"I'm going to rape your wife in the ass" my intention isn't to threaten your wife with violence and sexual assault, so the cops should chastise you for making false police reports.
Of course that's ludicrous.
Yes, that is ludicrous. Your words and your clarification are directly opposite. My words and my clarification had no such change of meaning.
What's even more ludicrous is when you clarify "unsafe" as meaning "too drunk", and then claim that's not what you meant.
I clarified that when I said "too drunk or tired" that I (personally) would never use the drunk feature. I don't care if you think it's a bad idea. There's a lot of money out there spent on anti-drinking things, so that's within its technical capabilities, even if you think the social use would be minimal.
But in context you did deliberately specify that the utility was to include people who are operating a vehicle when "too drunk", perhaps to realize that they're "too drunk". The modifier "too" indicates that if they were less drunk--still drunk, but not so much--then they could safely drive while somewhat drunk.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. Are you arguing that measuring eye movement and lid opening can have no chance of gaging impairment? That was my claim. Not that someone drunk enough to fail would care before driving, but that it would be detectable.
By your own rules set forth, you have specified that there should be tools to help people know when it's okay to drive drunk, and that this is dependent on precisely how drunk they are.
No. I am just repeating the law. The law "allows" driving after some consumption, and disallows it after some metric. If you don't like that go argue with a legislator, I didn't write the law. Better ability to gauge compliance with the law is a good thing, right?
The Forbes article indicates he joined a generic anti-fracking suit after the earlier anti-tower one failed. The only reason we "know" it's only about the water tower is that the CEO says so. Do you trust a CEO that much?
He joined the anti-fracking suit that uses environmental reasons to oppose fracking. That he says he loves fracking, but not water towers has no impact on his actions. His actions are anti-fracking.
Because the CEO joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, not an anti-tower one (though he may have been party to the failed anti-tower suit). The one he's a part of now is anti-fracking. So the CEO is expending effort to oppose fracking for environmental reasons. Whether you presume that's because he doesn't like the tower is a matter of your opinion, not fact.
Nope, in TFA they mentioned he joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, after the anti-tower lawsuit lost. He's no longer opposing the tower, but opposing the fracking.
Whether he's doing so solely because he doesn't like water towers is a question for mind readers.
The CEO joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, not an anti-tower suit (though he may have been party to the one that ended). Maybe he's anti-fracking so they won't build the water tower, but maybe he's just anti-fracking when it's near him because he's seen all the studies and finds it unsafe. We can't know without mind reading capabilities. That he asserts one thing in public is evidence he believes the opposite. Or at least, that's what I'm told to think about politicians and CEOs.
The proof is that he joined a suit against the fracking. That is all that is needed for proof that he opposes fracking. The reasons are irrelevant. When others objected for similar reasons, similar complaints were lodged against the complainers.
He loves fracking, just NIMBY. But he's the only person allowed to use the NIMBY excuse? Is that your argument?
Or, it's that the 1% is almost entirely old white males of a Christian background (yes, I know about the Jew conspiracy theorists), so that 1% will make barriers that favor their kind, so that any turnover for the 1% will continue to be of the "right" kind. We aren't that far removed from a strict class society, and those ideals still persist, even if more subtly.
The implication is that if the genetic marker was flipped, he wouldn't have had sufficiently similar circumstances to have been so rich and hypocritical.
Same with corporations. They were invented to allow greater ease of capital to form larger enterprises. Now, they are tools for amoral acts. The original goal was not bad, but the current implementation is so bad that we'd be better without them than with.
So, when someone clarifies a statement, if you can edit any previous subset of their words to indicate anything other than their clarification, then the speaker is wrong about what their intention was? You may be a language parsing savant, but you don't understand language.
The cost to get that many panels into orbit will be higher. The panels must be aligned. That'll take fuel, so they'll have a "limited" life. The panels will likely be in an orbit that will be eclipsed by the Earth anyway, negating all the "but they'll be on the dark side of the moon" comments. An array that large will not only be visible from Earth, but could get complaints about shadowing the Earth. There are piles of problems that are fixed by using a remote location for the panel placement. The only time the panels shadow the Earth is in an eclipse that would have happened regardless of the presence of the panels.
The "trick" to the moon install that makes it better is that using moon materials (and automated manufacture), it takes much less cost to get 11,000 km^2 of panels on the moon than 3500 km^2 in earth orbit, and the moon panels would be permanent, not have a limited life before they are permanently out of alignment from fuel exhaustion, or orbits degrade. And how do you get the power from the satellites to the earth? are all the panels linked, like the moon plan? OR will you have 35000 separate beams sending down the power? That seems to have a much greater risk of error and greater inefficiencies.
It doesn't matter how ling the days are. 1/2 the surface is in light and half dark at all times. I think the big sell is that you don't need to get that much material into space. A few trips (few still being hundreds, maybe), and it becomes self-sufficient, mining and forming on the moon.
Construction of the ISS required over 40 assembly launches. [seds.org]. And those launches were all to LEO which allows much bigger payloads than launching to the moon.
I heard that the difference in orbits isn't that much. Lower orbits need more speed. Higher orbits need less speed, so a low retrograde orbit will take more fuel than a much higher normal orbit.
If you had automated machinery capable of building all those panels, why wouldn't you be able to build mining equipment with it? Not starting with a single microscopic nanomachine, though I'm sure that's an aspirational goal.
When you plan on it, it's not "eclipsed" it's just night. That's the point. The array is always 1/2 visible, and *never* eclipsed by the moon, that's how it works.
No atmosphere takes care of most of the earthband problems. A continuous band around the equator takes care of all the "new problems" I've seen mentioned so far.
That's easy, you just need to accelerate at about 0.25 m/s^2 for as long as you want to hold the orbit (presuming a height about the same as the other GEO satellites). Though, the material cloud between you and the pole from your acceleration source would likely reduce the effectiveness of why you put it up there.
The amount of time you spend eclipsed by the sun is related to the distance from the earth. On the surface, you are "eclipsed" ~50% of the time. At the farthest earth orbit, you'd be eclipsed the least. So the surface of the moon will spend less time in eclipse than any orbit previously discussed for any reasonable satellite location, Lagrange points excepted.
A lunar eclipse is a short event about twice a year (and no, they are not all total eclipses, and the fact you assert they are indicates you are arguing, rather than thinking).
The plan the company has, not the incorrect statements put in the article, is that the materials to make the panels will be taken from the moon, and not need to be lifted into orbit or to the moon. So it makes moon panels much cheaper than lifting that many panels to orbit.
Why are you advocating a plan with the greatest amount of eclipse and costs the most? That makes no sense at all.
The problem is oil can *never* run out. There will always be at least one hidden drop left. The price may increase exponentially as reserves run dry, but "run out" is not an accurate statement of how it would go. The impact won't be equitable, but it wouldn't immediately put us in the post-apocalyptic scenario described. The thing not mentioned in there as an immediate thing that can be done to lessen the impact is "buy as many solar panels as you can afford (and fit on your roof), and install them feeding the grid." When the collapse comes, if 10% of people have done that, there'll be enough power for light industry to continue for a few hours every day. If 100% of people have done that, then there'll be almost no impact on quality of life, presuming we also build some storage for night, but the storage won't be built until there's enough surplus to store.
With a little night storage, there's enough roof space to have 100% solar meet 100% of our power needs. Though high-use areas like the US would need to buy from lower need areas, like Mexico for zero life change.
Slashdot Mirror
Then Forbes lied. They indicate that he joined a more general suit against the frackers once the suit against the water tower failed.
"I'm going to rape your wife in the ass" my intention isn't to threaten your wife with violence and sexual assault, so the cops should chastise you for making false police reports. Of course that's ludicrous.
Yes, that is ludicrous. Your words and your clarification are directly opposite. My words and my clarification had no such change of meaning.
What's even more ludicrous is when you clarify "unsafe" as meaning "too drunk", and then claim that's not what you meant.
I clarified that when I said "too drunk or tired" that I (personally) would never use the drunk feature. I don't care if you think it's a bad idea. There's a lot of money out there spent on anti-drinking things, so that's within its technical capabilities, even if you think the social use would be minimal.
But in context you did deliberately specify that the utility was to include people who are operating a vehicle when "too drunk", perhaps to realize that they're "too drunk". The modifier "too" indicates that if they were less drunk--still drunk, but not so much--then they could safely drive while somewhat drunk.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. Are you arguing that measuring eye movement and lid opening can have no chance of gaging impairment? That was my claim. Not that someone drunk enough to fail would care before driving, but that it would be detectable.
By your own rules set forth, you have specified that there should be tools to help people know when it's okay to drive drunk, and that this is dependent on precisely how drunk they are.
No. I am just repeating the law. The law "allows" driving after some consumption, and disallows it after some metric. If you don't like that go argue with a legislator, I didn't write the law. Better ability to gauge compliance with the law is a good thing, right?
The Forbes article indicates he joined a generic anti-fracking suit after the earlier anti-tower one failed. The only reason we "know" it's only about the water tower is that the CEO says so. Do you trust a CEO that much?
He joined the anti-fracking suit that uses environmental reasons to oppose fracking. That he says he loves fracking, but not water towers has no impact on his actions. His actions are anti-fracking.
Because the CEO joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, not an anti-tower one (though he may have been party to the failed anti-tower suit). The one he's a part of now is anti-fracking. So the CEO is expending effort to oppose fracking for environmental reasons. Whether you presume that's because he doesn't like the tower is a matter of your opinion, not fact.
Nope, in TFA they mentioned he joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, after the anti-tower lawsuit lost. He's no longer opposing the tower, but opposing the fracking.
Whether he's doing so solely because he doesn't like water towers is a question for mind readers.
The CEO joined an anti-fracking lawsuit, not an anti-tower suit (though he may have been party to the one that ended). Maybe he's anti-fracking so they won't build the water tower, but maybe he's just anti-fracking when it's near him because he's seen all the studies and finds it unsafe. We can't know without mind reading capabilities. That he asserts one thing in public is evidence he believes the opposite. Or at least, that's what I'm told to think about politicians and CEOs.
The proof is that he joined a suit against the fracking. That is all that is needed for proof that he opposes fracking. The reasons are irrelevant. When others objected for similar reasons, similar complaints were lodged against the complainers.
He loves fracking, just NIMBY. But he's the only person allowed to use the NIMBY excuse? Is that your argument?
When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Yes, the 1% makes up 65% of the population.
Or, it's that the 1% is almost entirely old white males of a Christian background (yes, I know about the Jew conspiracy theorists), so that 1% will make barriers that favor their kind, so that any turnover for the 1% will continue to be of the "right" kind. We aren't that far removed from a strict class society, and those ideals still persist, even if more subtly.
The implication is that if the genetic marker was flipped, he wouldn't have had sufficiently similar circumstances to have been so rich and hypocritical.
Same with corporations. They were invented to allow greater ease of capital to form larger enterprises. Now, they are tools for amoral acts. The original goal was not bad, but the current implementation is so bad that we'd be better without them than with.
So, when someone clarifies a statement, if you can edit any previous subset of their words to indicate anything other than their clarification, then the speaker is wrong about what their intention was? You may be a language parsing savant, but you don't understand language.
Less cost and effort than launching 30% of the number of panels into Earth orbit.
The cost to get that many panels into orbit will be higher. The panels must be aligned. That'll take fuel, so they'll have a "limited" life. The panels will likely be in an orbit that will be eclipsed by the Earth anyway, negating all the "but they'll be on the dark side of the moon" comments. An array that large will not only be visible from Earth, but could get complaints about shadowing the Earth. There are piles of problems that are fixed by using a remote location for the panel placement. The only time the panels shadow the Earth is in an eclipse that would have happened regardless of the presence of the panels.
The "trick" to the moon install that makes it better is that using moon materials (and automated manufacture), it takes much less cost to get 11,000 km^2 of panels on the moon than 3500 km^2 in earth orbit, and the moon panels would be permanent, not have a limited life before they are permanently out of alignment from fuel exhaustion, or orbits degrade. And how do you get the power from the satellites to the earth? are all the panels linked, like the moon plan? OR will you have 35000 separate beams sending down the power? That seems to have a much greater risk of error and greater inefficiencies.
It doesn't matter how ling the days are. 1/2 the surface is in light and half dark at all times. I think the big sell is that you don't need to get that much material into space. A few trips (few still being hundreds, maybe), and it becomes self-sufficient, mining and forming on the moon.
That's why they do a ring around the whole thing.
Construction of the ISS required over 40 assembly launches. [seds.org]. And those launches were all to LEO which allows much bigger payloads than launching to the moon.
I heard that the difference in orbits isn't that much. Lower orbits need more speed. Higher orbits need less speed, so a low retrograde orbit will take more fuel than a much higher normal orbit.
If you had automated machinery capable of building all those panels, why wouldn't you be able to build mining equipment with it? Not starting with a single microscopic nanomachine, though I'm sure that's an aspirational goal.
So 1=often?
When you plan on it, it's not "eclipsed" it's just night. That's the point. The array is always 1/2 visible, and *never* eclipsed by the moon, that's how it works.
No atmosphere takes care of most of the earthband problems. A continuous band around the equator takes care of all the "new problems" I've seen mentioned so far.
That's easy, you just need to accelerate at about 0.25 m/s^2 for as long as you want to hold the orbit (presuming a height about the same as the other GEO satellites). Though, the material cloud between you and the pole from your acceleration source would likely reduce the effectiveness of why you put it up there.
The amount of time you spend eclipsed by the sun is related to the distance from the earth. On the surface, you are "eclipsed" ~50% of the time. At the farthest earth orbit, you'd be eclipsed the least. So the surface of the moon will spend less time in eclipse than any orbit previously discussed for any reasonable satellite location, Lagrange points excepted.
A lunar eclipse is a short event about twice a year (and no, they are not all total eclipses, and the fact you assert they are indicates you are arguing, rather than thinking).
The plan the company has, not the incorrect statements put in the article, is that the materials to make the panels will be taken from the moon, and not need to be lifted into orbit or to the moon. So it makes moon panels much cheaper than lifting that many panels to orbit.
Why are you advocating a plan with the greatest amount of eclipse and costs the most? That makes no sense at all.
The problem is oil can *never* run out. There will always be at least one hidden drop left. The price may increase exponentially as reserves run dry, but "run out" is not an accurate statement of how it would go. The impact won't be equitable, but it wouldn't immediately put us in the post-apocalyptic scenario described. The thing not mentioned in there as an immediate thing that can be done to lessen the impact is "buy as many solar panels as you can afford (and fit on your roof), and install them feeding the grid." When the collapse comes, if 10% of people have done that, there'll be enough power for light industry to continue for a few hours every day. If 100% of people have done that, then there'll be almost no impact on quality of life, presuming we also build some storage for night, but the storage won't be built until there's enough surplus to store.
With a little night storage, there's enough roof space to have 100% solar meet 100% of our power needs. Though high-use areas like the US would need to buy from lower need areas, like Mexico for zero life change.