words are scary. The reactors melted down because the system that provided electricity and coolant to the reactors failed. That bit wasn't made by General Electric. That bit wouldn't even be allowed in that configuration in the US or Europe or anywhere else that cared about safety. That's the problem - not the reactors. Most (if not all) plants have a back-up power system which can provide coolant long enough to safely shut the reactors down. That's because they're not built next to the sea in tsunami-prone areas, with their generators under sea level, and easily-damaged back-up power supply cables. But I guess it's easier to just throw the baby out with the bath water and scream and shout how every single nuclear reactor and configuration is exactly the same, showing everyone that you are far more emotional than you are knowledgeable, and that you simply shouldn't be listened to by anyone who cares to either learn something, or impart knowledge to you.
Energy density is a bit weird of a comparison, seeing as how inefficient gasoline cars are. If they're only 10% efficient, then the batteries only need 10% of the energy density to be comparable.