Isn't "global warming" picking a data point? If you can pick a point in time to show global warming then I can pick a point that shows it's cooling. Regardless, the point is that the claim behind man made global warming is that it's man made. If human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, is causing warming then should we not see more warming during the time when fossil fuels are being burned at the highest rate in history?
For fifteen years we have been dumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere and we still have not exceeded that temperature. Should that not put a bit of doubt in that theory? It seems it has. I noticed Al Gore has been keeping quiet lately. Might have something with being booed and having attendance down, due to ice and snow storms that tend to follow him.
So, people in the energy industry are expected to work for free? If you take all their profits, or even just enough where some other investment is more profitable, then you kill the golden goose. Once you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs that funds your renewable energy research there is no more research funding, and no energy to keep the lights on.
If you think that no one is researching alternatives to fossil fuels then you are willfully ignorant. Nothing would be more profitable than finding an alternative to fossil fuels. If someone can crack that nut then that person will be very wealthy. That's what drives energy research, profit. If you remove the profit from fossil fuels then you remove the drive to develop something better. In which case we will be sitting in the dark, cooking our food with animal dung.
Or alternately, we could stop pissing off three-quarters of the world so they all don't want to blow us up. It's just whacky enough an idea to work!
They want to blow us up because we have something that they don't. We have freedom and wealth and they don't. They don't want us to have it. To stop pissing them off we would have to destroy that wealth and give them our freedom. The people that want to blow us up are envious and greedy, or have been hoodwinked by the envious and greedy that we are guilty of some crime against them.
They hate me because I can sit in my own air conditioned home, on a comfy chair, with a computer on my lap, with an internet connection capable of communicating with one quarter of the world, and they cannot. For me to stop pissing them off I'd have to live in a stuffy little shack, without electricity, not only without a computer but also lacking the education to even read the words in a book or newspaper if I happened across one in the trash while looking for scraps of food.
This is only my opinion and my theory of course. I'd like to hear how you propose we stop pissing them off.
It supports the destruction of government property when there may be nothing illegal taking place.
The illegal act is the government performing a search of my property without my consent and without cause. If they had cause to search then they should have a warrant. If the government does not want their property destroyed then they should not fly it over my land.
I don't follow, the cite you gave still requires the officer to have probable cause. Where is the probable cause to search every vehicle? Is it the government's claim that every person is a possible criminal? If so, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing.
Even with the vehicle exception the state actor (and the valet drive is a state actor as they are acting under the orders of the government) still has to have cause to search the vehicle. The government cannot claim that taking advantage of valet parking is a suspicious activity since there are many reasons for people to do this besides attempting to blow up the airport.
Also, isn't it a bit too late to search the car AFTER it has been parked in front of the airport? Should it not be searched before that point? Seems about as smart as searching for bombs in luggage after the plane is already in flight.
Yes, let's spend time in the House of Representatives debating a bill establishing an international landmark on the moon because we got nothing better to do.
We have not seen a federal budget passed in how long? Ten years I recall. We got federal agents selling guns to drug dealers. These drug dealers then shoot federal agents. The economy is crap. We've seen an ambassador and his security detail get murdered. Government employees are openly lying to Congress and keep their jobs instead of ending up in jail. The Department of Education is spending money on shotguns instead of educating children. These same children end up dead because murders walked into the invisible force field of a "gun free zone" that Congress erected. (Hey Congress! How about you give some of those shotguns to some school security volunteers!) Cities get flooded and bridges fall into rivers because Congress can't seem to find the time to maintain basic infrastructure. We got entire cities getting burned up from forest fires. I could go on and on.
Don't think I'm just giving Democrats a hard time, Republicans share the blame. With all the crap going on right now why would anyone even think of bringing up declaring a national park on the fucking moon?
Wait... I just answered my own question. They bring this up to try to distract from all the shit happening right now. Much of this is from their own action or inaction, the rest of the shit they just make worse.
I'm reminded of a stupid joke... If pro is the opposite of con then what is the opposite of progress? Congress.
Background checks to buy a gun and really any gun control law is now irrelevant when a person can now buy a machine that can print out a gun. Unless you want to see background checks on 3D printers then gun control cannot work.
That's assuming "cheap and easy-to-get" firearms are limited to mass production and 3D printers. There's videos floating around the internet of people making machine guns from scrap metal and hand tools. Gun laws are unenforceable. I suppose you could try but that would mean surprise inspections in your home from government agents to make sure you don't a weapon without first obtaining the proper permission from the government.
One big problem with your idea. How do you force violent thugs to give up their weapons except by force?
Unarmed police are a very bad idea. Where it has been tried we end up with more people getting stabbed, including the police, than before. Sure, fewer people get shot but more people end up raped, assaulted, and killed.
This reminds me, I really need to read that copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" I bought. Perhaps I can send it to you to read when I'm done?
Typical. Tyrants want freedom lovers to shut up. Freedom lovers want tyrants to keep talking. Keep talking, you'll show everyone what you really think and that your ideas will bring us misery.
I may have missed something in the translation but I saw no mention of ammunition getting past security. Unless the ammunition was also made of plastic then a metal detector would still find a loaded firearm.
Try again with a loaded plastic gun, let us know how that works out for you.
Now, assume for a minute that even a loaded 3D printed gun can get past security. What do we do about it then? Perhaps we should arm the good guys inside the security perimeter so that they can shoot back should a bad guy with a gun get in.
Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. Problem is that when (not if) a murderer gets inside that gun free zone there is no one that can shoot back. When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The batteries can easily be recycled, and what heavy metals are used in the batteries for electric cars?
What heavy metals are used in electric car batteries? All of them. Iron, nickel, cadmium, lithium (arguably a light metal but still toxic), zinc, copper, lead, mercury, manganese, and quite likely more.
Of course they can be recycled but they are still going to end up in dumps, road ditches, river bottoms, and wherever else people like to leave cars after an accident, stealing a car for a joy ride, stripping an abandoned car for easy to carry off and sell parts, or using it for target practice with deer rifles.
Regular cars have a lead-acid battery, but that isn't what electric cars use to store their energy. There may be legitimate concerns over the environmental impact of mining the rare-earth needed for the motors, but once done they can be reused/recycled at the end of the car's life.
While this mining goes on we're going to see rare earth and heavy metals get spread into the environment. I will freely admit that current mining for iron and aluminum does involve release of some toxic substances. What happens though is the toxic elements stay diluted in the ground in an inert state
Tesla recently demonstrated their new battery swap station which can swap the battery in 90 seconds, that's quicker than you can refuel a regular car.
Yes, a car that costs more than my house using a battery swap station that does not exist in my state.
You are right that electrics still have a long way to go, they still aren't viable for most people (if only due to the cost), but I think it will happen, and probably be a viable choice for most by 2030 if not sooner. I think the only alternative to electric in the long term is if we develop a way to manufacture a clean replacement fuel* (if it is man-made it won't have all the contaminants our current fuel has), but we'll still need clean renewable methods of generating electricity for that to be possible.
* And I don't mean hydrogen, its energy density is too low and storage is problematic.
In the future I see there are car running off of synthesized hydrocarbons. We'll take old tires, plastic bits, worn out clothes, old books/newsprint/magazines, wood, spoiled food, and anything else we can think of that is high in carbon and nitrogen and "cook" it in nuclear powered synthesizer and distiller so we get fuels like gasoline, fuel oils, ammonium, kerosene, methane and maybe hydrogen.
You are correct that the hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. That is why it would most likely be used as a feedstock for other fuels, like the methane and ammonium mentioned. It could be used to create rocket fuel by liquifying it. It could be consumed on site as a peak power source with turbines or fuel cells.
I think we'll see natural gas cars before anything else. We got gobs of it in the USA. Natural gas is real expensive to ship out of the country. There is already a large infrastructure in place for it to be sold to consumers. Burning it has a much smaller carbon footprint than any other fossil fuel and perhaps even some non-fossil fuels. People understand it since it's the same stuff they use in their homes for heating and cooking.
Given the alternatives natural gas seems like an obvious compromise.
Right, the electricity does not care where it came from. There are still considerable issues in the environmental impact in the rare earth metals used in their construction, the disposal of the heavy metals in the batteries at the end of their useful life, and the poisonous materials released in the process.
There are also other issues with electric cars. Their range is limited. This limited range may not be an issue for most if the "refuel" time took minutes like an internal combustion engine instead of hours. Cost of the vehicles is an issue, they are still quite expensive. Government subsidies aren't a solution since governments can only give money to people after they took it from them in the first place.
Electric vehicles have a long way to go before they can replace fossil fuel vehicles. This might only be because of infrastructure, filling stations are everywhere but charging stations are rare. I suspect that if the problems of electric vehicles can be worked out we'll see a tipping point where charging stations will pop up like dandelions in summer. I see many years passing before that happens, if it happens at all.
Yes, building a nuclear power plant does involve enormous amounts of carbon released. I believe most of that is from the concrete poured, not from the dozing of land and transportation of construction materials.
Once built a nuclear power plant produces no carbon emissions and can do so for a good portion of a century if properly maintained. It produces enormous amounts of electricity in that time, which more than offsets the carbon emissions from its construction.
The only electric power source that produce less carbon per kilowatt hour produced is hydroelectric. Every other form of electricity either produces more carbon or exists only in the imagination.
Calling nuclear power a zero emission source of electricity may be a bit of exaggeration but it's as close to zero as we are going to get.
I agree with you generally here. I find the flaw lies in the amendment that had US senators elected by popular vote. The Senate was intended to be a body representing the state governments, a check on federal power in favor of states' rights. If US senators were appointed by state legislatures, as the Constitution originally intended, we'd effectively have a rotating chamber of state justices. Any appointment to SCOTUS has to get past the Senate, the Senate can choose to only appoint those people that are state justices.
Also, federal income taxes is an end run around state power. It used to be that taxes had to come from the state governments. Now the federal government can tax people directly then hold that money in front of the state governments like a carrot to lead them wherever they want.
Out here in "flyover country" we have storms, tornadoes, lightning, wind, ice, and snow. Power outages, while not all that common, are just something we have to deal with. I see big diesel or natural gas generators outside every government building and most businesses. A lot of homeowners I know have their own portable generators. When storms come through someone inevitably loses power, it happens. It can take a few hours to get fixed, in rare and extreme cases it can take days. Life goes on.
What kind of damage could a cyber attack on the electrical grid do? It will be inconvenient certainly. Just this last Monday I had to take a minor detour around some downed power lines while driving to work. On Tuesday the roads were clear and the power back on as far as I could tell. Other than a handful of people in Oklahoma that had travel difficulties it seems everyone went to work on Monday where I work.
I'm just trying to imagine the damage that a successful cyber attack on the power rid might cause. Then I try to imagine that damage as compared to weather out hear in the Great Plains. If people here were even told it was a terror strike then would anyone believe them? How would people act differently?
I'm sure that there are means to harden the power grid from cyber attacks but they would either be prudent also for natural disasters or overkill for such a small risk,
There is already a large number of natural gas generators around here. I'm not sure how much but it sits idle for long periods of time until needed. Data centers are equipped to sell any excess to a utility. There are spares for all kinds of gear. There are a lot of windmills to help along.
If the big boys, nuclear and coal, have to go down then it could take days to come back up. Once they are back to full steam then we know our troubles are over.
First, tell that to the people in Mexico. They got stricter gun controls than the USA yet more people die from machine gun fire and hand grenades. Not working real well there. It's got nothing to do with machine gun ownership either. There are at least 240,000 privately owned machine guns in the USA and yet none of them are used in crime. Is that because we have gun control, or perhaps because we have a well armed populace where criminals have to fear getting shot by law abiding gun owners?
Second, that was then, this is now. 3D printing technology is changing real fast. I'd predict that in two years printers capable of creating functional firearms will be sold in Walmart. Gun control may work now but it won't in the near future.
Nope. We don't need to regulate firearms, or ammunition, or weapons of any kind. Gun control is not crime control. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, gun control is impossible now. We're just going to have to think of something else now, we cannot ban this stuff any more. Sure, we can pass a law banning the stuff but enforcement cannot be done.
Rather than argue my points further I'll point something out that got this whole thread started. With technology as it is now any idiot that can perform a Google search, has enough manual dexterity to stack up Lego blocks, and enough spare cash to purchase a big screen TV, can now print a machine gun at home.
The genie is out of the bottle. All gun control laws are now irrelevant. Make all the claims you want on how the world would be a better place with gun control but it does not matter. The government can pass a law banning the 3D printing of guns but none of them can be enforced now.
Pipe dreams are nice things. That's not what's happening today so it's irrelevant.
Banning the 3D printing of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns is a pipe dream. They can pass a law against it but it's not going to stop the criminals, so it's irrelevant.
Did you see what you did there? Is "gun violence" somehow more criminal, cruel, or notable than any other kind of violence?
Fact is that total violent crimes hit a new low, I recall it's the lowest it has been in something like 50 or 60 years. I don't know what the "gun violence" rate is and I don't care to look it up. I don't care because I know that "gun violence" statistics are loaded with inaccuracies by people with an agenda to deny law abiding people of their right of self defense.
While violent crimes have hit a new low we've seen gun ownership hit new highs. The "gun violence" rates may have gone up but that is only because "gun violence" as defined by people like the Brady Campaign include suicides, self defense shootings, police interventions, and accidents. I would not consider the killing of a home invader by the home owner to be "gun violence" but Brady Campaign does. In most jurisdictions this is not even considered a crime. As someone smarter than me has said, "There are four types of homicide, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."
Even if "gun violence" is high I am not so sure that is a bad thing. If someone breaks into the home of another they should expect some "gun violence" from the home owner in return. That would be something praiseworthy.
No, there aren't laws banning people from making bombs. People do that all the time and do so legally.
I found out about this interesting substance called "tannerite" a few years ago. It is legally considered an explosive. It's primary components can be ordered through the mail and shipped to your door, no registration or background checks. This is not illegal because until the components are mixed it's just fertilizer and aluminum powder. Once mixed it becomes an explosive. I'd wager people are making this stuff right now in their homes.
Tannerite is commonly used as a reactive target on rifle ranges. It gives a very satisfying visual and audible indication that one has practiced proper firearm control. When used irresponsibly it can create a very dangerous explosion.
Let's assume for a second that one did need a license to make explosives and fireworks, how would that work? The materials needed to make explosives are also common items for making food. The things we need to grow, prepare, and preserve food can be used to make explosives, to ban these items would mean people cannot eat.
I've seen these little mills used to grind black powder into a proper consistency for use in bombs, ammunition, and fireworks. These mills are sold in catalogs for kids to buy with their lawn mowing money, only they don't call them gun powder mills, they call them rock polishers.
The government can ban bombs, firearms, 3D printers, or whatever they like. It won't stop people so long as we have the freedom to grow and cook our own food. I'm sure there's some part of the population that would like to ban that considering thousands of people die each year in the USA from food poisoning.
I believe otherwise. I think the ATF does care if people make their own firearms because a large portion of the people that make up the ATF do not believe that anyone but themselves are responsible enough to own firearms.
Someone that makes a firearm at home might be doing so completely within the law but it appears to me that the ATF does not like this because they would have no record of it. If they don't have a record of it then they can't take it from us when they wish. That's just the way they think, it's a culture that exists within the ATF since it was created.
Of course certain individual ATF agents may not have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, manufacture, or transfer but the people in charge certainly do. There are all kinds of examples of people having their weapons taken from them and never returned, despite it being quite illegal for the ATF to do so. People have ended up dead because the ATF didn't have the right paperwork and they thought someone had an "illegal" gun.
The ATF has to be very nervous right now over 3D printing. Now it no longer takes expensive machine tools and a certain level of skill to mass produce firearms. Now all it takes is a computer, 3D printer, plastic, and the ability to stack up Lego blocks.
If the ATF cannot find a way to regulate this then they are going to find themselves irrelevant, and out of a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't "global warming" picking a data point? If you can pick a point in time to show global warming then I can pick a point that shows it's cooling. Regardless, the point is that the claim behind man made global warming is that it's man made. If human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, is causing warming then should we not see more warming during the time when fossil fuels are being burned at the highest rate in history?
For fifteen years we have been dumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere and we still have not exceeded that temperature. Should that not put a bit of doubt in that theory? It seems it has. I noticed Al Gore has been keeping quiet lately. Might have something with being booed and having attendance down, due to ice and snow storms that tend to follow him.
Lets burn the land and boil the sea.
Go ahead, but you still won't take the sky from me.
So, people in the energy industry are expected to work for free? If you take all their profits, or even just enough where some other investment is more profitable, then you kill the golden goose. Once you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs that funds your renewable energy research there is no more research funding, and no energy to keep the lights on.
If you think that no one is researching alternatives to fossil fuels then you are willfully ignorant. Nothing would be more profitable than finding an alternative to fossil fuels. If someone can crack that nut then that person will be very wealthy. That's what drives energy research, profit. If you remove the profit from fossil fuels then you remove the drive to develop something better. In which case we will be sitting in the dark, cooking our food with animal dung.
The climate is warming up over the entire earth.
No, it's not. We have not seen any warming for 15 years. Even the IPCC admits to this now that the evidence is overwhelming.
Or alternately, we could stop pissing off three-quarters of the world so they all don't want to blow us up. It's just whacky enough an idea to work!
They want to blow us up because we have something that they don't. We have freedom and wealth and they don't. They don't want us to have it. To stop pissing them off we would have to destroy that wealth and give them our freedom. The people that want to blow us up are envious and greedy, or have been hoodwinked by the envious and greedy that we are guilty of some crime against them.
They hate me because I can sit in my own air conditioned home, on a comfy chair, with a computer on my lap, with an internet connection capable of communicating with one quarter of the world, and they cannot. For me to stop pissing them off I'd have to live in a stuffy little shack, without electricity, not only without a computer but also lacking the education to even read the words in a book or newspaper if I happened across one in the trash while looking for scraps of food.
This is only my opinion and my theory of course. I'd like to hear how you propose we stop pissing them off.
It supports the destruction of government property when there may be nothing illegal taking place.
The illegal act is the government performing a search of my property without my consent and without cause. If they had cause to search then they should have a warrant. If the government does not want their property destroyed then they should not fly it over my land.
I don't follow, the cite you gave still requires the officer to have probable cause. Where is the probable cause to search every vehicle? Is it the government's claim that every person is a possible criminal? If so, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing.
Even with the vehicle exception the state actor (and the valet drive is a state actor as they are acting under the orders of the government) still has to have cause to search the vehicle. The government cannot claim that taking advantage of valet parking is a suspicious activity since there are many reasons for people to do this besides attempting to blow up the airport.
Also, isn't it a bit too late to search the car AFTER it has been parked in front of the airport? Should it not be searched before that point? Seems about as smart as searching for bombs in luggage after the plane is already in flight.
Yes, let's spend time in the House of Representatives debating a bill establishing an international landmark on the moon because we got nothing better to do.
We have not seen a federal budget passed in how long? Ten years I recall. We got federal agents selling guns to drug dealers. These drug dealers then shoot federal agents. The economy is crap. We've seen an ambassador and his security detail get murdered. Government employees are openly lying to Congress and keep their jobs instead of ending up in jail. The Department of Education is spending money on shotguns instead of educating children. These same children end up dead because murders walked into the invisible force field of a "gun free zone" that Congress erected. (Hey Congress! How about you give some of those shotguns to some school security volunteers!) Cities get flooded and bridges fall into rivers because Congress can't seem to find the time to maintain basic infrastructure. We got entire cities getting burned up from forest fires. I could go on and on.
Don't think I'm just giving Democrats a hard time, Republicans share the blame. With all the crap going on right now why would anyone even think of bringing up declaring a national park on the fucking moon?
Wait... I just answered my own question. They bring this up to try to distract from all the shit happening right now. Much of this is from their own action or inaction, the rest of the shit they just make worse.
I'm reminded of a stupid joke...
If pro is the opposite of con then what is the opposite of progress? Congress.
Look at Georgia again, a city there mandated home owners also be gun owners and crime went down.
Background checks to buy a gun and really any gun control law is now irrelevant when a person can now buy a machine that can print out a gun. Unless you want to see background checks on 3D printers then gun control cannot work.
That's assuming "cheap and easy-to-get" firearms are limited to mass production and 3D printers. There's videos floating around the internet of people making machine guns from scrap metal and hand tools. Gun laws are unenforceable. I suppose you could try but that would mean surprise inspections in your home from government agents to make sure you don't a weapon without first obtaining the proper permission from the government.
One big problem with your idea. How do you force violent thugs to give up their weapons except by force?
Unarmed police are a very bad idea. Where it has been tried we end up with more people getting stabbed, including the police, than before. Sure, fewer people get shot but more people end up raped, assaulted, and killed.
This reminds me, I really need to read that copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" I bought. Perhaps I can send it to you to read when I'm done?
Typical. Tyrants want freedom lovers to shut up. Freedom lovers want tyrants to keep talking. Keep talking, you'll show everyone what you really think and that your ideas will bring us misery.
I may have missed something in the translation but I saw no mention of ammunition getting past security. Unless the ammunition was also made of plastic then a metal detector would still find a loaded firearm.
Try again with a loaded plastic gun, let us know how that works out for you.
Now, assume for a minute that even a loaded 3D printed gun can get past security. What do we do about it then? Perhaps we should arm the good guys inside the security perimeter so that they can shoot back should a bad guy with a gun get in.
Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. Problem is that when (not if) a murderer gets inside that gun free zone there is no one that can shoot back. When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The batteries can easily be recycled, and what heavy metals are used in the batteries for electric cars?
What heavy metals are used in electric car batteries? All of them. Iron, nickel, cadmium, lithium (arguably a light metal but still toxic), zinc, copper, lead, mercury, manganese, and quite likely more.
Of course they can be recycled but they are still going to end up in dumps, road ditches, river bottoms, and wherever else people like to leave cars after an accident, stealing a car for a joy ride, stripping an abandoned car for easy to carry off and sell parts, or using it for target practice with deer rifles.
Regular cars have a lead-acid battery, but that isn't what electric cars use to store their energy. There may be legitimate concerns over the environmental impact of mining the rare-earth needed for the motors, but once done they can be reused/recycled at the end of the car's life.
While this mining goes on we're going to see rare earth and heavy metals get spread into the environment. I will freely admit that current mining for iron and aluminum does involve release of some toxic substances. What happens though is the toxic elements stay diluted in the ground in an inert state
Tesla recently demonstrated their new battery swap station which can swap the battery in 90 seconds, that's quicker than you can refuel a regular car.
Yes, a car that costs more than my house using a battery swap station that does not exist in my state.
You are right that electrics still have a long way to go, they still aren't viable for most people (if only due to the cost), but I think it will happen, and probably be a viable choice for most by 2030 if not sooner. I think the only alternative to electric in the long term is if we develop a way to manufacture a clean replacement fuel* (if it is man-made it won't have all the contaminants our current fuel has), but we'll still need clean renewable methods of generating electricity for that to be possible.
* And I don't mean hydrogen, its energy density is too low and storage is problematic.
In the future I see there are car running off of synthesized hydrocarbons. We'll take old tires, plastic bits, worn out clothes, old books/newsprint/magazines, wood, spoiled food, and anything else we can think of that is high in carbon and nitrogen and "cook" it in nuclear powered synthesizer and distiller so we get fuels like gasoline, fuel oils, ammonium, kerosene, methane and maybe hydrogen.
You are correct that the hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. That is why it would most likely be used as a feedstock for other fuels, like the methane and ammonium mentioned. It could be used to create rocket fuel by liquifying it. It could be consumed on site as a peak power source with turbines or fuel cells.
I think we'll see natural gas cars before anything else. We got gobs of it in the USA. Natural gas is real expensive to ship out of the country. There is already a large infrastructure in place for it to be sold to consumers. Burning it has a much smaller carbon footprint than any other fossil fuel and perhaps even some non-fossil fuels. People understand it since it's the same stuff they use in their homes for heating and cooking.
Given the alternatives natural gas seems like an obvious compromise.
Right, the electricity does not care where it came from. There are still considerable issues in the environmental impact in the rare earth metals used in their construction, the disposal of the heavy metals in the batteries at the end of their useful life, and the poisonous materials released in the process.
There are also other issues with electric cars. Their range is limited. This limited range may not be an issue for most if the "refuel" time took minutes like an internal combustion engine instead of hours. Cost of the vehicles is an issue, they are still quite expensive. Government subsidies aren't a solution since governments can only give money to people after they took it from them in the first place.
Electric vehicles have a long way to go before they can replace fossil fuel vehicles. This might only be because of infrastructure, filling stations are everywhere but charging stations are rare. I suspect that if the problems of electric vehicles can be worked out we'll see a tipping point where charging stations will pop up like dandelions in summer. I see many years passing before that happens, if it happens at all.
Yes, building a nuclear power plant does involve enormous amounts of carbon released. I believe most of that is from the concrete poured, not from the dozing of land and transportation of construction materials.
Once built a nuclear power plant produces no carbon emissions and can do so for a good portion of a century if properly maintained. It produces enormous amounts of electricity in that time, which more than offsets the carbon emissions from its construction.
The only electric power source that produce less carbon per kilowatt hour produced is hydroelectric. Every other form of electricity either produces more carbon or exists only in the imagination.
Calling nuclear power a zero emission source of electricity may be a bit of exaggeration but it's as close to zero as we are going to get.
I agree with you generally here. I find the flaw lies in the amendment that had US senators elected by popular vote. The Senate was intended to be a body representing the state governments, a check on federal power in favor of states' rights. If US senators were appointed by state legislatures, as the Constitution originally intended, we'd effectively have a rotating chamber of state justices. Any appointment to SCOTUS has to get past the Senate, the Senate can choose to only appoint those people that are state justices.
Also, federal income taxes is an end run around state power. It used to be that taxes had to come from the state governments. Now the federal government can tax people directly then hold that money in front of the state governments like a carrot to lead them wherever they want.
Out here in "flyover country" we have storms, tornadoes, lightning, wind, ice, and snow. Power outages, while not all that common, are just something we have to deal with. I see big diesel or natural gas generators outside every government building and most businesses. A lot of homeowners I know have their own portable generators. When storms come through someone inevitably loses power, it happens. It can take a few hours to get fixed, in rare and extreme cases it can take days. Life goes on.
What kind of damage could a cyber attack on the electrical grid do? It will be inconvenient certainly. Just this last Monday I had to take a minor detour around some downed power lines while driving to work. On Tuesday the roads were clear and the power back on as far as I could tell. Other than a handful of people in Oklahoma that had travel difficulties it seems everyone went to work on Monday where I work.
I'm just trying to imagine the damage that a successful cyber attack on the power rid might cause. Then I try to imagine that damage as compared to weather out hear in the Great Plains. If people here were even told it was a terror strike then would anyone believe them? How would people act differently?
I'm sure that there are means to harden the power grid from cyber attacks but they would either be prudent also for natural disasters or overkill for such a small risk,
There is already a large number of natural gas generators around here. I'm not sure how much but it sits idle for long periods of time until needed. Data centers are equipped to sell any excess to a utility. There are spares for all kinds of gear. There are a lot of windmills to help along.
If the big boys, nuclear and coal, have to go down then it could take days to come back up. Once they are back to full steam then we know our troubles are over.
What should I be worried about?
First, tell that to the people in Mexico. They got stricter gun controls than the USA yet more people die from machine gun fire and hand grenades. Not working real well there. It's got nothing to do with machine gun ownership either. There are at least 240,000 privately owned machine guns in the USA and yet none of them are used in crime. Is that because we have gun control, or perhaps because we have a well armed populace where criminals have to fear getting shot by law abiding gun owners?
Second, that was then, this is now. 3D printing technology is changing real fast. I'd predict that in two years printers capable of creating functional firearms will be sold in Walmart. Gun control may work now but it won't in the near future.
We need to address the societal issues we have with violence and guns are at the heart of it.
Irrelevant. We can't control guns. Any idiot can print one out now. We're going to have to think of something else to address the violence.
Do you agree with that?
Nope. We don't need to regulate firearms, or ammunition, or weapons of any kind. Gun control is not crime control. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, gun control is impossible now. We're just going to have to think of something else now, we cannot ban this stuff any more. Sure, we can pass a law banning the stuff but enforcement cannot be done.
Rather than argue my points further I'll point something out that got this whole thread started. With technology as it is now any idiot that can perform a Google search, has enough manual dexterity to stack up Lego blocks, and enough spare cash to purchase a big screen TV, can now print a machine gun at home.
The genie is out of the bottle. All gun control laws are now irrelevant. Make all the claims you want on how the world would be a better place with gun control but it does not matter. The government can pass a law banning the 3D printing of guns but none of them can be enforced now.
Pipe dreams are nice things. That's not what's happening today so it's irrelevant.
Banning the 3D printing of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns is a pipe dream. They can pass a law against it but it's not going to stop the criminals, so it's irrelevant.
Did you see what you did there? Is "gun violence" somehow more criminal, cruel, or notable than any other kind of violence?
Fact is that total violent crimes hit a new low, I recall it's the lowest it has been in something like 50 or 60 years. I don't know what the "gun violence" rate is and I don't care to look it up. I don't care because I know that "gun violence" statistics are loaded with inaccuracies by people with an agenda to deny law abiding people of their right of self defense.
While violent crimes have hit a new low we've seen gun ownership hit new highs. The "gun violence" rates may have gone up but that is only because "gun violence" as defined by people like the Brady Campaign include suicides, self defense shootings, police interventions, and accidents. I would not consider the killing of a home invader by the home owner to be "gun violence" but Brady Campaign does. In most jurisdictions this is not even considered a crime. As someone smarter than me has said, "There are four types of homicide, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."
Even if "gun violence" is high I am not so sure that is a bad thing. If someone breaks into the home of another they should expect some "gun violence" from the home owner in return. That would be something praiseworthy.
No, there aren't laws banning people from making bombs. People do that all the time and do so legally.
I found out about this interesting substance called "tannerite" a few years ago. It is legally considered an explosive. It's primary components can be ordered through the mail and shipped to your door, no registration or background checks. This is not illegal because until the components are mixed it's just fertilizer and aluminum powder. Once mixed it becomes an explosive. I'd wager people are making this stuff right now in their homes.
Tannerite is commonly used as a reactive target on rifle ranges. It gives a very satisfying visual and audible indication that one has practiced proper firearm control. When used irresponsibly it can create a very dangerous explosion.
Let's assume for a second that one did need a license to make explosives and fireworks, how would that work? The materials needed to make explosives are also common items for making food. The things we need to grow, prepare, and preserve food can be used to make explosives, to ban these items would mean people cannot eat.
I've seen these little mills used to grind black powder into a proper consistency for use in bombs, ammunition, and fireworks. These mills are sold in catalogs for kids to buy with their lawn mowing money, only they don't call them gun powder mills, they call them rock polishers.
The government can ban bombs, firearms, 3D printers, or whatever they like. It won't stop people so long as we have the freedom to grow and cook our own food. I'm sure there's some part of the population that would like to ban that considering thousands of people die each year in the USA from food poisoning.
I believe otherwise. I think the ATF does care if people make their own firearms because a large portion of the people that make up the ATF do not believe that anyone but themselves are responsible enough to own firearms.
Someone that makes a firearm at home might be doing so completely within the law but it appears to me that the ATF does not like this because they would have no record of it. If they don't have a record of it then they can't take it from us when they wish. That's just the way they think, it's a culture that exists within the ATF since it was created.
Of course certain individual ATF agents may not have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, manufacture, or transfer but the people in charge certainly do. There are all kinds of examples of people having their weapons taken from them and never returned, despite it being quite illegal for the ATF to do so. People have ended up dead because the ATF didn't have the right paperwork and they thought someone had an "illegal" gun.
The ATF has to be very nervous right now over 3D printing. Now it no longer takes expensive machine tools and a certain level of skill to mass produce firearms. Now all it takes is a computer, 3D printer, plastic, and the ability to stack up Lego blocks.
If the ATF cannot find a way to regulate this then they are going to find themselves irrelevant, and out of a job.