Which is why states need to prosecute the cops and district attorneys who are lieing and let them make the claims in court that the DOJ or Marshals are telling them to do it.
Interestingly, a federal prosecutor can take a case to a grand jury independent of DOJ permission and are protected from backlash by the civil service laws and civil employees union. Once it is at a grand jury, it is out of the DOJ's control. This is how prosecutors went after medical pot in California after Obama direct them to leave it alone. This is also how some feds prosecuted deportation cases after being told to ignore them.
It still could be a crime for the cops and prosecutors under state laws.
Not that it would matter much though. Most cops and law enforcement enjoy wildly lower criminal penalties for the same violations of law that would land us in some serious trouble. They call it color of law sometimes. FWIW, here is the federal law on color of law.. I looked for my state and it simply adds it to laws already in place.
Recycling is not socialism. Recycling is profit when it makes economical sense to do so. You will find this happens with most metals and a few other products like building materials and certain types of glass. Recycling is an economic drain increasing costs to producers and thereby consumers when it doesn't make economic sense to do so. You will find this with certain paper and most plastic and quite a bit of types of glass.
The reason is because it is either more expensive or cheaper to create new materials. when it is more expensive, recycling makes a lot of sense. When it is cheaper, it is just a burden.
Now this can get muddy when you talk about things like electronics. There is money in the metals in most of them but the environmental aspects of extracting them artificially increase the costs. In most of Europe, they have a special tax and a requirement for recycling these devices which covers most of it. In the US, not so much that I know of. In other countries, typically third world countries with lax environmental regulation or lax enforcement, extracting some of these metals are profitable and thereby recycling is also profitable.
Now, threatening you with jail time or heavy fines if you throw a soda can into the trash or toss a banana peal into the recycling bin is not socialism, it's more akin to fascism or the brand of totalitarian communism that communism (which seems great on paper but never works out in practice) always de-evolves into when they try it.
assuming the water droplet is even the correct size to project a clean focused on the surface of the leaf, given distance.
That's where I think the major problem would be. As the water heats, changes within it's shape would/should occur. I don't think it could stay focused long enough to harm the plants. I know water on a windshield usually diffracts and reflects light making somewhat less pass through.
It's not much but not all water droplets magnify light due to surface tension and positioning of the droplets on less than smooth surfaces. So if it does happen to be one that would magnify light, the slight expansion would change the surface tension dynamics to some degree and thereby changing the shape of the droplet.
This isn't about water growing in volume to some major size, it's about changing it's shape because it only acts like a concentrated magnifying glass when it has certain shapes present.
Did the oceans change how much heat it absorbs? If not, the recorded temps would be the same so if it stopped showing an increase, the oceans have the same effects as when it did show an increase. Or in other words, 100 degrees average temp would be 100 degree average temp in 1920, 1469, 2000, and 2010 or even 2014. So what makes them so important now that they can disprove a lul in the temps increasing?
My, how the ignorant pretend to be smart. The amount of heat the oceans absorb is already included in the surface air recording as it is all part of the process. You say 80%, fine, so 100 degrees air temp already includes 80 degrees of energy going into the oceans. If there is no warming, in air temp, there is no warming in the oceans right? If there is a warming in the oceans, there will be a warming in the air temp. Like you said, they are interconnected..
So what is so magical about oceans that they are so important now. Of course they changed the models because as a lot of people have been complaining about, they weren't accurate. That's models, not observations. But when someone says the warming stopped for the last couple decades and someone replies with only if you don't count the oceans- what is so fucking magical now outside of explaining the lul in warming. In real world measurements, how can the warming of the oceans (which we do not have accurate records of) disprove the lack of warming in the atmosphere.
I'm curious how this might happen. As the sunlight passed through the water droplet, wouldn't the water heat up, expand and change as a result losing the magnifying effect? Even if the light passing through didn't do it, sitting right next to the supposed burning surface would. Anyways, the heat can only get so hot and the water will evaporate.
It just doesn't seem possible to me. Now, I know they say watering your lawn or garden in the mid day heat is stressful on the plants, but I was under the impression that was because they went from 70-90 degrees F or hotter to 50 degrees F when the water which usually comes from under ground is sprayed on them.
Maybe he better pack a purple dildo, a six pack of Vaseline and a spatula in their too. When the cops stop him, he can just say he's going to a party and hope they don't ask what the spatula is for.
Without that, I'm thinking he would be labeled a terrorist and if anything innocent could get you a one way ticket to Club Gitmo, noise makers,smoke bombs, a strobe machine and a backpack full of jamming equipment would.
The Democratic party is thoroughly capitalist, with only a relatively minor disagreement with the Republican party as to what degree of exploitation of the proles by their feudal lords is best.
You better tell that to their leadership. Well, that or actually listen to them and change your comment to match reality. Unless you consider the elimination of private profit thoroughly capitalist. That is a stated goal of the socialist party that most of the democratic party including Pelosi and I think Reid are members of (Reid, I'm not so sure about).
I was talking with some friends and they didn't believe me when I told them what you said. Do you have any sources for Saddam or Gaddafi or even Iran?
You see, they seem to think Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait and as part of that, had to verify the destruction of WMDs and end all programs involving them. When Saddam made it appear that wasn't happening, we had 9/11 and Bush said we cannot risk him giving them to terrorists to be used on the US and its allies. OF course Gaddafi- we more or less wanted to help the Muslim brotherhood which was behind the major portions of the uprising when we got involved. As for Iran, there has been sanctions on them since operation Ajax blew up spectacularly in our faces. More recently, it has been because of how close they seem to be in creating Nuclear bombs.
But hey, thats just what my seemingly sane friends say. I'm sure you have creditable sources for your claims.
If the US should ever "Collapse" who would pay the soldiers? They going to go to work for free? You going to enlist for free? No one is "pushing a country with bla bla bla, look at our fantastic military" you are doing it on your own.
I think that is the problem he was speaking of. Who can stop the US military from taking what it wants and paying the soldiers itself if the US collapses?
So which do you think is more likely to happen, the US military disbands and it's soldiers leave into a country that just failed and has no real support structure or opportunity for the soldier to gain employment or even food and clothing, or the military stays in place, starts taking what it wants from other countries, takes care of it's soldiers that way, and says screw the civilian government that just collapsed the country?
With the massive annual deficits clearly you cant afford the military you have, and shockingly you probably don't need most of it either. Why do you think you need to "project force over long distances"? Ever think to worry about your own backyard?
Does a crook care that you or I am in debt? Does he even care that he is in debt? How about when he is taking from you and I to support his debt?
This is the problem exactly. If the country collapsed, what is stopping the military from just taking what it wants from any other country out there? Surely not other military.
Please don't forget to write back about how I am "jealous" that my tax dollars don't go to fund excessive military expenditures and debt, leaving a legacy 5 generations down wont be able to pay back.
How about I write about how you are ignorant for letting your attempts to gloat hold any resemblance of intelligence back from being displayed. Seriously, is it that hard of a concept, world's largest and most powerful military all the sudden finds its civilian command structure collapsed and they just disband instead of taking the lead themselves? There were all sorts of contingency plans during the cold war for the military to operate independently of the US should a nuke take the government out of something. I'm not sure why they wouldn't still be around.
The Titanic actually is still being made and used.
the Titanic wasn't just a ship that hit an Iceberg, it was a ship lauded as unsinkable because of it's bulk head design and ability to contain leaks to specific damaged compartments thereby maintaining the integrity of it's buoyancy. It's down fall was that building material technology used has not advanced technically to the points of strength and whatever needed for it to be accurate.
We still build ships like that today. There has been reports of some ships missing their entire nose portion and making it to port. I cannot find pictures for it because I guess I don't know the right key words, but I saw them in the past.
The thing about opinions is that they are what you think about something real. When oil was climbing through the roof under Bush to the point of an eventual economic collapse, banks weren't needed. Plenty of investment bankers and venture capitol was available. I agree, that dropped when the economy collapsed and oil magically dropped over night too. This took a lot of the investment money away but it wasn't because no one could make a sound business plan, it was because no business plan could show a profit in the US. That is largely why no banks would loan money- because they couldn't get a return on it or the loan returned.
Now, a few years before the collapse, banks would have been inclined to write the loans and then immediately package it into a default swap and let someone else worry about it. But after the collapse, that was one of the largest claimed reasons for the economic collapse so it wasn't going to happen while congress was bitching.
There have been problems in the past with government agencies pricing things low and employees snatching it up before the public was able to. So laws require most thing being sold to other than another government agency to be sold at public auction.
Lol.. thats fine and all. But assuming that is ttue, the oceac temps have historically been recorded as part of the warming. However, all the sudden when warming appears to have stopped or paused for a dihnificant amount of time, ocean temps are ttotted out as if there are magical qualities no one ever knew and it lays waste to the observations of lack of warming.
Lol.. i know they have been part of the models. That is beside the point. They are part of the so called warming but when the warming seems to have stoped for a decade or two, all the sudden it is being trotted out separately as if it refutes yhat lack of warming.
So i reitrrate, what all the sudden makes the oceans so magical other than a lack of warming?
What magically caused the oceans to all the sudden be so important other than excusing a gap in warming?
I mean why were they ignored previosly and cannot be ignored now? Its a bit like comparing apples to cars when the goal posts are changed to keep this warming notion alive.
You could argue that. You could also argue global warming is a conspiracy. You could argue Obama was abducted in 2010 and the person we think is obama is actually an alien. You could even find people who would believe you too. But you would be wrong.
US solar is about to its peak economically because costs are different in China. The quality is different and the availability of resources are different. It really is that simple.
That's sort of stupid. Slaves were exploited because they were feclared below human and only white slaves could regain it. This tiered set od classes came about after a bunch of slaves attemped to escape in some virginia town and headed to florida.
Slaves were exploited not because they had no money but because they were property
I'm not sure it is a loophole. Sigint has been participating in schemes like this since the cold war. I think project echelon and project magic lantern grew out of one of these efforts.
When you hear about inteligence communities cooperating and that's how we found a bad guy or foiled some sinister plot, it was likely something like this. The real difference is the scope and the ability to process the communications.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why states need to prosecute the cops and district attorneys who are lieing and let them make the claims in court that the DOJ or Marshals are telling them to do it.
Interestingly, a federal prosecutor can take a case to a grand jury independent of DOJ permission and are protected from backlash by the civil service laws and civil employees union. Once it is at a grand jury, it is out of the DOJ's control. This is how prosecutors went after medical pot in California after Obama direct them to leave it alone. This is also how some feds prosecuted deportation cases after being told to ignore them.
It still could be a crime for the cops and prosecutors under state laws.
Not that it would matter much though. Most cops and law enforcement enjoy wildly lower criminal penalties for the same violations of law that would land us in some serious trouble. They call it color of law sometimes. FWIW, here is the federal law on color of law.. I looked for my state and it simply adds it to laws already in place.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
It will be a lot more then that if ever.
Worse case scenario, there is a small revolution, politicians will wake up and the people who jump into power will probably scare you.
Recycling is not socialism. Recycling is profit when it makes economical sense to do so. You will find this happens with most metals and a few other products like building materials and certain types of glass. Recycling is an economic drain increasing costs to producers and thereby consumers when it doesn't make economic sense to do so. You will find this with certain paper and most plastic and quite a bit of types of glass.
The reason is because it is either more expensive or cheaper to create new materials. when it is more expensive, recycling makes a lot of sense. When it is cheaper, it is just a burden.
Now this can get muddy when you talk about things like electronics. There is money in the metals in most of them but the environmental aspects of extracting them artificially increase the costs. In most of Europe, they have a special tax and a requirement for recycling these devices which covers most of it. In the US, not so much that I know of. In other countries, typically third world countries with lax environmental regulation or lax enforcement, extracting some of these metals are profitable and thereby recycling is also profitable.
Now, threatening you with jail time or heavy fines if you throw a soda can into the trash or toss a banana peal into the recycling bin is not socialism, it's more akin to fascism or the brand of totalitarian communism that communism (which seems great on paper but never works out in practice) always de-evolves into when they try it.
Even in the US a converter box or cable box takes care of the digital problem.
That's where I think the major problem would be. As the water heats, changes within it's shape would/should occur. I don't think it could stay focused long enough to harm the plants. I know water on a windshield usually diffracts and reflects light making somewhat less pass through.
It's not much but not all water droplets magnify light due to surface tension and positioning of the droplets on less than smooth surfaces. So if it does happen to be one that would magnify light, the slight expansion would change the surface tension dynamics to some degree and thereby changing the shape of the droplet.
This isn't about water growing in volume to some major size, it's about changing it's shape because it only acts like a concentrated magnifying glass when it has certain shapes present.
Here is a little more about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... surface tension using water as an example.
Did the oceans change how much heat it absorbs? If not, the recorded temps would be the same so if it stopped showing an increase, the oceans have the same effects as when it did show an increase. Or in other words, 100 degrees average temp would be 100 degree average temp in 1920, 1469, 2000, and 2010 or even 2014. So what makes them so important now that they can disprove a lul in the temps increasing?
My, how the ignorant pretend to be smart. The amount of heat the oceans absorb is already included in the surface air recording as it is all part of the process. You say 80%, fine, so 100 degrees air temp already includes 80 degrees of energy going into the oceans. If there is no warming, in air temp, there is no warming in the oceans right? If there is a warming in the oceans, there will be a warming in the air temp. Like you said, they are interconnected..
So what is so magical about oceans that they are so important now. Of course they changed the models because as a lot of people have been complaining about, they weren't accurate. That's models, not observations. But when someone says the warming stopped for the last couple decades and someone replies with only if you don't count the oceans- what is so fucking magical now outside of explaining the lul in warming. In real world measurements, how can the warming of the oceans (which we do not have accurate records of) disprove the lack of warming in the atmosphere.
I'm curious how this might happen. As the sunlight passed through the water droplet, wouldn't the water heat up, expand and change as a result losing the magnifying effect? Even if the light passing through didn't do it, sitting right next to the supposed burning surface would. Anyways, the heat can only get so hot and the water will evaporate.
It just doesn't seem possible to me. Now, I know they say watering your lawn or garden in the mid day heat is stressful on the plants, but I was under the impression that was because they went from 70-90 degrees F or hotter to 50 degrees F when the water which usually comes from under ground is sprayed on them.
Maybe he better pack a purple dildo, a six pack of Vaseline and a spatula in their too. When the cops stop him, he can just say he's going to a party and hope they don't ask what the spatula is for.
Without that, I'm thinking he would be labeled a terrorist and if anything innocent could get you a one way ticket to Club Gitmo, noise makers,smoke bombs, a strobe machine and a backpack full of jamming equipment would.
You better tell that to their leadership. Well, that or actually listen to them and change your comment to match reality. Unless you consider the elimination of private profit thoroughly capitalist. That is a stated goal of the socialist party that most of the democratic party including Pelosi and I think Reid are members of (Reid, I'm not so sure about).
I was talking with some friends and they didn't believe me when I told them what you said. Do you have any sources for Saddam or Gaddafi or even Iran?
You see, they seem to think Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait and as part of that, had to verify the destruction of WMDs and end all programs involving them. When Saddam made it appear that wasn't happening, we had 9/11 and Bush said we cannot risk him giving them to terrorists to be used on the US and its allies. OF course Gaddafi- we more or less wanted to help the Muslim brotherhood which was behind the major portions of the uprising when we got involved. As for Iran, there has been sanctions on them since operation Ajax blew up spectacularly in our faces. More recently, it has been because of how close they seem to be in creating Nuclear bombs.
But hey, thats just what my seemingly sane friends say. I'm sure you have creditable sources for your claims.
I think that is the problem he was speaking of. Who can stop the US military from taking what it wants and paying the soldiers itself if the US collapses?
So which do you think is more likely to happen, the US military disbands and it's soldiers leave into a country that just failed and has no real support structure or opportunity for the soldier to gain employment or even food and clothing, or the military stays in place, starts taking what it wants from other countries, takes care of it's soldiers that way, and says screw the civilian government that just collapsed the country?
Does a crook care that you or I am in debt? Does he even care that he is in debt? How about when he is taking from you and I to support his debt?
This is the problem exactly. If the country collapsed, what is stopping the military from just taking what it wants from any other country out there? Surely not other military.
How about I write about how you are ignorant for letting your attempts to gloat hold any resemblance of intelligence back from being displayed. Seriously, is it that hard of a concept, world's largest and most powerful military all the sudden finds its civilian command structure collapsed and they just disband instead of taking the lead themselves? There were all sorts of contingency plans during the cold war for the military to operate independently of the US should a nuke take the government out of something. I'm not sure why they wouldn't still be around.
The Titanic actually is still being made and used.
the Titanic wasn't just a ship that hit an Iceberg, it was a ship lauded as unsinkable because of it's bulk head design and ability to contain leaks to specific damaged compartments thereby maintaining the integrity of it's buoyancy. It's down fall was that building material technology used has not advanced technically to the points of strength and whatever needed for it to be accurate.
We still build ships like that today. There has been reports of some ships missing their entire nose portion and making it to port. I cannot find pictures for it because I guess I don't know the right key words, but I saw them in the past.
The thing about opinions is that they are what you think about something real. When oil was climbing through the roof under Bush to the point of an eventual economic collapse, banks weren't needed. Plenty of investment bankers and venture capitol was available. I agree, that dropped when the economy collapsed and oil magically dropped over night too. This took a lot of the investment money away but it wasn't because no one could make a sound business plan, it was because no business plan could show a profit in the US. That is largely why no banks would loan money- because they couldn't get a return on it or the loan returned.
Now, a few years before the collapse, banks would have been inclined to write the loans and then immediately package it into a default swap and let someone else worry about it. But after the collapse, that was one of the largest claimed reasons for the economic collapse so it wasn't going to happen while congress was bitching.
Law..
There have been problems in the past with government agencies pricing things low and employees snatching it up before the public was able to. So laws require most thing being sold to other than another government agency to be sold at public auction.
Lol.. thats fine and all. But assuming that is ttue, the oceac temps have historically been recorded as part of the warming. However, all the sudden when warming appears to have stopped or paused for a dihnificant amount of time, ocean temps are ttotted out as if there are magical qualities no one ever knew and it lays waste to the observations of lack of warming.
Lol.. i know they have been part of the models. That is beside the point. They are part of the so called warming but when the warming seems to have stoped for a decade or two, all the sudden it is being trotted out separately as if it refutes yhat lack of warming.
So i reitrrate, what all the sudden makes the oceans so magical other than a lack of warming?
What magically caused the oceans to all the sudden be so important other than excusing a gap in warming?
I mean why were they ignored previosly and cannot be ignored now? Its a bit like comparing apples to cars when the goal posts are changed to keep this warming notion alive.
You could argue that. You could also argue global warming is a conspiracy. You could argue Obama was abducted in 2010 and the person we think is obama is actually an alien. You could even find people who would believe you too. But you would be wrong.
US solar is about to its peak economically because costs are different in China. The quality is different and the availability of resources are different. It really is that simple.
Who is facing extinction?
That's sort of stupid. Slaves were exploited because they were feclared below human and only white slaves could regain it. This tiered set od classes came about after a bunch of slaves attemped to escape in some virginia town and headed to florida.
Slaves were exploited not because they had no money but because they were property
Look up mark levin's liberty amendments and see if any of those will work for you
I'm not sure it is a loophole. Sigint has been participating in schemes like this since the cold war. I think project echelon and project magic lantern grew out of one of these efforts.
When you hear about inteligence communities cooperating and that's how we found a bad guy or foiled some sinister plot, it was likely something like this. The real difference is the scope and the ability to process the communications.