Do you see the word "Texas"? That's your answer. Sharing something for free is definitely some kind soshlism or maybe communism and they don't do that down there.
So what you're saying is that you support the strong centralized standing military that the second amendment was specifically about avoiding because it is harmful to freedom?
Actually, I'm thinking that the Constitution writers had the right idea in general. However, their approach is woefully outdated.
Now I know precisely what kind of scum you are: the kind which believes that people should be beholden to their government, rather than the other way around.
Now I know precisely what kind of scum you are: the kind which believes that people should be beholden to their whims reinforced by guns, rather than to laws agreed upon by the people. You are probably a couple of hours away from making another mass shooting in a primary school. Right?
Yes, and cannons were absolutely useless for anything but concerted military actions. Muzzle loaders were also not that useful. The first efficient multi-shot weapons appeared long after the Constitution.
These uses are actually mentioned several times as reasons why American citizens should be able to own guns, by several of those involved with the passage of the 2A.
Actually, no. The use of guns for personal protection was not really mentioned anywhere. The main reason is the protection of freedom. Might I quote George Washington?
It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.
Or perhaps:
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.
So yes, let me reiterate: "Want to play with guns - join the military".
And many people try to shoehorn an article of the Constitution written before the advent of handguns and automatic weapons to the present time. So?
But if you insist, at that time the writers of the Constitution absolutely believed that INDIVIDUAL STATES can and must regulate the militias to protect against foreign invasions and tyrannical acts of the federal government. So in effect arms are a means of defense against an organized invasion.
The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect the use of guns for individual defense or for hunting. There's a Supreme Court decision that bans short-barreled shotguns because they are not a legitimate weapon of war, for example ( https://supreme.justia.com/cas... ).
The modern interpretation that gun-fondlers can use guns without any oversight whatsoever is a work of an activist judge, nothing more. So yes, if you want to play with guns - go to military.
First, this is THz radiation - almost infrared. At high field values (0.3W/cm^2!) with prolonged exposure times. There are many articles that describe effects at lower levels, but so far they all have problems with quality and/or reproducibility.
What next? "Exposure to intense infrared radiation causes changes in cell structure?"
Do you have a citation on this? I'm guessing that you don't. They do have to plan on losing any given planet, but given it's distributed nature and the way solar panels work, in order for an area you'd need such weird weather that it would be highly predictable. Yes, it costs a little money, but surprising little.
What? Do you even understand what you're talking about? Utilities generally do not operate in geographically large areas, a typical utility serves a part of a single state. And getting all of the generation knocked out by clouds happens pretty much always.
So yes, utilities have to plan for the worst. They have to either have own peak generation capability (like gas turbines) or buy electricity from neighbor grids. And on-demand guaranteed power is the most expensive kind.
Emergency shutoff switches are required for line worker protection, so they can ensure that the lines are dead before working on them.
Not only. A short circuit with backfeed power is a really fun stuff.
All of the common inverters will automatically avoid backfeeding power to the grid when grid power itself is absent. Many electric companies also require a manual switch, which isn't that hard to install.
A lot of these switches just sense the grid power. Guess what happens if your neighbors also have solar? You can get your own floating mini-grid. It won't float for long, but during that time it can ruin all kinds of power electronics.
So yes, solar power is hard if you want to feed it back to utilities. Right now it's usually so expensive that it makes no sense to invest in it.
No, it doesn't lower the total power that needs to be generated. As a utility, you have to plan to be able to generate 100% of the peak capacity without solar input. This requires expensive peaking production contracts.
Then there's a question of reliability - grids are not really designed to feed power between branches. Grid-connected generators (including solar panels) also often require installation of emergency shutoff switches and upgrades to local transformers.
GMOs are actually evaluated for safety with animal and human studies. Yet any Joe Shmuck can go and create a genuinely toxic potato cultivar using purely classic selective breeding and then sell it as "100% organic.
The issue has never been about GMO itself, its been about how GMO is used.
Oh no, it's always been about GMOs themselves. Greeny idiots don't care about specific GMO use, it's like witchcraft for them. So now we have classic witch hunts ("GMO labeling").
In the known reserves. And the current rate of use can easily be lowered 2-3x by simple reprocessing or reactors that allow deeper burning of U-235. There's no need for breeders or extensive reprocessing.
It's actually the reason the world is so anemic on thorium and breeder reactors - the industry knows that in the near future (next 50 years) there's going to be no problem with uranium supply. And if the difficulties become apparent then fairly simple fixes can extend the supply. So why bother?
That's _exactly_ how the current nuclear reactors work in the US! A part of the income of all nuclear reactors is dedicated to funding the long-term storage. And all of our current reactors have plans on file to deal with decommissioning which must also be fully funded when the reactor starts to operate.
The 2020 goal of 20% less emissions is already unrealistic. I've heard that for the last year there's going to be a mild decrease in CO2 production because of the unusually warm winter, but that's it. Nothing fundamental has changed in Germany's energy outlook - nuclear is still being replaced by coal.
There hasn't ever been - I should have been clearer. During 2005-2010 years you could have feasibly proposed a theory that the GW is on hiatus. But we've had more than enough data to disprove it with a good statistical confidence since at least 2013.
Is it news? Chinese tech followed this general pattern:
1) Knock-off 1.
2) Knock-off 2.
3) Own invention.
It's especially visible in such areas as aerospace or high-speed trains. Now most of the tech has moved well into stage 3. Some products are even becoming iconic - DJI Phantom is now seen as a stereotypical quadcopter, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you see the word "Texas"? That's your answer. Sharing something for free is definitely some kind soshlism or maybe communism and they don't do that down there.
So what you're saying is that you support the strong centralized standing military that the second amendment was specifically about avoiding because it is harmful to freedom?
Actually, I'm thinking that the Constitution writers had the right idea in general. However, their approach is woefully outdated.
Now I know precisely what kind of scum you are: the kind which believes that people should be beholden to their government, rather than the other way around.
Now I know precisely what kind of scum you are: the kind which believes that people should be beholden to their whims reinforced by guns, rather than to laws agreed upon by the people. You are probably a couple of hours away from making another mass shooting in a primary school. Right?
These uses are actually mentioned several times as reasons why American citizens should be able to own guns, by several of those involved with the passage of the 2A.
Actually, no. The use of guns for personal protection was not really mentioned anywhere. The main reason is the protection of freedom. Might I quote George Washington?
It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.
Or perhaps:
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.
So yes, let me reiterate: "Want to play with guns - join the military".
And many people try to shoehorn an article of the Constitution written before the advent of handguns and automatic weapons to the present time. So?
But if you insist, at that time the writers of the Constitution absolutely believed that INDIVIDUAL STATES can and must regulate the militias to protect against foreign invasions and tyrannical acts of the federal government. So in effect arms are a means of defense against an organized invasion.
The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect the use of guns for individual defense or for hunting. There's a Supreme Court decision that bans short-barreled shotguns because they are not a legitimate weapon of war, for example ( https://supreme.justia.com/cas... ).
The modern interpretation that gun-fondlers can use guns without any oversight whatsoever is a work of an activist judge, nothing more. So yes, if you want to play with guns - go to military.
What part of "well regulated militia" do you find confusing?
First, this is THz radiation - almost infrared. At high field values (0.3W/cm^2!) with prolonged exposure times. There are many articles that describe effects at lower levels, but so far they all have problems with quality and/or reproducibility.
What next? "Exposure to intense infrared radiation causes changes in cell structure?"
The next news: "Hawaiian natives block the James Webb telescope because it desecrates the heavens".
Do you have a citation on this? I'm guessing that you don't. They do have to plan on losing any given planet, but given it's distributed nature and the way solar panels work, in order for an area you'd need such weird weather that it would be highly predictable. Yes, it costs a little money, but surprising little.
What? Do you even understand what you're talking about? Utilities generally do not operate in geographically large areas, a typical utility serves a part of a single state. And getting all of the generation knocked out by clouds happens pretty much always.
So yes, utilities have to plan for the worst. They have to either have own peak generation capability (like gas turbines) or buy electricity from neighbor grids. And on-demand guaranteed power is the most expensive kind.
Emergency shutoff switches are required for line worker protection, so they can ensure that the lines are dead before working on them.
Not only. A short circuit with backfeed power is a really fun stuff.
All of the common inverters will automatically avoid backfeeding power to the grid when grid power itself is absent. Many electric companies also require a manual switch, which isn't that hard to install.
A lot of these switches just sense the grid power. Guess what happens if your neighbors also have solar? You can get your own floating mini-grid. It won't float for long, but during that time it can ruin all kinds of power electronics.
So yes, solar power is hard if you want to feed it back to utilities. Right now it's usually so expensive that it makes no sense to invest in it.
No, it doesn't lower the total power that needs to be generated. As a utility, you have to plan to be able to generate 100% of the peak capacity without solar input. This requires expensive peaking production contracts.
Then there's a question of reliability - grids are not really designed to feed power between branches. Grid-connected generators (including solar panels) also often require installation of emergency shutoff switches and upgrades to local transformers.
GMOs are actually evaluated for safety with animal and human studies. Yet any Joe Shmuck can go and create a genuinely toxic potato cultivar using purely classic selective breeding and then sell it as "100% organic.
And that actually HAS HAPPENED in the past: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/... !
And mustard is an insecticide. See the "-cide" suffix? Why are you eating toxic stuff??!?
Monsanto patents on RoundUp resistance have expired. There are now several over competing companies providing these seeds.
The issue has never been about GMO itself, its been about how GMO is used.
Oh no, it's always been about GMOs themselves. Greeny idiots don't care about specific GMO use, it's like witchcraft for them. So now we have classic witch hunts ("GMO labeling").
So did Russia. Perhaps the key to good nuclear energy is to be conquered by Russia?
Well, Germany _is_ dumb. Here's the actual energy mix: https://www.cleanenergywire.or... And I'll just leave this: http://www.theenergycollective...
There's already a $0.50 coin, I have a couple of them. I once got them as a change and I'm keeping them as a souvenir.
In the known reserves. And the current rate of use can easily be lowered 2-3x by simple reprocessing or reactors that allow deeper burning of U-235. There's no need for breeders or extensive reprocessing.
It's actually the reason the world is so anemic on thorium and breeder reactors - the industry knows that in the near future (next 50 years) there's going to be no problem with uranium supply. And if the difficulties become apparent then fairly simple fixes can extend the supply. So why bother?
That's _exactly_ how the current nuclear reactors work in the US! A part of the income of all nuclear reactors is dedicated to funding the long-term storage. And all of our current reactors have plans on file to deal with decommissioning which must also be fully funded when the reactor starts to operate.
We will not run out of uranium any time soon, even with the current uber-wasteful use.
Replacement of the world's energy use will require us to build a square with a side of about 1000 kilometers, covered with solar panels.
Neither is CO2 emission increasing
They do. Just lookie here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
The 2020 goal of 20% less emissions is already unrealistic. I've heard that for the last year there's going to be a mild decrease in CO2 production because of the unusually warm winter, but that's it. Nothing fundamental has changed in Germany's energy outlook - nuclear is still being replaced by coal.
There hasn't ever been - I should have been clearer. During 2005-2010 years you could have feasibly proposed a theory that the GW is on hiatus. But we've had more than enough data to disprove it with a good statistical confidence since at least 2013.
Statistically significant reversal of the warming trend.
Satellite data put it at least in the top 3 years. Oh, and there's no "hiatus" any more.
Is it news? Chinese tech followed this general pattern:
1) Knock-off 1.
2) Knock-off 2.
3) Own invention.
It's especially visible in such areas as aerospace or high-speed trains. Now most of the tech has moved well into stage 3. Some products are even becoming iconic - DJI Phantom is now seen as a stereotypical quadcopter, for example.