I agree, but still can't work out why the reaction was to vote for the poster boy of the elitist creeps. Trump and his ex-Goldman Sachs advisors are among the ones that really fucked the place up in 2008 and have been getting in the way of the recovery.
That's all it takes to justify a complete communications lockdown? Most people would see it only as justification to discipline that EPA employee in some way.
You are going to be very busy if you are going to continue to justify such blunt instrument attacks over trivialities.
I hope I'm very wrong but I'm getting the impression from his continued undermining of the integrity of the voting process (how many million fake voters did he say there was yesterday - yet he's proudly saying he'll do nothing about it) that when a crisis occurs (within any four year term something is going to happen that fits that description) it will be used as an excuse to indefinitely postpone elections.
Autocrats take the personal more seriously than the political and use the machinery of state to deal with it. That the first press conference of the administration was over something so utterly trivial as to reassert Trump's claim about crowd numbers and nothing else (one statement, no questions allowed) is an illustration of this.
Trump doesn't see himself as the leader of the American people. He sees himself as the owner of America and it's people.
It worked that way with the "but Hillary uses email!" thing despite how trivial it actually was. Powell (among others) did almost the same thing but worse in using a commercial internet service provider that could have read his secret email as did a few others. The "missing emails" fuss was hilarious after all the excuses about how it was OK for the White House to lose a few years of emails under Bush.
The story was very different two years ago to your "report" - a fucking powerpoint full of palm trees! It is good as powerpoint presentations go, but calling it a "report", how post-literate of you. I think you will find very different "reports" from people considering things on the civilian side of nuclear energy. Uranium is useful for Indian nuclear weapon production. Thorium is not.
Fair enough, but choosing a nation that has suddenly lost 100% of revenue and has to prop up a unprofitable oil operation besides as something to push your naive little political barrow is not a good look. I think you will find the major cause of their problems is the utterly obvious one no matter what sort of government it is.
it seems very important to quite a group of people to make it look like the sky is falling right now
I give it about six months before he does something that steps on your toes and makes you one of those people. Trump is a bit of a blunt instrument as seen with this and the hiring freeze (does that freeze include cronies of his appointments to go on their personal staff? No? I thought not).
Fair enough but I think that shows ignorance of the actual issue of them attempting to fund everything with a oil boom without planning on what to do when the oil price dropped.
I'll let the local Dutch know to update their conceptions on language
The could be more correct than I but I first had the term explained to me by an American some time before I heard it here. I'll have to make sure in the depths of winter to complain about how it's so cold that I have to close half the windows and put a shirt on.
With respect, the Clinton era thorium project was opposed by companies committed to uranium who say it as a challenge to their business model. It wasn't about being economical, it was about money continuing to go into the "right hands".
And that kids is how the US nuclear lobby ate it's own children and why we have to look at India if we want something better than an impractical 1950s devil's cauldron of liquid metals where the radioactive metals are not the ones to inspire the most terror.
I think you misunderstood. Since you were referring to supply companies buying stuff like that and installing it I was interested in something about implementation and not the product they would buy if they did so.
Have you heard anything concrete about a company getting a pile of things like that and connecting it to the grid, or it that still some years off as the price curve continues to rise?
The only reason for Saudis to over produce and cause the price of oil to crater is to give themselves a market advantage
One thing that helped them was that their average cost of production is a lot less than everyone else so their losses were low. A few princelings had to deal with less luxury during their price war but that's about it.
One of the reasons we get foaming at the mouth antivaxxers is a redefinition of autism a bit over ten years back. The other is to look for something to blame other the cruel and hard reality of genetics.
It's Forbes but it's still probably true because I've heard it elsewhere: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2016/09/15/saudi-arabia-is-buying-up-americas-oil-assets/#67d0daddcf29
That's been the proposed option for years - but is it really happening on an industrial scale? It's a very lossy way to do things so apart from home use there has to be seriously high peak prices for it to make sense. Do you have anything to show that it makes sense today and not some undefined time in the future? I'm interested.
Okay, I'll bite... Thorium is 20 years away at best.
Add a zero to that or anything with Uranium other than 1970s stuff painted green if you are going to limit yourself to US civilian technology. Meanwhile even India is moving ahead.
That 1950s stuff keeps on getting dragged up. If you want to see what's viable in the future take a look at what India is working on in the Thorium space.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but still can't work out why the reaction was to vote for the poster boy of the elitist creeps.
Trump and his ex-Goldman Sachs advisors are among the ones that really fucked the place up in 2008 and have been getting in the way of the recovery.
I'll guess that it will end up being the old third world staple of the autocrat emptying the public purse into his own bank accounts.
That's all it takes to justify a complete communications lockdown?
Most people would see it only as justification to discipline that EPA employee in some way.
You are going to be very busy if you are going to continue to justify such blunt instrument attacks over trivialities.
Just like linking someone to ISIS for being photographed with a raised finger?
I hope I'm very wrong but I'm getting the impression from his continued undermining of the integrity of the voting process (how many million fake voters did he say there was yesterday - yet he's proudly saying he'll do nothing about it) that when a crisis occurs (within any four year term something is going to happen that fits that description) it will be used as an excuse to indefinitely postpone elections.
Autocrats take the personal more seriously than the political and use the machinery of state to deal with it. That the first press conference of the administration was over something so utterly trivial as to reassert Trump's claim about crowd numbers and nothing else (one statement, no questions allowed) is an illustration of this.
Trump doesn't see himself as the leader of the American people. He sees himself as the owner of America and it's people.
It worked that way with the "but Hillary uses email!" thing despite how trivial it actually was. Powell (among others) did almost the same thing but worse in using a commercial internet service provider that could have read his secret email as did a few others. The "missing emails" fuss was hilarious after all the excuses about how it was OK for the White House to lose a few years of emails under Bush.
No, Authoritarian - the exact opposite of what many would call libertarian.
The story was very different two years ago to your "report" - a fucking powerpoint full of palm trees! It is good as powerpoint presentations go, but calling it a "report", how post-literate of you.
I think you will find very different "reports" from people considering things on the civilian side of nuclear energy. Uranium is useful for Indian nuclear weapon production. Thorium is not.
Fair enough, but choosing a nation that has suddenly lost 100% of revenue and has to prop up a unprofitable oil operation besides as something to push your naive little political barrow is not a good look.
I think you will find the major cause of their problems is the utterly obvious one no matter what sort of government it is.
I give it about six months before he does something that steps on your toes and makes you one of those people. Trump is a bit of a blunt instrument as seen with this and the hiring freeze (does that freeze include cronies of his appointments to go on their personal staff? No? I thought not).
Fair enough but I think that shows ignorance of the actual issue of them attempting to fund everything with a oil boom without planning on what to do when the oil price dropped.
It's a bunch of libraries to get called instead of the MS ones. :)
Either that or a series of tubes
The could be more correct than I but I first had the term explained to me by an American some time before I heard it here.
I'll have to make sure in the depths of winter to complain about how it's so cold that I have to close half the windows and put a shirt on.
If you are going to take that line then why blame problems in Venezuela on it instead of the obvious?
With respect, the Clinton era thorium project was opposed by companies committed to uranium who say it as a challenge to their business model.
It wasn't about being economical, it was about money continuing to go into the "right hands".
And that kids is how the US nuclear lobby ate it's own children and why we have to look at India if we want something better than an impractical 1950s devil's cauldron of liquid metals where the radioactive metals are not the ones to inspire the most terror.
I think you misunderstood. Since you were referring to supply companies buying stuff like that and installing it I was interested in something about implementation and not the product they would buy if they did so.
Have you heard anything concrete about a company getting a pile of things like that and connecting it to the grid, or it that still some years off as the price curve continues to rise?
One thing that helped them was that their average cost of production is a lot less than everyone else so their losses were low. A few princelings had to deal with less luxury during their price war but that's about it.
One of the reasons we get foaming at the mouth antivaxxers is a redefinition of autism a bit over ten years back. The other is to look for something to blame other the cruel and hard reality of genetics.
It has not run out.
The price dropped.
Try again based on something real.
You've avoided the main point. Norway is probably more socialist than Venezuela ever has been but is far better run. Do you disagree with that point?
It's Forbes but it's still probably true because I've heard it elsewhere:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2016/09/15/saudi-arabia-is-buying-up-americas-oil-assets/#67d0daddcf29
That's been the proposed option for years - but is it really happening on an industrial scale? It's a very lossy way to do things so apart from home use there has to be seriously high peak prices for it to make sense.
Do you have anything to show that it makes sense today and not some undefined time in the future? I'm interested.
Add a zero to that or anything with Uranium other than 1970s stuff painted green if you are going to limit yourself to US civilian technology. Meanwhile even India is moving ahead.
That 1950s stuff keeps on getting dragged up. If you want to see what's viable in the future take a look at what India is working on in the Thorium space.