Texas is fly-over country, nobody on either coast cares if they can't fly to Texas.
Texas is the second most populous state in this federation. It has 38 votes in the presidential electoral college. There are 36 congressman in the already Republican controlled House of Representatives. The President, from the Democratic Party, will be up for election next year. I can guarantee you that there are some very influential people on at least one coast that care about flights going into Texas.
If the federal government wants to stop flights into or out of Texas because the TSA can no longer grope six year old girls, force ten year old boys to remove their shirts, make a cancer stricken grandmother remove her Depends, and spill urine all over people that had bladder cancer, then let them. What will happen is that they will be voted out of office next year, the TSA will disappear, and flights will resume into Texas.
One way or another this groping will stop and the federal government will have to abide by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.
I have this sneaking suspicion that we would have less crime in California if the government there recognized people's right to self defense. The criminals are all armed but the law abiding citizen is not. That is because people have a respect for the law but the criminal does not. If the state cannot reciprocate on that respect to the people then at some point the people will lose respect for the state. A lack of respect for the state means uncontainable crime, like what we see in other places where there is little respect for individual rights, like Cuba, Mexico, Jamaica, and Venezuela.
As long as we are talking about near tyrannies with little respect for the individual right of self defense and uncontrollable crime I'll mention Chicago, New York City, and the District of Columbia. It's only recently with court cases recognizing the right to self defense are we now seeing people getting the recognition of keeping a loaded firearm in the home. As a result crime has gone down. There are now more court cases to extend that right of self defense to outside the home. People are becoming very upset with the crime problem, reductions in manpower within the police forces (because of government mismanagement, but that is a separate issue), and increasing response times of the police (due in large part to the reductions in police funding).
Allowing the citizens to arm themselves costs the government nothing, reduces crime, and empowers the individual. The article even mentioned that most crime is opportunistic, an armed public reduces the opportunity of the criminal to cause crime without threat of injury or death from a law abiding citizen that does not appreciate being mugged, raped, or killed. An armed public makes the criminal think real hard about whether or not the victim might defend their property, family, or self.
So, rather than spending all this money on more police, more computers, more cameras, more software, and more laws, I suggest that they allow the public to participate in the policing of the community. This country is based on the principle that the people can govern themselves, that the government is made of the people. This principle requires a certain amount of police power to lie with the individual. We already have the concept of a citizen arrest. It's rather difficult for a person to follow through with this police power if they lack even the simplest of tools to carry out that power. The people need the tools to hold a criminal until the police arrive, they need the tools to secure a crime scene until the police arrive. They need guns.
I grow tired of the government trying to fix problems with more government as if it is impossible to actually repeal a law. It is possible. It is necessary in fact. If the government does not reduce its size then either the people will lose respect for the government and it collapses, or the government will grow to such a size that it will collapse under its own weight from unsustainable taxation and spending.
Wisconsin just had a shall issue permit to carry concealed weapons signed into law. Wyoming just had a permitless concealed weapons law go into effect. California still lives under a Jim Crow era law where a person must prove "need" to carry a concealed weapon which means that sheriffs will often reward contributors to his/her campaign with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Government corruption is inherent when the government claims control over the right to self defense. Just look at Chicago, NYC, DC, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and so many other places where crime and corruption thrive. Criminals do not like armed individuals. When the government disarms the individual its difficult to differentiate between the criminals and the government.
I say this to all people that claim human activity is causing global warming. There are three things that have to be shown for me to care.
- First, that the Earth is actually warming. - Second, that human activity is the cause. - Third, that this is actually a bad thing.
There seems to still be debate on if the warming has stopped. Solar activity is hitting a new low which could negate, or even reverse any greenhouse effect.
One thing that seems clear to me is that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is that it improves plant life. Plants are growing bigger, stronger, and faster in this atmosphere. That not only means more food for people but other nice side effects like reduced erosion and an improved capacity to soak up even more CO2.
I will admit that some people will get the short end of the stick. Some places in this world will become unpleasantly warm. Some places will go under water. The end result though is cheaper and more plentiful food for everyone. There would also likely be more freshwater and livable land mass.
What also bothers me is the means at which people are trying to reduce the carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Taxing carbon would be a very bad idea. Nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and windmills take a lot of concrete to make them happen. Concrete releases a lot of carbon. On the balance energy sources like hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind produce very little carbon over the life of the plant. What happens if the carbon is taxed at the time of construction the construction costs will push the price to where no one is willing to risk the investment.
Another problem with carbon taxation is that energy production research takes a lot of energy. Those fusion generators take a lot of power to get running and until the experiment is complete, many years later, there will be no energy returned. If we tax carbon this research will become much more expensive, and yet again we can see these new low carbon energy sources die under the tax burden we place on them.
If the intent is to reduce the carbon emitted into the atmosphere then we need to put a lot of effort, energy, and (ironically) carbon emissions behind it. Until we have enough nuclear, hydro, and wind to be self sustaining we are going to have to burn a lot of coal and natural gas to build that infrastructure. Put too much taxation on the coal and natural gas and we will be stuck burning coal and natural gas.
With that said I'll make one thing clear. I don't have to be convinced that global warming is bad to make the conversion of energy production in this country (or on this planet) from fossil fuels to nuclear, hydro, and wind. I know that fossil fuels are bad for the economy and political stability of this country (and this planet). I'm just finding it hard to give a damn about the "carbon footprint" I might have. What does concern me is how much of our country relies on other countries for its energy, and therefore its industry, food, and defense.
Is the name in reference to a bat's echolocation ability or is it a reference to the "Dark Knight" movie where such a software system was used by Batman to find the bad guys?
They stopped asking for addresses after an embarrassing interview with some Radio Shack executive where the interviewer plainly stated that when he shops there he gives a fake address. The last few times I've been there they have not asked for my address. It's been years since I've had a Radio Shack employee ask for my address and they had no problem with my refusal to provide one.
And the nuclear industry is allowed to irradiate resources and create waste without a management plan.
I'm not sure what you mean by "irradiate resources" since in most cases the radiation emitted by nuclear power plants is actually lower than that of fossil fuel plants. I've heard that the radiation inside modern nuclear power plants (where the people are, not the reactor core) is actually lower than what is outside because of all the concrete and steel in the containment structures.
When it comes to "radioactive waste" I believe that is an oxymoron. If it's radioactive then it is either a valuable industrial material and/or a valuable nuclear fuel. The problems with "radioactive waste" is purely political. Remove all the scaremongering over "nucular" and let people actually deal with the "waste" and turn it into the fuel we keep looking for. If this "waste" is going to be radioactive for millions of years that means it contains some very valuable nuclear fuel. Use it, don't bury it.
I generally dislike going to see a physician. It typically goes like this, I have an appointment at some god awful early hour (to me at least) with a physician in another county. I have to take the day off work, drive through horrendous traffic, usually getting lost. It does not seem to matter if I arrive early, on time, or late but it seems that I always have to wait an hour before I can see the physician. In the mean time I'm given this form so the clinic/hospital and "update their records" in which I'm asked all kinds of detailed questions while I'm tired, sick, and/or hungry.
I made a realization one recent time I saw a physician. I think they give you that form to fill out just so you have something to occupy your time while you wait. I was fortunate that time in not having to wait long and I didn't have time to complete the form, I think all it had was my name and address, but they took the form and made no insistence that I complete the form before I left.
Anyway, I broke my feet years ago in the Army and they have now become arthritic. Since then I have been on numerous pain medications, just about all of them disastrous. I'd be given one NSAID after another, none of them working and all of them causing stomach pain. Then they tried steroids, that worked but they won't give them to me again because of side effects from long term use. Then they tried all kinds of "nerve meds" (I don't know the proper term) that are typically used to treat depression or mood disorders, and a few other crazy stuff along the way. That stuff made it difficult to sleep and I was tired all the time.
During this time I had some dental work done and the dentist prescribed paracetamol with codeine for the pain. Wow, that was the first time in years I had a good night's sleep. I didn't have the upset stomach from the NSAIDs, my feet didn't hurt, and there was nothing messing with my head.
After that every time I went to my physician I'd ask for more of that paracetamol with codeine but I'd get something "better" instead. Like an idiot I thought the physicians knew something I didn't and went along with it.
A few months ago I decided I needed to see a physician (this was not my usual physician) since I had considerable pain, hadn't slept in days, and generally could not function. They took blood tests and talked about thyroid diseases, stress, restless leg syndrome, along with "it happens and it will go away on its own". He gave me some of that paracetamol with codeine for the pain and I was able to sleep again.
The last time I go to the physician I complain about the stomach pain returning and they find I have high blood pressure. Turns out that long term use of paracetamol will cause stomach bleeding and high blood pressure. Now they have me on codeine and blood pressure medications. I can sleep and my stomach doesn't hurt. Along with the blood pressure medications they gave me a portable blood pressure measuring machine. My blood pressure is now considered normal only two days after changing my medications.
Was it the blood pressure meds that lowered my blood pressure so quickly or was it that I'm no longer taking paracetamol?
I tell this long story to get to a point that needs to be addressed when it comes to our health care. Why was I not given codeine years ago? Why did I have to suffer from all those horrendous drugs before given something so cheap and effective as codeine? I believe it is because while physicians fear malpractice they also fear being labeled as drug dealers by the government. For some reason the government deems opiate prescriptions as "bad" and will punish physicians that prescribe it too readily.
This "war on some drugs" has had a serious effect on my own personal health and standard of living. One consolation I have is that I did not have to pay for those expensive meds personally since it was provided by federal funds because the pain is considered as a result of my military service. Everyone else in this country should be upset t
We don't drill in ANWR because it lowers the price of gasoline by $0.40 but because it creates revenue for the government without raising taxes, creates domestic jobs, and reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy.
All this research in alternative energy is nice, and quite possibly necessary. The problem is that until we have airplanes that run on something other than kerosene we will need to drill for oil. With modern airframes lasting about three decades I suspect we will need to drill for oil for at least another three decades, assuming there is not some earth-shattering breakthrough in science before then.
You say that we will be able to pump oil out of ANWR for "only" twenty years. With unemployment being as high as it is right now it would seem that creating jobs for Americans should be a priority for the government. Employing people in oil drilling, even if it is for "only" twenty years, would mean that a lot of Americans will have their lives suck a lot less during that time. That would also likely mean a lot of Americans can afford to send their kids to college. These college educated Americans can then research ways to extract more oil from ANWR and ways to get energy that does not require more drilling for oil.
It is practically inevitable that we will run out of oil that we can profitably extract from the ground. Before that happens we will see more money, public and private, being spent on ways to get energy that does not require drilling for oil. In the mean time I see no reason to not drill for oil in our own country. We need oil now and for many decades to come. Producing it here can only benefit us.
I could think of all kinds of interesting things to try to get 3D images of with this software, why are all the examples only of someone's face?
Also, the articles mentioned similar software for desktop operating systems. Can anyone name a few? I have a camera built-in to the lid of my triple boot Macbook so I could experiment. Unfortunately my iPod does not have a camera.
It was my understanding that the radiation was too high at that point for any existing robot to operate in that environment. Since radiation levels on this magnitude is rare I suspect that robots designed to withstand such high radiation will not exist for some time.
I have much respect for the mechanical and software advancements that the Japanese have brought to robotics. The problem here is that the electronics, while being very capable in completing computations, lack the capability to function in high radiation environments. I would think that not even outer space rated electronics could handle the amount of radiation coming out of the reactors at that time.
It might not be relevant because of how the money was laundered but how the money was obtained. Judging by many posts on Slashdot there just HAS to be mind altering substances involved. Maybe we need a poll asking what controlled substances people are taking right now.
The big issue behind incandescent lighting is the "carbon footprint" produced in generating the electricity to power them. We can make that issue moot if we'd only move to nuclear power. I suppose some people would grumble about all that nuclear "waste" that is produced in running those plants. That is another issue we could make moot if we'd lift the ban on reprocessing fuel and build some new power plants that don't produce as much waste to run.
Another way to make this moot is to develop lighting that is more efficient and cheaper than incandescent. The summary points out that large numbers of Americans are happy with CFL light bulbs. (I'm not one of them.)
What this ban does is remove incandescent light bulbs from the competitive market. CFL and LED lighting has to now compete with the very durable and cheap incandescent. Removing incandescent lighting from the market could have some interesting unintended consequences. I can foresee a drop in quality and rise in prices for lighting, at least in the short term.
This law might also prove to be quite pointless as it does not ban the use of rough service, appliance, and other specialty incandescent bulbs. Unless the quality of other technologies suit my desires I'll keep buying incandescent bulbs for quite some time after this, it just means I'll be putting "appliance" bulbs in my bedroom light fixtures.
The GP's logic is quite sound. Gun control cannot work in the half assed manner that proponents seem to always encourage. It is an all or nothing proposition.
Right, it cannot be half way. Gun control will only work if no one can have a gun. I say we start that by destroying all the guns owned by the government.
What is the goal of gun control? To reduce crime? It has never seemed to work anywhere in history. We still had crime before firearms were invented. Where gun control is strictly enforced we see people getting killed with fires, run over by cars, cut up with knives and swords, beaten with boards and bricks, all kinds of mayhem continues without guns. Gangs run wild in London with only their fists and feet beating up old men and women because they cannot carry the most basic of self defense tools available in modern society. They can't even have pepper spray in the UK as that is considered a firearm just as much as a sawed off shotgun. Because the penalty is just as strict for pepper spray as it is to have a sawed off shotgun take a guess what the criminals arm themselves with if given the resources to get any weapon they want?
Gun control cannot reduce crime because it is not the gun that puts evil in the hearts and minds of people. Gun control can only do the opposite since it puts the weak at the mercy of the strong. A handgun is a great equalizer. Since law abiding people outnumber criminals in this world the equal stance of the law abiding and the criminal means that the criminal will almost always lose. By removing that equalizer the criminal has the high ground.
The government has power over the people that must be held in check by those people. Since no government will disarm itself before disarming the people that means gun control gives the government absolute power over the people.
I recall a saying about what absolute power can do.
The location of the windscreen on an aircraft might have something to do with the fact that our eyes are near the top of our bodies.
Helicopters will have windows in the floor of the cabin so that the pilot can see the landing area. In a fixed wing aircraft the pilot only really needs to know if the wheels are between the lines on the runway. The altitude at that point is not terribly difficult to determine and there is typically plenty of room for error, a few feet up or down don't mean much if you have sufficient length of runway.
Also, there was an in air collision I heard about on the radio recently. A high wing light aircraft could not see the plane above and flew into it. The other plane was a low wing style and could not see the aircraft below. It would seem that in uncontrolled airspace the pilot would need to see both up AND down. In controlled airspace, like that in a commercial airport, the pilot doesn't need to see much at all really.
I just don't care what year is the warmest, coldest, wettest or driest. I'm tired of hearing about what the problem is and am now craving for people to talk about what we are going to do about it. Most of the time the "solutions" involve taxing me more so that the government can give that money to someone else. How about some real solutions.
First, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, ice will freeze and thaw. We need to develop the means to deal with that. It might be as simple as NOT doing something. Just don't rebuild in the part of the city that keeps getting flooded. Turn it into a park, a swamp, a cranberry bog, whatever. Just don't be stupid in city planning.
Next we need to come up with real solutions for not burning so much foreign oil. I personally think all this global warming rhetoric is a steaming pile of bullshit. What I can agree on is the need to become energy independent out of a need to grow our economy and avoid getting entangled in foreign matters that should not involve us.
If we are going to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air then we need to focus on the energy sources that are low in CO2. The energy sources in order of least CO2 output to highest are:
- Hydro-electric - Nuclear - Geothermal - Wind - Natural gas - Solar (PV or thermal) - Other fossil fuels
We've already dammed all the rivers worth a dam. Geothermal is very sensitive to location and cannot be useful everywhere. Iceland is full of good spots, the American Midwest is not so much. Nuclear reactors can be built just about anywhere and are safe, powerful, and reliable. New designs produce next to nothing for waste and can run off cheap thorium.
Wind and solar are not reliable, are expensive, and not really all that low on the CO2 output compared to other sources. They are also very sensitive to location. There is a lot of wind in the American Midwest and a lot of sun in the American Southwest, which is good for Chicago and Dallas but not so much for New York or Miami. With such long power lines there would be much lost in just the transmission lines. The materials for efficient wind and solar power requires highly refined materials such as silicon and aluminum which means a lot of energy in the front end to gain it back later. That means plenty of CO2 expelled to produce these energy sources. The CO2 output for the energy produced might be improved in time but RIGHT NOW nuclear power really outshines them all.
Some sources claim that even natural gas beat out solar power for CO2/energy ratio. Some claim it is a parity. Solar might beat out natural gas in CO2 produced but the cost of solar power is somewhere around double that of natural gas. Another great thing about natural gas is that we, in the USA, have plenty of it. We don't need anyone's permission to get it, we just need to go get it.
All the problems here are political. The government needs to do their damned job at let Americans produce power here so we aren't shipping our jobs and dollars to countries that don't like us so much. I don't give a fuck about global warming. I'm tired of hearing about global warming. We need people to shut up about global warming and start working on solutions.
I remember watching this show years ago about life of the Alaskan Natives. They had fashioned a sort of eye protecting goggles that had a thin slit across. This was to protect the eyes from the blowing snow and the bright light from the sun reflecting off the snow on the ground. Using something like this the pirates could position the slit to guard against the beam and still provide vision of at least a portion of the ship. Perhaps a set of these goggles in "reverse" which has a horizontal dark stripe which can be placed over the beam by tilting the head.
All this less lethal crap is nonsense. Just about every time I read another one of these stories I can come up with a counter action that is relatively simple. What these ships need to fight off the pirates are real guns that shoot real bullets. Even a handful of.30-06 bolt action rifles would provide a considerable deterrence to these thugs on the water. I would suggest they get something more powerful though if they can afford it. I'm thinking that a 25mm auto-cannon like the one on top of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle should be standard equipment for cargo ships that traverse the open sea. Add a few.50 caliber or.30 caliber rifles as well. Every crew member should be trained in their use as well as having access to small arms, such as pistols and shotguns, in case some do make it on board.
Properly arming the cargo ships against piracy will be impossible so long as the ports these ships service do not respect the life of the very crews that bring them their goods. Laws need to change. As it is right now most nations consider an armed crew an act of war rather than an act of self defense.
I went out to lunch with some co-workers and, while we were eating our burritos, I noticed three or four Border Patrol agents in line for food. They were armed and in uniform. We found this quite odd since we were more than 100 miles from any border and several miles from any major highway leading to a border. They didn't just get off the highway for a bite, there were plenty of other places to eat closer to the highway. This was also not the only place in town to get burritos. The only thing that we could come up with to explain their presence there was the proximity of the restaurant to the airport. We didn't recall ever seeing an international flight out of the airport though.
It was very strange to see Border Patrol agents there. I have to wonder now how far the border zone extends now. Could it be one THOUSAND miles?
Solar + EV = win. A neighbor of mine did this and his average bill is negative $2/month.
That doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. One thing I'd like to know is how much are the loan payments on the solar panels?
One Friday afternoon I got into a conversation with some of my co-workers on the viability of solar power for the home. I did a bit of research that weekend looking into how much sun we get in my area, the efficiency of solar panels, the cost of the panels per area, and so on. I figured out that if I were to cover my roof with solar panels I could run all my electric appliances in my home through the winter, with the possible exceptions of the big ones like my oven and dryer. Natural gas equivalents are common and require very little electricity to run. In the summer I'd have enough excess electricity to charge up an electric car.
Add a sufficiently large battery pack (and perhaps a backup generator in case of storm damaged panels, lengthy dark days, or other reasons the panels fail to deliver) and I should be able to cut the electrical mains to my house. There was one catch, the solar panels would cost more than my house. I'd be trading a $200/month electric bill for a $1000/month loan payment.
Your claim does not add up, or is at least incomplete. Your neighbor's electric bill might be negative but I have to wonder about the total cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Texas is fly-over country, nobody on either coast cares if they can't fly to Texas.
Texas is the second most populous state in this federation. It has 38 votes in the presidential electoral college. There are 36 congressman in the already Republican controlled House of Representatives. The President, from the Democratic Party, will be up for election next year. I can guarantee you that there are some very influential people on at least one coast that care about flights going into Texas.
If the federal government wants to stop flights into or out of Texas because the TSA can no longer grope six year old girls, force ten year old boys to remove their shirts, make a cancer stricken grandmother remove her Depends, and spill urine all over people that had bladder cancer, then let them. What will happen is that they will be voted out of office next year, the TSA will disappear, and flights will resume into Texas.
One way or another this groping will stop and the federal government will have to abide by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.
I have this sneaking suspicion that we would have less crime in California if the government there recognized people's right to self defense. The criminals are all armed but the law abiding citizen is not. That is because people have a respect for the law but the criminal does not. If the state cannot reciprocate on that respect to the people then at some point the people will lose respect for the state. A lack of respect for the state means uncontainable crime, like what we see in other places where there is little respect for individual rights, like Cuba, Mexico, Jamaica, and Venezuela.
As long as we are talking about near tyrannies with little respect for the individual right of self defense and uncontrollable crime I'll mention Chicago, New York City, and the District of Columbia. It's only recently with court cases recognizing the right to self defense are we now seeing people getting the recognition of keeping a loaded firearm in the home. As a result crime has gone down. There are now more court cases to extend that right of self defense to outside the home. People are becoming very upset with the crime problem, reductions in manpower within the police forces (because of government mismanagement, but that is a separate issue), and increasing response times of the police (due in large part to the reductions in police funding).
Allowing the citizens to arm themselves costs the government nothing, reduces crime, and empowers the individual. The article even mentioned that most crime is opportunistic, an armed public reduces the opportunity of the criminal to cause crime without threat of injury or death from a law abiding citizen that does not appreciate being mugged, raped, or killed. An armed public makes the criminal think real hard about whether or not the victim might defend their property, family, or self.
So, rather than spending all this money on more police, more computers, more cameras, more software, and more laws, I suggest that they allow the public to participate in the policing of the community. This country is based on the principle that the people can govern themselves, that the government is made of the people. This principle requires a certain amount of police power to lie with the individual. We already have the concept of a citizen arrest. It's rather difficult for a person to follow through with this police power if they lack even the simplest of tools to carry out that power. The people need the tools to hold a criminal until the police arrive, they need the tools to secure a crime scene until the police arrive. They need guns.
I grow tired of the government trying to fix problems with more government as if it is impossible to actually repeal a law. It is possible. It is necessary in fact. If the government does not reduce its size then either the people will lose respect for the government and it collapses, or the government will grow to such a size that it will collapse under its own weight from unsustainable taxation and spending.
Wisconsin just had a shall issue permit to carry concealed weapons signed into law. Wyoming just had a permitless concealed weapons law go into effect. California still lives under a Jim Crow era law where a person must prove "need" to carry a concealed weapon which means that sheriffs will often reward contributors to his/her campaign with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Government corruption is inherent when the government claims control over the right to self defense. Just look at Chicago, NYC, DC, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and so many other places where crime and corruption thrive. Criminals do not like armed individuals. When the government disarms the individual its difficult to differentiate between the criminals and the government.
I say this to all people that claim human activity is causing global warming. There are three things that have to be shown for me to care.
- First, that the Earth is actually warming.
- Second, that human activity is the cause.
- Third, that this is actually a bad thing.
There seems to still be debate on if the warming has stopped. Solar activity is hitting a new low which could negate, or even reverse any greenhouse effect.
One thing that seems clear to me is that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is that it improves plant life. Plants are growing bigger, stronger, and faster in this atmosphere. That not only means more food for people but other nice side effects like reduced erosion and an improved capacity to soak up even more CO2.
I will admit that some people will get the short end of the stick. Some places in this world will become unpleasantly warm. Some places will go under water. The end result though is cheaper and more plentiful food for everyone. There would also likely be more freshwater and livable land mass.
What also bothers me is the means at which people are trying to reduce the carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Taxing carbon would be a very bad idea. Nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and windmills take a lot of concrete to make them happen. Concrete releases a lot of carbon. On the balance energy sources like hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind produce very little carbon over the life of the plant. What happens if the carbon is taxed at the time of construction the construction costs will push the price to where no one is willing to risk the investment.
Another problem with carbon taxation is that energy production research takes a lot of energy. Those fusion generators take a lot of power to get running and until the experiment is complete, many years later, there will be no energy returned. If we tax carbon this research will become much more expensive, and yet again we can see these new low carbon energy sources die under the tax burden we place on them.
If the intent is to reduce the carbon emitted into the atmosphere then we need to put a lot of effort, energy, and (ironically) carbon emissions behind it. Until we have enough nuclear, hydro, and wind to be self sustaining we are going to have to burn a lot of coal and natural gas to build that infrastructure. Put too much taxation on the coal and natural gas and we will be stuck burning coal and natural gas.
With that said I'll make one thing clear. I don't have to be convinced that global warming is bad to make the conversion of energy production in this country (or on this planet) from fossil fuels to nuclear, hydro, and wind. I know that fossil fuels are bad for the economy and political stability of this country (and this planet). I'm just finding it hard to give a damn about the "carbon footprint" I might have. What does concern me is how much of our country relies on other countries for its energy, and therefore its industry, food, and defense.
Is the name in reference to a bat's echolocation ability or is it a reference to the "Dark Knight" movie where such a software system was used by Batman to find the bad guys?
Only the Shadow knows.
I told you yesterday, you're looking for 1.21 jigga-watts!
With all this time travel going on I know it's difficult to keep track but I won't hear what you told me yesterday until tomorrow. ...
Or something like that.
They stopped asking for addresses after an embarrassing interview with some Radio Shack executive where the interviewer plainly stated that when he shops there he gives a fake address. The last few times I've been there they have not asked for my address. It's been years since I've had a Radio Shack employee ask for my address and they had no problem with my refusal to provide one.
And the nuclear industry is allowed to irradiate resources and create waste without a management plan.
I'm not sure what you mean by "irradiate resources" since in most cases the radiation emitted by nuclear power plants is actually lower than that of fossil fuel plants. I've heard that the radiation inside modern nuclear power plants (where the people are, not the reactor core) is actually lower than what is outside because of all the concrete and steel in the containment structures.
When it comes to "radioactive waste" I believe that is an oxymoron. If it's radioactive then it is either a valuable industrial material and/or a valuable nuclear fuel. The problems with "radioactive waste" is purely political. Remove all the scaremongering over "nucular" and let people actually deal with the "waste" and turn it into the fuel we keep looking for. If this "waste" is going to be radioactive for millions of years that means it contains some very valuable nuclear fuel. Use it, don't bury it.
That's nothing compared to how long it took car manufacturers to take ash trays out of cars.
Does that qualify as a car analogy?
It's 2011, there should not be anything a Javascript can do that is harmful to your computer.
I generally dislike going to see a physician. It typically goes like this, I have an appointment at some god awful early hour (to me at least) with a physician in another county. I have to take the day off work, drive through horrendous traffic, usually getting lost. It does not seem to matter if I arrive early, on time, or late but it seems that I always have to wait an hour before I can see the physician. In the mean time I'm given this form so the clinic/hospital and "update their records" in which I'm asked all kinds of detailed questions while I'm tired, sick, and/or hungry.
I made a realization one recent time I saw a physician. I think they give you that form to fill out just so you have something to occupy your time while you wait. I was fortunate that time in not having to wait long and I didn't have time to complete the form, I think all it had was my name and address, but they took the form and made no insistence that I complete the form before I left.
Anyway, I broke my feet years ago in the Army and they have now become arthritic. Since then I have been on numerous pain medications, just about all of them disastrous. I'd be given one NSAID after another, none of them working and all of them causing stomach pain. Then they tried steroids, that worked but they won't give them to me again because of side effects from long term use. Then they tried all kinds of "nerve meds" (I don't know the proper term) that are typically used to treat depression or mood disorders, and a few other crazy stuff along the way. That stuff made it difficult to sleep and I was tired all the time.
During this time I had some dental work done and the dentist prescribed paracetamol with codeine for the pain. Wow, that was the first time in years I had a good night's sleep. I didn't have the upset stomach from the NSAIDs, my feet didn't hurt, and there was nothing messing with my head.
After that every time I went to my physician I'd ask for more of that paracetamol with codeine but I'd get something "better" instead. Like an idiot I thought the physicians knew something I didn't and went along with it.
A few months ago I decided I needed to see a physician (this was not my usual physician) since I had considerable pain, hadn't slept in days, and generally could not function. They took blood tests and talked about thyroid diseases, stress, restless leg syndrome, along with "it happens and it will go away on its own". He gave me some of that paracetamol with codeine for the pain and I was able to sleep again.
The last time I go to the physician I complain about the stomach pain returning and they find I have high blood pressure. Turns out that long term use of paracetamol will cause stomach bleeding and high blood pressure. Now they have me on codeine and blood pressure medications. I can sleep and my stomach doesn't hurt. Along with the blood pressure medications they gave me a portable blood pressure measuring machine. My blood pressure is now considered normal only two days after changing my medications.
Was it the blood pressure meds that lowered my blood pressure so quickly or was it that I'm no longer taking paracetamol?
I tell this long story to get to a point that needs to be addressed when it comes to our health care. Why was I not given codeine years ago? Why did I have to suffer from all those horrendous drugs before given something so cheap and effective as codeine? I believe it is because while physicians fear malpractice they also fear being labeled as drug dealers by the government. For some reason the government deems opiate prescriptions as "bad" and will punish physicians that prescribe it too readily.
This "war on some drugs" has had a serious effect on my own personal health and standard of living. One consolation I have is that I did not have to pay for those expensive meds personally since it was provided by federal funds because the pain is considered as a result of my military service. Everyone else in this country should be upset t
We don't drill in ANWR because it lowers the price of gasoline by $0.40 but because it creates revenue for the government without raising taxes, creates domestic jobs, and reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy.
All this research in alternative energy is nice, and quite possibly necessary. The problem is that until we have airplanes that run on something other than kerosene we will need to drill for oil. With modern airframes lasting about three decades I suspect we will need to drill for oil for at least another three decades, assuming there is not some earth-shattering breakthrough in science before then.
You say that we will be able to pump oil out of ANWR for "only" twenty years. With unemployment being as high as it is right now it would seem that creating jobs for Americans should be a priority for the government. Employing people in oil drilling, even if it is for "only" twenty years, would mean that a lot of Americans will have their lives suck a lot less during that time. That would also likely mean a lot of Americans can afford to send their kids to college. These college educated Americans can then research ways to extract more oil from ANWR and ways to get energy that does not require more drilling for oil.
It is practically inevitable that we will run out of oil that we can profitably extract from the ground. Before that happens we will see more money, public and private, being spent on ways to get energy that does not require drilling for oil. In the mean time I see no reason to not drill for oil in our own country. We need oil now and for many decades to come. Producing it here can only benefit us.
I could think of all kinds of interesting things to try to get 3D images of with this software, why are all the examples only of someone's face?
Also, the articles mentioned similar software for desktop operating systems. Can anyone name a few? I have a camera built-in to the lid of my triple boot Macbook so I could experiment. Unfortunately my iPod does not have a camera.
"My God! It's full of stars!"
These robots also seemed to have trouble opening doors.
It was my understanding that the radiation was too high at that point for any existing robot to operate in that environment. Since radiation levels on this magnitude is rare I suspect that robots designed to withstand such high radiation will not exist for some time.
I have much respect for the mechanical and software advancements that the Japanese have brought to robotics. The problem here is that the electronics, while being very capable in completing computations, lack the capability to function in high radiation environments. I would think that not even outer space rated electronics could handle the amount of radiation coming out of the reactors at that time.
It might not be relevant because of how the money was laundered but how the money was obtained. Judging by many posts on Slashdot there just HAS to be mind altering substances involved. Maybe we need a poll asking what controlled substances people are taking right now.
The big issue behind incandescent lighting is the "carbon footprint" produced in generating the electricity to power them. We can make that issue moot if we'd only move to nuclear power. I suppose some people would grumble about all that nuclear "waste" that is produced in running those plants. That is another issue we could make moot if we'd lift the ban on reprocessing fuel and build some new power plants that don't produce as much waste to run.
Another way to make this moot is to develop lighting that is more efficient and cheaper than incandescent. The summary points out that large numbers of Americans are happy with CFL light bulbs. (I'm not one of them.)
What this ban does is remove incandescent light bulbs from the competitive market. CFL and LED lighting has to now compete with the very durable and cheap incandescent. Removing incandescent lighting from the market could have some interesting unintended consequences. I can foresee a drop in quality and rise in prices for lighting, at least in the short term.
This law might also prove to be quite pointless as it does not ban the use of rough service, appliance, and other specialty incandescent bulbs. Unless the quality of other technologies suit my desires I'll keep buying incandescent bulbs for quite some time after this, it just means I'll be putting "appliance" bulbs in my bedroom light fixtures.
A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion.
The GP's logic is quite sound. Gun control cannot work in the half assed manner that proponents seem to always encourage. It is an all or nothing proposition.
Right, it cannot be half way. Gun control will only work if no one can have a gun. I say we start that by destroying all the guns owned by the government.
What is the goal of gun control? To reduce crime? It has never seemed to work anywhere in history. We still had crime before firearms were invented. Where gun control is strictly enforced we see people getting killed with fires, run over by cars, cut up with knives and swords, beaten with boards and bricks, all kinds of mayhem continues without guns. Gangs run wild in London with only their fists and feet beating up old men and women because they cannot carry the most basic of self defense tools available in modern society. They can't even have pepper spray in the UK as that is considered a firearm just as much as a sawed off shotgun. Because the penalty is just as strict for pepper spray as it is to have a sawed off shotgun take a guess what the criminals arm themselves with if given the resources to get any weapon they want?
Gun control cannot reduce crime because it is not the gun that puts evil in the hearts and minds of people. Gun control can only do the opposite since it puts the weak at the mercy of the strong. A handgun is a great equalizer. Since law abiding people outnumber criminals in this world the equal stance of the law abiding and the criminal means that the criminal will almost always lose. By removing that equalizer the criminal has the high ground.
The government has power over the people that must be held in check by those people. Since no government will disarm itself before disarming the people that means gun control gives the government absolute power over the people.
I recall a saying about what absolute power can do.
The location of the windscreen on an aircraft might have something to do with the fact that our eyes are near the top of our bodies.
Helicopters will have windows in the floor of the cabin so that the pilot can see the landing area. In a fixed wing aircraft the pilot only really needs to know if the wheels are between the lines on the runway. The altitude at that point is not terribly difficult to determine and there is typically plenty of room for error, a few feet up or down don't mean much if you have sufficient length of runway.
Also, there was an in air collision I heard about on the radio recently. A high wing light aircraft could not see the plane above and flew into it. The other plane was a low wing style and could not see the aircraft below. It would seem that in uncontrolled airspace the pilot would need to see both up AND down. In controlled airspace, like that in a commercial airport, the pilot doesn't need to see much at all really.
He's got patches on the patches of his old blue jeans.
They used to be new.
They used to be blue.
And they used to be clean.
lighten up and have a drink
Done and done.
But then that was the plan before I read the article, I had a beer in hand before I clicked the link. Does it still count?
I just don't care what year is the warmest, coldest, wettest or driest. I'm tired of hearing about what the problem is and am now craving for people to talk about what we are going to do about it. Most of the time the "solutions" involve taxing me more so that the government can give that money to someone else. How about some real solutions.
First, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, ice will freeze and thaw. We need to develop the means to deal with that. It might be as simple as NOT doing something. Just don't rebuild in the part of the city that keeps getting flooded. Turn it into a park, a swamp, a cranberry bog, whatever. Just don't be stupid in city planning.
Next we need to come up with real solutions for not burning so much foreign oil. I personally think all this global warming rhetoric is a steaming pile of bullshit. What I can agree on is the need to become energy independent out of a need to grow our economy and avoid getting entangled in foreign matters that should not involve us.
If we are going to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air then we need to focus on the energy sources that are low in CO2. The energy sources in order of least CO2 output to highest are:
- Hydro-electric
- Nuclear
- Geothermal
- Wind
- Natural gas
- Solar (PV or thermal)
- Other fossil fuels
We've already dammed all the rivers worth a dam. Geothermal is very sensitive to location and cannot be useful everywhere. Iceland is full of good spots, the American Midwest is not so much. Nuclear reactors can be built just about anywhere and are safe, powerful, and reliable. New designs produce next to nothing for waste and can run off cheap thorium.
Wind and solar are not reliable, are expensive, and not really all that low on the CO2 output compared to other sources. They are also very sensitive to location. There is a lot of wind in the American Midwest and a lot of sun in the American Southwest, which is good for Chicago and Dallas but not so much for New York or Miami. With such long power lines there would be much lost in just the transmission lines. The materials for efficient wind and solar power requires highly refined materials such as silicon and aluminum which means a lot of energy in the front end to gain it back later. That means plenty of CO2 expelled to produce these energy sources. The CO2 output for the energy produced might be improved in time but RIGHT NOW nuclear power really outshines them all.
Some sources claim that even natural gas beat out solar power for CO2/energy ratio. Some claim it is a parity. Solar might beat out natural gas in CO2 produced but the cost of solar power is somewhere around double that of natural gas. Another great thing about natural gas is that we, in the USA, have plenty of it. We don't need anyone's permission to get it, we just need to go get it.
All the problems here are political. The government needs to do their damned job at let Americans produce power here so we aren't shipping our jobs and dollars to countries that don't like us so much. I don't give a fuck about global warming. I'm tired of hearing about global warming. We need people to shut up about global warming and start working on solutions.
I remember watching this show years ago about life of the Alaskan Natives. They had fashioned a sort of eye protecting goggles that had a thin slit across. This was to protect the eyes from the blowing snow and the bright light from the sun reflecting off the snow on the ground. Using something like this the pirates could position the slit to guard against the beam and still provide vision of at least a portion of the ship. Perhaps a set of these goggles in "reverse" which has a horizontal dark stripe which can be placed over the beam by tilting the head.
All this less lethal crap is nonsense. Just about every time I read another one of these stories I can come up with a counter action that is relatively simple. What these ships need to fight off the pirates are real guns that shoot real bullets. Even a handful of .30-06 bolt action rifles would provide a considerable deterrence to these thugs on the water. I would suggest they get something more powerful though if they can afford it. I'm thinking that a 25mm auto-cannon like the one on top of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle should be standard equipment for cargo ships that traverse the open sea. Add a few .50 caliber or .30 caliber rifles as well. Every crew member should be trained in their use as well as having access to small arms, such as pistols and shotguns, in case some do make it on board.
Properly arming the cargo ships against piracy will be impossible so long as the ports these ships service do not respect the life of the very crews that bring them their goods. Laws need to change. As it is right now most nations consider an armed crew an act of war rather than an act of self defense.
I went out to lunch with some co-workers and, while we were eating our burritos, I noticed three or four Border Patrol agents in line for food. They were armed and in uniform. We found this quite odd since we were more than 100 miles from any border and several miles from any major highway leading to a border. They didn't just get off the highway for a bite, there were plenty of other places to eat closer to the highway. This was also not the only place in town to get burritos. The only thing that we could come up with to explain their presence there was the proximity of the restaurant to the airport. We didn't recall ever seeing an international flight out of the airport though.
It was very strange to see Border Patrol agents there. I have to wonder now how far the border zone extends now. Could it be one THOUSAND miles?
Solar + EV = win. A neighbor of mine did this and his average bill is negative $2/month.
That doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. One thing I'd like to know is how much are the loan payments on the solar panels?
One Friday afternoon I got into a conversation with some of my co-workers on the viability of solar power for the home. I did a bit of research that weekend looking into how much sun we get in my area, the efficiency of solar panels, the cost of the panels per area, and so on. I figured out that if I were to cover my roof with solar panels I could run all my electric appliances in my home through the winter, with the possible exceptions of the big ones like my oven and dryer. Natural gas equivalents are common and require very little electricity to run. In the summer I'd have enough excess electricity to charge up an electric car.
Add a sufficiently large battery pack (and perhaps a backup generator in case of storm damaged panels, lengthy dark days, or other reasons the panels fail to deliver) and I should be able to cut the electrical mains to my house. There was one catch, the solar panels would cost more than my house. I'd be trading a $200/month electric bill for a $1000/month loan payment.
Your claim does not add up, or is at least incomplete. Your neighbor's electric bill might be negative but I have to wonder about the total cost.