Where? A quick search of the internet tells me that the last 1G system was shutdown sometime around 2010.
Oh, I get it, you said the devices still work. That's like saying your old tube TV set still works. With my old TV set I can at least use that for some retro gaming with my 8-bit Nintendo and its light gun. What are you going to do with that 1G phone? My nephew has a 1G phone, he's in diapers and likes to pretend he's making phone calls like his mom and dad.
I'm sure someone will read this and just can't wait to pounce and point out that 2G phones can still make calls. Well, you'd better get a new phone for Christmas because a good chunk of the 2G network will be going dark in 2019 and all of it will go dark in 2020.
So with 40% renewables and 10% nuclear we have about 50% left which is produced with various kinds of coal, and half of that is imported: so 25% of our electricity is produced by imported coal. That does not sound so bad, or does it?
Germany is highly dependent on imported natural gas for their heat and electricity, and this will only increase. https://www.dw.com/en/nord-str...
Actually last year it was 38.5% this year it will be above 40%. You probably found links from 2015 or older...
Okay, smart ass, if you don't like my numbers then show me where you got yours. You told me to look it up, I did, and then you tell me I'm wrong without showing where you got your numbers. So, show me where you got your numbers or shut the fuck up over what is likely just a rounding error on being 35%, 38.5%, or 40%.
I did not lie or omit anything. The talk and your claims where about electricity, claiming we would import a lot, which is wrong, we are a net exporter.
No, my claims were about energy.
Nuclear energy has really only been used for electricity and marine propulsion so far but it doesn't have to be that way in the future. The US Navy has a program researching how to turn nuclear energy into fuel oil and aviation fuel for their ships and aircraft. This would be highly useful for producing fuel at sea on an aircraft carrier to keep the planes flying. It would also be useful in a time of war if scaled up to make up for lost imports of erdgas and mineral oil for domestic transportation, heating, cooking, and industry. Maybe your German navy sailors can talk to our American navy sailors and learn how to do this so if (or when) Russia shuts off their supplies of erdgas, oil, and coal you aren't just shivering in the dark until the US Navy comes to save you.
Since then the USA put a car on the moon and sent another to Mars. I don't expect the Mars bound car to be operable when we get there but I've heard that the lunar rovers should be well preserved and just need a new battery to get moving again. In other words, what have they done lately?
That's not something easy to do for apple, because trump wants factories in US.
What Trump wants and what Trump gets will not always coincide. Also, it's not like Apple is incapable of creating more than one factory for their devices. Apple opened a factory in India to avoid import duties, so it's been done before.
It's all about price there.
Which is why Apple was willing to open a factory there. If Trump and his friends in DC want to see cheap Apple products in the USA then it would be to their benefit to fix the laws that discourage domestic rare earth metal mining. China has a near monopoly on vital rare earth metals and have placed export controls to encourage domestic production of electronics. The only reason this has continued for so long is because mining for these minerals in the USA is mired in laws that make it very expensive.
The main problem is that where rare earth metals are found is in ore that is also rich in thorium. Mining thorium, even as a byproduct, is expensive because US federal law considers this a controlled "weapon grade nuclear material", which is bullshit. Let's assume it's not bullshit, that it is in fact valuable as a nuclear fuel. Then I'd expect the federal government would find this useful in things like fueling future submarines and aircraft carriers. Let people mine the rare earth metals to make iPhones, and have the government buy the thorium that comes up with it.
There is not likely to be any iPhones made in the USA until there is a domestic source of rare earth metals with sufficient capacity to support a factory.
Trump is not happy with China on trade. Here's a way to get leverage with China, start mining for rare earth metals and offer it for export to compete with China. While the USA is exporting metals maybe the USA could export thorium too.
Why stop selling a product that sells, especially in markets like India, and has a headphone port?
Seems to me a lot of Slashdot commenters look for a headphone port on their phones. Seeing another phone with a headphone port be taken off the market is another signal other phone makers would follow and drop their products with a headphone port.
Also, when Apple announced the end of sale for the old style MacBooks with USB-A and MagSafe they got complaints. I guess this just shows again that someone will complain regardless of Apple does with their product lines.
I did finally sit down to Google something about where Germany gets it's energy and Germany has put themselves in a very bad spot.
Germany imports 90%+ of the natural gas they burn. Germany imports 90%+ of the oil they burn. Germany imports about half of the coal they burn. Germany gets about 15% of their electricity from domestic nuclear power and about 40% from coal with plans to shut down both in the near future. Germany gets 35% of their electricity from domestic wind, solar, hydro, and biomass.
By comparison the United States is 80% to 90%+ energy independent and is a net exporter of both oil and coal.
Your claims may be technically true but it is a lie by omission. You pointed out that Germany is a net exporter of electricity but with a large portion of that electricity derived from foreign coal and natural gas that just makes Germany an energy middleman.
A rise of 20 feet in 500 years is just a couple inches per year. I think we can manage that without some kind of panic. Sure, that might mean some expensive changes to infrastructure at first but now that we've run through the models on a computer we can lay out plans for decades in advance. I'm at a loss on what the big deal is about.
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning.
Then explain this to me. On my daily commute I'd drive by this building that had a 10 or 15 foot wall around it with the building sitting on top of the dirt inside. I searched the internet and found that the building was completed in 1966. A couple years ago the city started filling in dirt around the building to raise the street in front of it about 10 or 15 feet. They will likely finish this in the fall.
Why did they raise the street level? Because across the street is a river. You see every ten years or so this street would end up under water from spring thaw and rains. An inconvenience at first since in the 1960s the city wasn't as populated as it is now. Now, 50 years later, they are finishing what was likely started even before that building was being planed in managing the city flooding along the river front. With the higher street level they expect the flooding will be reduced to once in a century.
What was likely a muddy horse path 100 years ago is now a four lane road. To make a path for this road meant having the power lines, water lines, building set backs, street drainage, all laid out in at least a general detail decades in advance.
That's just one example of a city project that was planned over a very long term. There's many examples all over the world. Some of this planning is centuries old.
I remember a news program on the tsunami that hit Fukushima in 2011. In that program they showed a footpath that went past a small stone monument, probably no more that 15 feet in height and 3 feet square at the base. The carvings were in Japanese but the person showing it says it's a monument to the dead in a great tsunami centuries before, and a warning not to build a structure closer to the sea than the point on which it stood. It turns out that in the tsunami that hit in 2011 the structures built below that monument were washed out to sea and the buildings on higher ground survived.
If that Japanese high water marker isn't some kind of long term infrastructure planning then I don't know what is. Granted, planners failed to heed the warning on that monument and did so at great cost. My guess is that this failure is not likely to be repeated for another century or three.
The cables under the ocean were placed there and intended to be submerged. The cables buried underground that are currently not underwater, is the point of the article.
We know how to manage underwater cables. We know how quickly the water will rise. We know how deep these cables are. Therefore we know where and when the cables would need to be replaced with submerged rated versions to keep operational. Given that maintenance and upgrades are a thing with any infrastructure that means that there is a budget for this. I understand that it's quite possible for submerged rated cables to cost more than underground rated cables but that only means upgrades might be delayed, or the budget needs to be increased.
If the worst case of sea level rise is some people having their internet be on the blink as the upgrades are going into place then this is a non-problem. I'd be more concerned about things like subway tunnels and such being under water.
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don't have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants.
Do you mean power plants that burn coal and natural gas? Sure, then I'll agree.
Unless you're willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can't compete.
Fine, then subsidize it.
The alternative to nuclear power is New York being submerged by rising sea levels. How much would it cost to deal with the rising seas, compare that to the cost of building nuclear power plants, and choose accordingly. I'm trying to understand the problem here. I keep hearing that "the debate is over". Well, is it? If the debate is over then the government should be acting on it.
The free market won't even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it's backed by government loan guarantees.
Then subsidize nuclear power. Subsidize it like our lives depend on it. Because if the predictions are to be believed then in fact lives do depend on it.
We've been dumping lots of money into wind, solar, and nuclear. Doing the math we get at least ten times the energy from the nuclear subsidies per dollar than from wind or solar. Here's an idea, take the money we used to put into wind and solar and invest that into nuclear. History tells us that with that level of investment we'd be far better off.
I'll agree that ending subsidies for wind and solar may not be necessary. What is necessary is an "all the above" solution to the problem of CO2 output. I keep hearing politicians talk about the threat global warming poses, that "all the above" is on the table, but when applications for nuclear power plants come to the NRC then they sit on them for 10 years and maybe they issue a license. If global warming is any real threat then the government should be working with the industry to speed up the license process, assure the power plants will be operated safely, give them any financial and engineering resources they need, and make this happen.
The alternative is rising sea levels, more coal mining, and more people dead.
Don't give me shit about the free market not supporting nuclear power. We haven't had a free market in energy since at least the Department of Energy was created. This is do or die shit we are dealing with. If it's not global warming that's a threat then it's dependence on foreign energy. Maybe that foreign energy is oil shipped in from all over the world. Maybe that's wind and hydro from Canada, or solar energy from Mexico. If the USA is to continue as an independent nation then we need to be able to provide the energy we need to survive.
We see this happening with Germany. They can't provide for their own energy because they shut down their nuclear power. Now they are having to ship in nuclear power from France, natural gas from Russia, oil from the Middle East, and (oddly enough) coal from the USA. President Trump was right to berate them over this, they can't defend themselves from hostile neighbors like Russia if they hold the means to freeze them to death by turning a valve. The USA will be in a similar situation real quick if we don't start replacing the aging nuclear power reactors we depend on to power our industry.
Waiving a right to exercise a privilege, assuming driving is a privilege, is not constitutional. I'd even argue that driving is a right, but I'll concede that point because it's not necessary to make my case. If they want a sample of my blood, piss, or breath, then that is a search. I have the right to refuse a search at any time and then they need a warrant based on cause to perform that search.
Here's something to ponder. What of a person driving without a license? They didn't waive their right to a sobriety test. What happens if they get stopped on suspicion of driving drunk? Would a warrant have to be obtained? Seems to me that to preserve my rights it's best to not even have a license to drive. Since I have no intention to drive while drunk I do have a license. I just find it curious that the law breakers have their rights protected more than I do.
What a bunch of bullshit. If there is a certainty of sea level rise wiping out large population centers if we don't do anything about CO2 output then I'd think we could take on some risk to avert it. What kind of risk? Building nuclear reactors kind of risk.
Has anyone done a risk analysis on using nuclear power? It turns out lots of people have. We find that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. How can that be? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1.21 GW of electricity with a capacity factor exceeding 90% for close to 80 years and very few people are killed or injured. Compare this to wind, solar, and hydro which have a capacity factors around 35% and people still die from industrial accidents in building and maintaining them. Comparing total energy out to people dead means fewer people dead from nuclear power than anything we know of.
They claim certainty of a many people dead in a global warming induced event and compare that to the risk of a nuclear power accident. If the global warming means 100% that people die then whatever risk nuclear power has must be lower than that.
I'm thinking that since the people in government are not issuing licenses to build more nuclear power that they know global warming is bullshit, they are suicidal (because DC is at "certainty" of being under water), or they are so lacking in intelligence to understand some basic fucking math.
If global warming is a problem then do something to fix it. If it's not a problem then at some point people will realize this and the scare mongering will have no effect. I left that scare mongering behind years ago. Now I'm simply pissed at being lied to over and over again.
While I agree LEDs are better than CFLs the irony is that without the subsidies people wouldn't have switched bulbs at all.
You don't know that.
Lights burn out all the time, especially the Edison ones. Most anyone can be convinced to buy anything for less than $20, just look at the adverts selling crazy stuff on TV. If they can see one LED light run cool and with natural light, then tha'ts likely to encourage more buying. Seeing LEDs in other people's homes sold them to me. The Edison bulbs never disappeared, they only lost shelf space in the big box stores. This is because the stores got part of the subsidy.
CFLs are disappearing from the shelves. Not because people are buying them, but because people are not and they aren't being restocked. Edison bulbs are returning to some extent but it's LED that's taking over. I'm not aware of any LED lighting subsidy but they are still cheaper than CFL for the same brightness bulb.
Wrong again. Here is what a lawyer says about striking down unconstitutional laws at any court level.
Your lawyer agrees with me. To strike down the law in court people have to actually go to court. Imagine a person is arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm. The accused is taken in front of a state prosecutor and is given a choice, take a plea deal for a misdemeanor with $2000 and time served or, we go to court where we ask for the mandatory minimum of 3 years, which makes this a felony, and we still take your $2000. The accused can pay the fine and go home. They can go to court, the law loses, the accused pays nothing, and goes home. They can go to court, the law wins, and the accused sits in the corner for 3 years. What the most likely outcome of not taking the deal is the prosecutor drops all charges and the law is not challenged in court.
For what you say to happen the prosecutor must take the accused to court. That's not happening. People get a shakedown because paying the fines is less than paying the lawyers.
Perhaps the best way to put it is with the saying, the quickest way to kill a bad law is strict enforcement. By not enforcing the law strictly it's not getting to court where it can be struck down.
You should try reading the part where I say whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, I'm pointing out the way you go about it makes out as if you think it is the first resort instead of the last. You should try reading and writing to politicians before you consider shooting up the place.
Where did you get the idea I would condone shooting first and asking questions later?
What would you expect me to do? When I got home I did some homework and sent a couple e-mails to some civil liberties groups I thought might be interested. I thought this was a violation of rights but the lawyers that answered my e-mail thought that there was enough precedent for what happened that it was a lawful search. I wasn't arrested so I couldn't make a case regardless. I didn't record anything, as I didn't have any such equipment with me.
Without an arrest I can't take them to court. I suspect they know this so they simply don't arrest anyone unless they find something that's a serious violation. Standard procedure is to offer a plea deal to avoid court (likely a heavy fine and no jail), and drop charges if anyone doesn't take the deal. It's a shakedown, a fundraiser, that's all. They don't want to go to court or put anyone in prison, they want money.
You can't know that because there's been three new appointments to SCOTUS since Heller, and it can take years for the case to get there. In that time there could be another new appointment because of a someone having a heart attack, retirement, or getting hit by a bus. I'm guessing they'd need Ginsburg's vote, she's 85 and had cancer... TWICE.
Also, there's little to gain on the state's side. They can already use the law as leverage since every law is presumed to be constitutional until challenged. They won't bring it to court unless something very unusual compels them. What might that be? I don't know, just something unusual.
As I recall DC was going to take a case on the carry of weapons to court but was convinced not to by some gun control people. They chose instead to pass a law allowing carry with a license than take the chance of having the court rule they could not even do that.
They aren't looking for the phone numbers he called. They want access to his contact lists, photos, notes, websites he visited, and the highest level he reached on Candy Crush. Okay, maybe not that last one.
The point is that a phone isn't just a phone any more. It's a portable data storage device that stores the data it holds in an encrypted format by default. If they caught him with a laptop they'd be asking for the password to log in. If they caught him with an encrypted hard drive they'd want the decryption key.
In the past they might have been able to brute force the locks. Now that's not an option so they are using a variation on pipe wrench decryption.
Well to do that you would have to overturn the domestic terrorism acts that allow these abuses to take place. Kind of makes your I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed sig look like a joke because you're not really free.
I know I'm not really free. So long as the police are empowered such wide latitude to search for drugs, child pornography, and "terrorism", then we have no real protections against unlawful search and seizure. The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution was because the government of the time used the premise of searching for weapons to search for anything that they felt like. Now we see the same violations that the founders wanted to prevent only instead of guns being the "evil" they seek its drugs. What is now considered a prohibited substance was then considered a common crop. They didn't smoke the "weed", they used it to make things like rope and potato sacks.
You mean where bad laws that go against the constitution are not laws because they are unconstitutional. I think you will find that standard is called "The Constitution" and whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, the way to defend it is with a pen, not a gun.
No, that cannot be found in the Constitution. Selective enforcement to keep bad law is common with gun laws. I can give a few examples.
There's been several cases of people being charged with a felony for bringing an unregistered firearm into the state of New York. This crime has a mandatory minimum of 3 years in the state pen. Each time someone has been charged no one has gone to prison and the charges have been plead down to a misdemeanor with a sentence of community service and a fine. The law says 3 years minimum, but no one has actually served that for admitting guilt. Why is that? Perhaps because the people charged have been upstanding citizens, like a registered nurse on vacation. By taking it to court that means they have to be in prison while the case is appealed. To take the law to court the person must first be found guilty of the felony. Getting a sentence of $50 and time served is far better than chances of a felony if the case fails. The state has deep pockets and no real concern on whether the law is struck down in the end so they are perfectly willing to go to court. Those caught committing a more serious crime at the time of being caught will plead to having the gun crime dismissed in exchange for a lighter sentence. New Jersey has a similar law but, as I recall, governors will issue a pardon to prevent the law going to appeal.
In Chicago a man breaks into a home while on the run from police. The homeowner shoots the man with his unregistered gun. The police haul away the dead thug and investigate, revealing the unregistered firearm in the home. No charges are brought against the home owner. Why? Because they know the law cannot stand up in court but they can charge criminals with the crime to get leverage on a plea deal. They also can expect that arresting a man for defending himself against a home invader could mean riots. Upstanding citizens in court over a bad law can get the law overturned real quick. Criminals that know they are guilty would rather make a deal than make some stand on a bad law.
Oh, and defending one's rights with a pen means nothing if there isn't a gun to back it up. Kind of like speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
Here's a twist on that I'd like to ponder. The ability to deny incriminating one's spouse is widely recognized, as best I can tell. If the dealer is the guy's wife then can he still be compelled to allow the search? I'd assume they might need some proof that the search would hold such a privilege, but doing so would mean an admission of a crime before the search happened, or revealing the commission of a felony in order to prove the privilege to conceal the evidence. Are there other relationships that carry similar privileges against compelled incrimination?
I'm thinking the grounds for initiating the search was very weak to begin with. I've read of other searches being tossed out on lesser police screw-ups than this. Maybe there's more to explain the need for a search that wasn't said in the article but this is sounding like they were fishing for something or were out to get this guy.
Slashdot Mirror
1G devices still work
Where? A quick search of the internet tells me that the last 1G system was shutdown sometime around 2010.
Oh, I get it, you said the devices still work. That's like saying your old tube TV set still works. With my old TV set I can at least use that for some retro gaming with my 8-bit Nintendo and its light gun. What are you going to do with that 1G phone? My nephew has a 1G phone, he's in diapers and likes to pretend he's making phone calls like his mom and dad.
I'm sure someone will read this and just can't wait to pounce and point out that 2G phones can still make calls. Well, you'd better get a new phone for Christmas because a good chunk of the 2G network will be going dark in 2019 and all of it will go dark in 2020.
I'm not buying a new phone until I can get one with THREE headphone ports!
So with 40% renewables and 10% nuclear we have about 50% left which is produced with various kinds of coal, and half of that is imported: so 25% of our electricity is produced by imported coal. That does not sound so bad, or does it?
That sounds terrible. Germany gets nearly 1/4 of it's energy from natural gas.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-...
Nearly all of that natural gas is imported imported, 40% imported from Russia.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-...
3/4 of the natural gas is for residential heating and hot water.
https://www.wingas.com/en/raw-...
Germany is highly dependent on imported natural gas for their heat and electricity, and this will only increase.
https://www.dw.com/en/nord-str...
Actually last year it was 38.5% this year it will be above 40%. You probably found links from 2015 or older ...
Okay, smart ass, if you don't like my numbers then show me where you got yours. You told me to look it up, I did, and then you tell me I'm wrong without showing where you got your numbers. So, show me where you got your numbers or shut the fuck up over what is likely just a rounding error on being 35%, 38.5%, or 40%.
I did not lie or omit anything. The talk and your claims where about electricity, claiming we would import a lot, which is wrong, we are a net exporter.
No, my claims were about energy.
Nuclear energy has really only been used for electricity and marine propulsion so far but it doesn't have to be that way in the future. The US Navy has a program researching how to turn nuclear energy into fuel oil and aviation fuel for their ships and aircraft. This would be highly useful for producing fuel at sea on an aircraft carrier to keep the planes flying. It would also be useful in a time of war if scaled up to make up for lost imports of erdgas and mineral oil for domestic transportation, heating, cooking, and industry. Maybe your German navy sailors can talk to our American navy sailors and learn how to do this so if (or when) Russia shuts off their supplies of erdgas, oil, and coal you aren't just shivering in the dark until the US Navy comes to save you.
you've always wanted to shoot someone you didn't like into outer space? Soon, he can actually DO that.
Are we certain he hasn't already? I mean they claim it was a test dummy in that space suit, and did anyone check the trunk of the car?
Are you capable of calm, rational discussion?
You must be new here. This is where people go when looking for an argument.
Since then the USA put a car on the moon and sent another to Mars. I don't expect the Mars bound car to be operable when we get there but I've heard that the lunar rovers should be well preserved and just need a new battery to get moving again. In other words, what have they done lately?
That's not something easy to do for apple, because trump wants factories in US.
What Trump wants and what Trump gets will not always coincide. Also, it's not like Apple is incapable of creating more than one factory for their devices. Apple opened a factory in India to avoid import duties, so it's been done before.
It's all about price there.
Which is why Apple was willing to open a factory there. If Trump and his friends in DC want to see cheap Apple products in the USA then it would be to their benefit to fix the laws that discourage domestic rare earth metal mining. China has a near monopoly on vital rare earth metals and have placed export controls to encourage domestic production of electronics. The only reason this has continued for so long is because mining for these minerals in the USA is mired in laws that make it very expensive.
The main problem is that where rare earth metals are found is in ore that is also rich in thorium. Mining thorium, even as a byproduct, is expensive because US federal law considers this a controlled "weapon grade nuclear material", which is bullshit. Let's assume it's not bullshit, that it is in fact valuable as a nuclear fuel. Then I'd expect the federal government would find this useful in things like fueling future submarines and aircraft carriers. Let people mine the rare earth metals to make iPhones, and have the government buy the thorium that comes up with it.
There is not likely to be any iPhones made in the USA until there is a domestic source of rare earth metals with sufficient capacity to support a factory.
Trump is not happy with China on trade. Here's a way to get leverage with China, start mining for rare earth metals and offer it for export to compete with China. While the USA is exporting metals maybe the USA could export thorium too.
Why stop selling a product that sells, especially in markets like India, and has a headphone port?
Seems to me a lot of Slashdot commenters look for a headphone port on their phones. Seeing another phone with a headphone port be taken off the market is another signal other phone makers would follow and drop their products with a headphone port.
Also, when Apple announced the end of sale for the old style MacBooks with USB-A and MagSafe they got complaints. I guess this just shows again that someone will complain regardless of Apple does with their product lines.
I did finally sit down to Google something about where Germany gets it's energy and Germany has put themselves in a very bad spot.
Germany imports 90%+ of the natural gas they burn.
Germany imports 90%+ of the oil they burn.
Germany imports about half of the coal they burn.
Germany gets about 15% of their electricity from domestic nuclear power and about 40% from coal with plans to shut down both in the near future.
Germany gets 35% of their electricity from domestic wind, solar, hydro, and biomass.
By comparison the United States is 80% to 90%+ energy independent and is a net exporter of both oil and coal.
Your claims may be technically true but it is a lie by omission. You pointed out that Germany is a net exporter of electricity but with a large portion of that electricity derived from foreign coal and natural gas that just makes Germany an energy middleman.
I've learned not to believe anything you claim without sources. Give some links for me to click and review and maybe I'll believe you
A rise of 20 feet in 500 years is just a couple inches per year. I think we can manage that without some kind of panic. Sure, that might mean some expensive changes to infrastructure at first but now that we've run through the models on a computer we can lay out plans for decades in advance. I'm at a loss on what the big deal is about.
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning.
Then explain this to me. On my daily commute I'd drive by this building that had a 10 or 15 foot wall around it with the building sitting on top of the dirt inside. I searched the internet and found that the building was completed in 1966. A couple years ago the city started filling in dirt around the building to raise the street in front of it about 10 or 15 feet. They will likely finish this in the fall.
Why did they raise the street level? Because across the street is a river. You see every ten years or so this street would end up under water from spring thaw and rains. An inconvenience at first since in the 1960s the city wasn't as populated as it is now. Now, 50 years later, they are finishing what was likely started even before that building was being planed in managing the city flooding along the river front. With the higher street level they expect the flooding will be reduced to once in a century.
What was likely a muddy horse path 100 years ago is now a four lane road. To make a path for this road meant having the power lines, water lines, building set backs, street drainage, all laid out in at least a general detail decades in advance.
That's just one example of a city project that was planned over a very long term. There's many examples all over the world. Some of this planning is centuries old.
I remember a news program on the tsunami that hit Fukushima in 2011. In that program they showed a footpath that went past a small stone monument, probably no more that 15 feet in height and 3 feet square at the base. The carvings were in Japanese but the person showing it says it's a monument to the dead in a great tsunami centuries before, and a warning not to build a structure closer to the sea than the point on which it stood. It turns out that in the tsunami that hit in 2011 the structures built below that monument were washed out to sea and the buildings on higher ground survived.
If that Japanese high water marker isn't some kind of long term infrastructure planning then I don't know what is. Granted, planners failed to heed the warning on that monument and did so at great cost. My guess is that this failure is not likely to be repeated for another century or three.
The cables under the ocean were placed there and intended to be submerged. The cables buried underground that are currently not underwater, is the point of the article.
We know how to manage underwater cables. We know how quickly the water will rise. We know how deep these cables are. Therefore we know where and when the cables would need to be replaced with submerged rated versions to keep operational. Given that maintenance and upgrades are a thing with any infrastructure that means that there is a budget for this. I understand that it's quite possible for submerged rated cables to cost more than underground rated cables but that only means upgrades might be delayed, or the budget needs to be increased.
If the worst case of sea level rise is some people having their internet be on the blink as the upgrades are going into place then this is a non-problem. I'd be more concerned about things like subway tunnels and such being under water.
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don't have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants.
Do you mean power plants that burn coal and natural gas? Sure, then I'll agree.
Unless you're willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can't compete.
Fine, then subsidize it.
The alternative to nuclear power is New York being submerged by rising sea levels. How much would it cost to deal with the rising seas, compare that to the cost of building nuclear power plants, and choose accordingly. I'm trying to understand the problem here. I keep hearing that "the debate is over". Well, is it? If the debate is over then the government should be acting on it.
The free market won't even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it's backed by government loan guarantees.
Then subsidize nuclear power. Subsidize it like our lives depend on it. Because if the predictions are to be believed then in fact lives do depend on it.
We've been dumping lots of money into wind, solar, and nuclear. Doing the math we get at least ten times the energy from the nuclear subsidies per dollar than from wind or solar. Here's an idea, take the money we used to put into wind and solar and invest that into nuclear. History tells us that with that level of investment we'd be far better off.
I'll agree that ending subsidies for wind and solar may not be necessary. What is necessary is an "all the above" solution to the problem of CO2 output. I keep hearing politicians talk about the threat global warming poses, that "all the above" is on the table, but when applications for nuclear power plants come to the NRC then they sit on them for 10 years and maybe they issue a license. If global warming is any real threat then the government should be working with the industry to speed up the license process, assure the power plants will be operated safely, give them any financial and engineering resources they need, and make this happen.
The alternative is rising sea levels, more coal mining, and more people dead.
Don't give me shit about the free market not supporting nuclear power. We haven't had a free market in energy since at least the Department of Energy was created. This is do or die shit we are dealing with. If it's not global warming that's a threat then it's dependence on foreign energy. Maybe that foreign energy is oil shipped in from all over the world. Maybe that's wind and hydro from Canada, or solar energy from Mexico. If the USA is to continue as an independent nation then we need to be able to provide the energy we need to survive.
We see this happening with Germany. They can't provide for their own energy because they shut down their nuclear power. Now they are having to ship in nuclear power from France, natural gas from Russia, oil from the Middle East, and (oddly enough) coal from the USA. President Trump was right to berate them over this, they can't defend themselves from hostile neighbors like Russia if they hold the means to freeze them to death by turning a valve. The USA will be in a similar situation real quick if we don't start replacing the aging nuclear power reactors we depend on to power our industry.
Is that to appease the gods or plug the hole in the bottom?
It's because the Republican controlled Congress stopped him.
Demonstrably false, try again.
The only thing stopping the Democrats were other Democrats that valued staying in office more than implementing the DNC platform.
A sobriety test is a search.
Waiving a right to exercise a privilege, assuming driving is a privilege, is not constitutional. I'd even argue that driving is a right, but I'll concede that point because it's not necessary to make my case. If they want a sample of my blood, piss, or breath, then that is a search. I have the right to refuse a search at any time and then they need a warrant based on cause to perform that search.
Here's something to ponder. What of a person driving without a license? They didn't waive their right to a sobriety test. What happens if they get stopped on suspicion of driving drunk? Would a warrant have to be obtained? Seems to me that to preserve my rights it's best to not even have a license to drive. Since I have no intention to drive while drunk I do have a license. I just find it curious that the law breakers have their rights protected more than I do.
What a bunch of bullshit. If there is a certainty of sea level rise wiping out large population centers if we don't do anything about CO2 output then I'd think we could take on some risk to avert it. What kind of risk? Building nuclear reactors kind of risk.
Has anyone done a risk analysis on using nuclear power? It turns out lots of people have. We find that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. How can that be? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1.21 GW of electricity with a capacity factor exceeding 90% for close to 80 years and very few people are killed or injured. Compare this to wind, solar, and hydro which have a capacity factors around 35% and people still die from industrial accidents in building and maintaining them. Comparing total energy out to people dead means fewer people dead from nuclear power than anything we know of.
They claim certainty of a many people dead in a global warming induced event and compare that to the risk of a nuclear power accident. If the global warming means 100% that people die then whatever risk nuclear power has must be lower than that.
I'm thinking that since the people in government are not issuing licenses to build more nuclear power that they know global warming is bullshit, they are suicidal (because DC is at "certainty" of being under water), or they are so lacking in intelligence to understand some basic fucking math.
If global warming is a problem then do something to fix it. If it's not a problem then at some point people will realize this and the scare mongering will have no effect. I left that scare mongering behind years ago. Now I'm simply pissed at being lied to over and over again.
I need a drink.
While I agree LEDs are better than CFLs the irony is that without the subsidies people wouldn't have switched bulbs at all.
You don't know that.
Lights burn out all the time, especially the Edison ones. Most anyone can be convinced to buy anything for less than $20, just look at the adverts selling crazy stuff on TV. If they can see one LED light run cool and with natural light, then tha'ts likely to encourage more buying. Seeing LEDs in other people's homes sold them to me. The Edison bulbs never disappeared, they only lost shelf space in the big box stores. This is because the stores got part of the subsidy.
CFLs are disappearing from the shelves. Not because people are buying them, but because people are not and they aren't being restocked. Edison bulbs are returning to some extent but it's LED that's taking over. I'm not aware of any LED lighting subsidy but they are still cheaper than CFL for the same brightness bulb.
Wrong again. Here is what a lawyer says about striking down unconstitutional laws at any court level.
Your lawyer agrees with me. To strike down the law in court people have to actually go to court. Imagine a person is arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm. The accused is taken in front of a state prosecutor and is given a choice, take a plea deal for a misdemeanor with $2000 and time served or, we go to court where we ask for the mandatory minimum of 3 years, which makes this a felony, and we still take your $2000. The accused can pay the fine and go home. They can go to court, the law loses, the accused pays nothing, and goes home. They can go to court, the law wins, and the accused sits in the corner for 3 years. What the most likely outcome of not taking the deal is the prosecutor drops all charges and the law is not challenged in court.
For what you say to happen the prosecutor must take the accused to court. That's not happening. People get a shakedown because paying the fines is less than paying the lawyers.
Perhaps the best way to put it is with the saying, the quickest way to kill a bad law is strict enforcement. By not enforcing the law strictly it's not getting to court where it can be struck down.
You should try reading the part where I say whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, I'm pointing out the way you go about it makes out as if you think it is the first resort instead of the last. You should try reading and writing to politicians before you consider shooting up the place.
Where did you get the idea I would condone shooting first and asking questions later?
What would you expect me to do? When I got home I did some homework and sent a couple e-mails to some civil liberties groups I thought might be interested. I thought this was a violation of rights but the lawyers that answered my e-mail thought that there was enough precedent for what happened that it was a lawful search. I wasn't arrested so I couldn't make a case regardless. I didn't record anything, as I didn't have any such equipment with me.
Without an arrest I can't take them to court. I suspect they know this so they simply don't arrest anyone unless they find something that's a serious violation. Standard procedure is to offer a plea deal to avoid court (likely a heavy fine and no jail), and drop charges if anyone doesn't take the deal. It's a shakedown, a fundraiser, that's all. They don't want to go to court or put anyone in prison, they want money.
Again, what should I have done? Shoot the cops?
You can't know that because there's been three new appointments to SCOTUS since Heller, and it can take years for the case to get there. In that time there could be another new appointment because of a someone having a heart attack, retirement, or getting hit by a bus. I'm guessing they'd need Ginsburg's vote, she's 85 and had cancer... TWICE.
Also, there's little to gain on the state's side. They can already use the law as leverage since every law is presumed to be constitutional until challenged. They won't bring it to court unless something very unusual compels them. What might that be? I don't know, just something unusual.
As I recall DC was going to take a case on the carry of weapons to court but was convinced not to by some gun control people. They chose instead to pass a law allowing carry with a license than take the chance of having the court rule they could not even do that.
They aren't looking for the phone numbers he called. They want access to his contact lists, photos, notes, websites he visited, and the highest level he reached on Candy Crush. Okay, maybe not that last one.
The point is that a phone isn't just a phone any more. It's a portable data storage device that stores the data it holds in an encrypted format by default. If they caught him with a laptop they'd be asking for the password to log in. If they caught him with an encrypted hard drive they'd want the decryption key.
In the past they might have been able to brute force the locks. Now that's not an option so they are using a variation on pipe wrench decryption.
Well to do that you would have to overturn the domestic terrorism acts that allow these abuses to take place. Kind of makes your I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed sig look like a joke because you're not really free.
I know I'm not really free. So long as the police are empowered such wide latitude to search for drugs, child pornography, and "terrorism", then we have no real protections against unlawful search and seizure. The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution was because the government of the time used the premise of searching for weapons to search for anything that they felt like. Now we see the same violations that the founders wanted to prevent only instead of guns being the "evil" they seek its drugs. What is now considered a prohibited substance was then considered a common crop. They didn't smoke the "weed", they used it to make things like rope and potato sacks.
You mean where bad laws that go against the constitution are not laws because they are unconstitutional. I think you will find that standard is called "The Constitution" and whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, the way to defend it is with a pen, not a gun.
No, that cannot be found in the Constitution. Selective enforcement to keep bad law is common with gun laws. I can give a few examples.
There's been several cases of people being charged with a felony for bringing an unregistered firearm into the state of New York. This crime has a mandatory minimum of 3 years in the state pen. Each time someone has been charged no one has gone to prison and the charges have been plead down to a misdemeanor with a sentence of community service and a fine. The law says 3 years minimum, but no one has actually served that for admitting guilt. Why is that? Perhaps because the people charged have been upstanding citizens, like a registered nurse on vacation. By taking it to court that means they have to be in prison while the case is appealed. To take the law to court the person must first be found guilty of the felony. Getting a sentence of $50 and time served is far better than chances of a felony if the case fails. The state has deep pockets and no real concern on whether the law is struck down in the end so they are perfectly willing to go to court. Those caught committing a more serious crime at the time of being caught will plead to having the gun crime dismissed in exchange for a lighter sentence. New Jersey has a similar law but, as I recall, governors will issue a pardon to prevent the law going to appeal.
In Chicago a man breaks into a home while on the run from police. The homeowner shoots the man with his unregistered gun. The police haul away the dead thug and investigate, revealing the unregistered firearm in the home. No charges are brought against the home owner. Why? Because they know the law cannot stand up in court but they can charge criminals with the crime to get leverage on a plea deal. They also can expect that arresting a man for defending himself against a home invader could mean riots. Upstanding citizens in court over a bad law can get the law overturned real quick. Criminals that know they are guilty would rather make a deal than make some stand on a bad law.
Oh, and defending one's rights with a pen means nothing if there isn't a gun to back it up. Kind of like speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
Here's a twist on that I'd like to ponder. The ability to deny incriminating one's spouse is widely recognized, as best I can tell. If the dealer is the guy's wife then can he still be compelled to allow the search? I'd assume they might need some proof that the search would hold such a privilege, but doing so would mean an admission of a crime before the search happened, or revealing the commission of a felony in order to prove the privilege to conceal the evidence. Are there other relationships that carry similar privileges against compelled incrimination?
I'm thinking the grounds for initiating the search was very weak to begin with. I've read of other searches being tossed out on lesser police screw-ups than this. Maybe there's more to explain the need for a search that wasn't said in the article but this is sounding like they were fishing for something or were out to get this guy.