While the democrats are certainly not blameless (especially Pelosi and Reed) you might notice that only one republican congress person (Johnson R-IL) and not a single republican senator voted against this bill.
Because the founding fathers were against autocracies does not make them anarchists.
The fact that the US constitution includes the post clause and the creation of the USPS by the founding fathers, indicates to me that they did not think all the nation's problems would be solved by the invisible hand of the free market.
No, there's no internet clause in the constitution, but even someone who quotes Friedman has to consider the internet to be an essential part of interstate commerce - which the federal government has the enumerated right to regulate.
Actually under a "free market" you'll most (or at least second most) often have zero wired services, since most of the country isn't profitable to wire.
The only way that would happen is to let anyone run lines wherever they want (across public and private property), or to remove comcast's permission to do the same. The first would cause unsafe urban environments, the second would make the internet impossible.
The internet is a privilege. But allowing comcast to run cables through my neighborhood is also a privilege, and if they wish to exercise that privilege they should be required to abide by some consumer protection guidelines.
On the other hand, I'd be much more comfortable if congress required these protections, and not the FCC.
IANAL, but is deterrence factored into civil law? I was under the impression that the only thing you can sue for is punitive and actual damages. I think civil court operates under the notion that you harmed me, so this amount of money will make me whole - I don't think it says anything about stopping someone else from harming me. Supposedly the punitive damages are to account for your bad action, not stopping someone else from doing the same.
There are situations in which a heat pump is better than a furnace, mostly when the outside temperature isn't too low. At that point the argument changes to economics, is the heat you'd get from natural gas better cheaper than the heat you get from a heat pump. In that case it depends largely on where you live.
I grew up in northern Ohio, so from my frame of reference heat pumps generally don't make a ton of sense unless you bury them deep - which comes at a significant up front cost. If you live in a milder climate heat pumps might be better than gas powered furnaces.
'fraid not. Under the best case scenario electric heat is supplied by a heat pump, which works under the same principles as an air conditioner or your refrigerator. You have significant losses from compression and expansion of the working fluid.
However damn near 100% of the natural gas you burn is converted to heat. Yes, some of that goes out the chimney, but it's still better than electric heat.
First, only the NE uses heating oil extensively. Granted there are a lot of people in the NE so getting them off of oil is probably a good idea. That said furnaces are more efficient for heat production than electricity ever is.
Basically the best way to get heat is cogeneration, which is heat that would otherwise be wasted from electricity production. That's great, if you live next to a power plant. The second best (from a thermodynamic perspective) is to burn something, preferably natural gas. Natural gas is more abundant than oil, and burns pretty cleanly. The third best is electric heat pumps, because you are burning something at the powerplant then converting that heat to electricity with less than 100% efficiency and then converting the electricity back to heat(again less than 100% efficiency). If what you want in the first place is heat you shouldn't waste your time putting a generator in the middle.
From an environmental standpoint this is true as well, at least until the bulk of our power generation comes from solar/wind/nuclear.
Gas prices are pretty much where the should be if your comfortable with the wealthy driving up the cost of oil because they know it's a relatively inelastic commodity and a safe place to stash their money while the rest of the market tanks.
Of course if you don't want $20-40/barrel of oil providing a return on investment to speculators, then the price of gas is too high.
right Even if we could harvest every drop of oil in US territory we still wouldn't have enough to be energy independent. This is not a problem we're going to drill ourselves out of, and the US simply doesn't have enough reserves to meet its own needs.
I'm sure you've heard by now that any drilling that started today wouldn't produce any oil for a decade or so, and that's providing that the resources necessary for building rigs are available (they're not) and that the oil companies actually would drill off shore if we let them (they won't), and that we have the refining capacity to deal with a larger supply (we don't). But none of that is a really good reason for not drilling. IF drilling would reduce our future dependence on foreign oil we should do it (provided we can drill responsibly). That, however, is not the case. The US is addicted to oil, providing another fix will not help us break the habit, indeed it will only cause our demand to increase further and our dependence on foreign oil to deepen.
The ONLY solution is to stop using oil. No one can lower your gas prices, democrat or republican, and if they tell you otherwise they're lying. The best solution is a long term energy plan that frees us from at the very least oil, but preferably all fossil fuels.
That would be a perpetual motion machine. It takes more energy to electrolyze the water than you get back burning the component gasses, so you need another power input somewhere - in which case your car isn't running on water, it's running on the other input.
Most of them use DI water or some other (relatively) non-conductive liquid. Makes it much safer for your computer in case of a leak. I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there built a rig with a chiller and a brine bath that cools below 0C, but it's probably not something commercially available.
Here's one that's downright malicious. I heard a story about a guy who was generally a dick ending up with a styrofoam cup of MEK on the hood of his corvette.
sounds like a custom patch to a custom piece of software to me. The kind of problem that doesn't care what OS you're running. I take the point about complete isolation - but I suspect that the patched computer was not conected to the internet either.
Go read the story. Then read the pdf linked to in the article. Then try to figure out how one relates to another. Then try to figure out where Pelosi comes in.
Someone got a letter that basically recomends removing the restriction that official buisness is only hosted on house.gov servers.
The/. summary and the story it links to are, as far as I can tell from the linked sources, completely fabricated.
You know, I don't think its even possible to make an electric car only as fast as a Honda or Toyota. Electric motors are torquey as hell, any all electric car that can do ~70mph can probably get there in less than 5 seconds. (Hybrids don't count because their electric motors can't get to 70 by themselves.)
Lead was added (as others have pointed out) to increase the octane of the gasoline. I'd speculate that the reason unleaded gas cost more was that the new additives required to keep the same octane rating cost more.
I don't care how much crime they sweep under the rug, I'm not arguing about US vs. UK crime rates. I'm interested in year to year trends. So unless the home office just started sweeping crime under the rug in 1997 the data is against you.
In fact the home office indicates that they started reporting more crime starting in 2002(my third blockquote), so actual crime is probably down more than 43%.
Slashdot Mirror
While the democrats are certainly not blameless (especially Pelosi and Reed) you might notice that only one republican congress person (Johnson R-IL) and not a single republican senator voted against this bill.
Not the right list. The one you want is here.
Because the founding fathers were against autocracies does not make them anarchists.
The fact that the US constitution includes the post clause and the creation of the USPS by the founding fathers, indicates to me that they did not think all the nation's problems would be solved by the invisible hand of the free market.
No, there's no internet clause in the constitution, but even someone who quotes Friedman has to consider the internet to be an essential part of interstate commerce - which the federal government has the enumerated right to regulate.
Actually under a "free market" you'll most (or at least second most) often have zero wired services, since most of the country isn't profitable to wire.
The only way that would happen is to let anyone run lines wherever they want (across public and private property), or to remove comcast's permission to do the same. The first would cause unsafe urban environments, the second would make the internet impossible.
The internet is a privilege. But allowing comcast to run cables through my neighborhood is also a privilege, and if they wish to exercise that privilege they should be required to abide by some consumer protection guidelines.
On the other hand, I'd be much more comfortable if congress required these protections, and not the FCC.
I'm reasonably certain the the right of first sale doesn't cover buying something once, making copies of it, and then distributing all the copies.
IANAL, but is deterrence factored into civil law? I was under the impression that the only thing you can sue for is punitive and actual damages. I think civil court operates under the notion that you harmed me, so this amount of money will make me whole - I don't think it says anything about stopping someone else from harming me. Supposedly the punitive damages are to account for your bad action, not stopping someone else from doing the same.
There are situations in which a heat pump is better than a furnace, mostly when the outside temperature isn't too low. At that point the argument changes to economics, is the heat you'd get from natural gas better cheaper than the heat you get from a heat pump. In that case it depends largely on where you live.
I grew up in northern Ohio, so from my frame of reference heat pumps generally don't make a ton of sense unless you bury them deep - which comes at a significant up front cost. If you live in a milder climate heat pumps might be better than gas powered furnaces.
'fraid not. Under the best case scenario electric heat is supplied by a heat pump, which works under the same principles as an air conditioner or your refrigerator. You have significant losses from compression and expansion of the working fluid.
However damn near 100% of the natural gas you burn is converted to heat. Yes, some of that goes out the chimney, but it's still better than electric heat.
Not necessarily a good idea.
First, only the NE uses heating oil extensively. Granted there are a lot of people in the NE so getting them off of oil is probably a good idea. That said furnaces are more efficient for heat production than electricity ever is.
Basically the best way to get heat is cogeneration, which is heat that would otherwise be wasted from electricity production. That's great, if you live next to a power plant. The second best (from a thermodynamic perspective) is to burn something, preferably natural gas. Natural gas is more abundant than oil, and burns pretty cleanly. The third best is electric heat pumps, because you are burning something at the powerplant then converting that heat to electricity with less than 100% efficiency and then converting the electricity back to heat(again less than 100% efficiency). If what you want in the first place is heat you shouldn't waste your time putting a generator in the middle.
From an environmental standpoint this is true as well, at least until the bulk of our power generation comes from solar/wind/nuclear.
Gas prices are pretty much where the should be if your comfortable with the wealthy driving up the cost of oil because they know it's a relatively inelastic commodity and a safe place to stash their money while the rest of the market tanks.
Of course if you don't want $20-40/barrel of oil providing a return on investment to speculators, then the price of gas is too high.
There's a 40 mile range on the plug in part. Then the "range extender" i.e. internal combustion engine kicks on and you have a range of >300 miles.
On 24 if you throw the spent fuel rod at someone, it's a dirty bomb.
right
Even if we could harvest every drop of oil in US territory we still wouldn't have enough to be energy independent. This is not a problem we're going to drill ourselves out of, and the US simply doesn't have enough reserves to meet its own needs.
I'm sure you've heard by now that any drilling that started today wouldn't produce any oil for a decade or so, and that's providing that the resources necessary for building rigs are available (they're not) and that the oil companies actually would drill off shore if we let them (they won't), and that we have the refining capacity to deal with a larger supply (we don't). But none of that is a really good reason for not drilling. IF drilling would reduce our future dependence on foreign oil we should do it (provided we can drill responsibly). That, however, is not the case. The US is addicted to oil, providing another fix will not help us break the habit, indeed it will only cause our demand to increase further and our dependence on foreign oil to deepen.
The ONLY solution is to stop using oil. No one can lower your gas prices, democrat or republican, and if they tell you otherwise they're lying. The best solution is a long term energy plan that frees us from at the very least oil, but preferably all fossil fuels.
if we didn't need oil bin Laden would never have had enough money to finance al-queda
That would be a perpetual motion machine. It takes more energy to electrolyze the water than you get back burning the component gasses, so you need another power input somewhere - in which case your car isn't running on water, it's running on the other input.
I would think even mercury would be safer.
Most of them use DI water or some other (relatively) non-conductive liquid. Makes it much safer for your computer in case of a leak. I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there built a rig with a chiller and a brine bath that cools below 0C, but it's probably not something commercially available.
Good for a prank.
Here's one that's downright malicious. I heard a story about a guy who was generally a dick ending up with a styrofoam cup of MEK on the hood of his corvette.
sounds like a custom patch to a custom piece of software to me. The kind of problem that doesn't care what OS you're running. I take the point about complete isolation - but I suspect that the patched computer was not conected to the internet either.
Go read the story. Then read the pdf linked to in the article. Then try to figure out how one relates to another. Then try to figure out where Pelosi comes in.
Someone got a letter that basically recomends removing the restriction that official buisness is only hosted on house.gov servers.
The /. summary and the story it links to are, as far as I can tell from the linked sources, completely fabricated.
You know, I don't think its even possible to make an electric car only as fast as a Honda or Toyota. Electric motors are torquey as hell, any all electric car that can do ~70mph can probably get there in less than 5 seconds. (Hybrids don't count because their electric motors can't get to 70 by themselves.)
Lead was added (as others have pointed out) to increase the octane of the gasoline. I'd speculate that the reason unleaded gas cost more was that the new additives required to keep the same octane rating cost more.
I don't care how much crime they sweep under the rug, I'm not arguing about US vs. UK crime rates. I'm interested in year to year trends. So unless the home office just started sweeping crime under the rug in 1997 the data is against you.
In fact the home office indicates that they started reporting more crime starting in 2002(my third blockquote), so actual crime is probably down more than 43%.