I know a lot of people with heat pumps. When natural gas and propane prices spiked heat pumps got real popular here in the Midwest. As popular as they were everyone had a propane or natural gas "backup" furnace. What this meant is for about 2 months per year the heat pump would run, 6 months the furnace would run, and the rest was with air conditioning. It just gets too cold here for heat pumps to keep up. Last I checked Norway was closer to the poles than us.
Then they mention electric heat. I've seen that heat pumps are quite popular in the southern US too. Even then they have an electric resistance heat backup, though they use it much less. Temperatures in these areas rarely get low enough that a heat pump cannot keep up. This also has something to do with a lack of topsoil. It's easy to run natural gas pipes in the Midwest due to the deep layers of soil. When I lived in Texas it was almost unheard of to have this thing called a "basement". The bedrock was under only a couple inches of soil, so electric heat it is.
The only way I see Norway not using some petroleum product to heat their homes is if electricity was really really cheap compared to the USA. A couple quick Google searches tell me that they pay about the same we do, perhaps more after taxes. What's going to happen to those prices once they have a government mandated monopoly on heat in a nation that straddles the Arctic Circle?
Listen, if you don't want any idiot to decide what your children get taught then send them to a private school. It's nonsense like this that makes me wonder why we even have public schools. We're long past the time I'd think some large portion of the population would throw up their hands and declare the bullshit got too deep and the government was getting out of the education business.
One reason I hear that we should have public schools is because I benefit from educating my neighbor's kids. I also benefit if my neighbor's kids mow my lawn but I don't think that the government should be involved in that either. Government is wasteful. Rarely is a government project on time and under budget. If parents were allowed to keep the money they have taken from them in taxes then they'd be able to afford a better education than anything the government could provide.
What of the parents that cannot afford to educate their children? First, perhaps they should not have had children. It's not like birth control is a foreign concept today. Second, they can do like my brothers do, hold school fundraisers. They pay tuition for their kids but also raise funds to subsidize education for their kids and the less wealthy. Even with all the government funds in public schools people see the value in a private education because they are free of a lot of the bullshit in public schools, so private schools often set aside some money to allow poor parents to send their kids there gratis.
If I'm paying for your children to get educated then don't be upset if I go to the school board demanding that I be heard on how MY money is getting spent. If you want me to shut up then the answer is simple, pay for your own stupid kids' education.
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused. If the EPA doesn't want to enforce this rule then I'd expect this rule to disappear right quick. I realize that there are procedures they have to follow to remove a rule from the federal register so follow the procedures and make it happen.
Here's what I expect to happen, the EPA will appeal and in the mean time not enforce the rule AND start the process to remove the rules they don't want to enforce. By the time this gets to SCOTUS the rules will be gone and the point moot.
Also, seems like just another dick move by Obama to enact a rule that he would not have to enforce. Not that Trump has not already done similar things in his short time as POTUS, this is a common dick move by all elected officials and I'd rather they stop doing it.
It's real easy to make a law or rule that does not come into force until the person that passed the law or rule does not actually have to deal with. They get the praise for "doing something" but if it fails then someone else gets the blame. Kind of like what is happening right now.
If filling up at home is that important to you then getting a tank and a refill contract for it is not difficult. The reason most people don't bother is because it takes about 15 minutes once per week to refill their gas car at any of several gas stations in their vicinity. When I had a shorter commute and a smaller vehicle I'd regularly go two weeks before having to refill. A couple 5 gallon jerry cans filled with gas served as an emergency reserve and to fill my lawnmower. Such a reserve is not available to EVs as cheaply.
I don't understand this fascination with refueling/recharging at home. Are people so anti-social that they cannot be bothered to go to a filling station once per week and maybe come into contact with another human that is not their parent, spouse, or child?
I'd think that 15 minutes once per week is a small inconvenience for a vehicle with effectively unlimited range (stopping for a piss and fuel on long trips), can run even when there is a power outage, and is cheaper to purchase than an electric. I did some calculations on total cost of ownership of electric, gasoline, and natural gas, I found that gasoline would have to get much more expensive to make up for the higher cost of electric vehicles. I'm sure newer EVs have changed the math a bit but I can get a used gasoline car pretty cheap, an EV not so much.
Well, what do you define as "a lot"? Also, what defines "generosity" in your lexicon?
Over 9 million single mothers sounds like "a lot" to me. This "generosity" comes in the forms of food stamps, welfare payments, and more. If there was not this "safety net" such women would be compelled to marry the father of their children, find a suitable husband, or learn to keep their pants on. I could not find the number of single mothers with more than one child but if the number of single mothers is 9 million and the number of children in a single parent household numbers around 15 million then there must be a lot of single mothers that failed to learn their lesson with the first child. And they all can't be twins and triplets.
What's notable about the article is that there is a claim that the majority of single mothers in the United States are separated, divorced or widowed
Being unmarried means choosing to not stay with the father. Being separated or divorced also means a choice. The only mothers that could not have chosen to be single parents were the widows. Even then they have a choice to re-marry, but I will concede that such women will have difficulty in finding men willing to raise another man's child. I'm sure that some of the mothers chose to leave the father because of things like abusive behavior or other reasons for their safety and the safety of the child. This might be a necessity and it can also mean they made a poor choice on who to fuck.
Half of children in the USA today are in "broken" homes, that is where the parents were unmarried, separated/divorced, or re-married another spouse. Such children tend to have behavior problems in the future, such as not marrying and staying married to the person they have children with. I put a large part of this on the government enabling such behavior.
That works so long as people like yourself are in the minority. What happens if a large number of people get electric vehicles and expect to be able to rent a car to visit granny for Thanksgiving?
I suspect that rental cars won't be so cheap then.
I'm not a fan of electric cars but I'll play devil's advocate here.
Presumably if people are waiting in line for a charging station this would be an indication that more stations are needed. One would hope that with a proper analysis of usage patterns and such the building of new stations would be such that as more people buy electric cars the growth of charging stations would grow as well. Meaning wait times should not increase but more likely decrease as people get charging stations in places more convenient to their driving habits.
One should also be able to safely presume as people switch from petroleum fueled vehicles to electric ones the filling stations would shift from offering gas and diesel to also offering electric charging.
Maybe we'll have solar cars where charging stations won't even be necessary - or even stopping to charge.
No, just no.
I worked on a solar racing car in college. It had to charge from sunup to sundown in order to "race" for maybe a couple hours. This was a "car" with a single passenger, no air conditioning, built more like a bicycle than anything someone might recognize as an automobile. This "car" had a motor with 1500 watt peak output power, about 2 horsepower. What does the typical car have for power output? 200hp? Or about 150kW?
This "car" also cost an estimated $250,000. Perhaps mass production could bring that down a bit.
That would be AWESOME!
Trust me, the "awesomeness" wears off real quick when the interior temperatures get to be around 40C.
We did that regularly on the farm. Pull the truck up to the gravity tank we had, 5 seconds to put the nozzle in, wait five minutes, 5 seconds to pull the nozzle out and put it back on it's hook. No need to wait overnight.
When my last car was ready to die I looked into getting a natural gas car. To refill I'd have needed a compressor on the natural gas line to my house. I'm pretty sure the process was something like, pull in the garage, hook up hose, push button, and walk away. In the morning the car would be full, unhook the hose, and drive away.
I don't think it's that fewer young men are failing to become fathers, it's that fewer young men are failing to become married. There are a lot of single mothers that simply decide to live off the "generosity" of the government instead of marrying the fathers of their children. Without the incentive to provide for a family young men will choose to continue living the life much like they did in their teens. An extended adolescence if you will.
Also, women have been getting encouragement to join the workforce instead of raising their children. A young married couple where both work will drop the kids off at a day care and then both take off at the same time to pick up the kids and be home for supper. In a household where only the husband works the mother will care for the children and household, which means the husband is motivated to work harder and does not see the same pressure to leave work. There is still the desire to be home for supper, which is flexible, but not when the daycare closes, which is not.
I know couples with multiple children and both work. Both will have to leave work so that one can get the older kid(s) from school while the other gets the younger one(s) from daycare. If there are three children then this can go on for some time.
Certainly the improvements in birth control has delayed the need for men to provide for a family but I believe there is more to it than that.
No you stupid fuck, it's because Mexico and Venezuala are developing nations with piss poor social structures.
You think that maybe Mexico and Venezuela are such shit holes because the people lack the ability to defend their lives and property from roving gangs? You think that maybe, just maybe, the crime rate would go down if a few of these raping and pillaging assholes got a hole in their head once in a while? Would not the ability for the common citizen to shoot a thug that's busting down their door encourage the survivors to think twice before doing that again?
I'm not talking about vigilantes going around, as the gun grabbers accuse those that see the brilliance in the Second Amendment of wanting. What I'm talking about is people living in peace to continue living in peace because they know that if someone kicks down their door they can shoot the fucker before they do any more damage.
It's real hard to build your own wealth if some strongman can just take it if they think you have "too much". It's real hard to have an honest and fair election if thugs with bats are wandering about on election day to "educate" the public on who should win.
I heard that crime is getting so bad that the government has allowed or is considering allowing people to own handguns and shotguns.
What can't the average citizen own? Rifles.
Turns out that the Russian government knows that to have a successful uprising a rifle would be very helpful.
I believe that the spread of the internet, and things like 3D printing will make all gun control laws impossible to enforce. A truly accurate rifle made from scrap metal in someone's spare bedroom is a way off yet but we are really close right now.
Murder rate goes way down with restrictions on gun ownership, stop drinking the cool aid.
Show me. Do you have a citation of any kind?
I go do a Google search and I'll find all kinds of articles on how "gun control reduces gun crime" but is that really what we want? Less "gun crime"? I thought the goal was to make society safer, as in reduce ALL crime.
But no, we can't have people get shot. Would you rather they were tossed out a window?
If I sift away the nonsense on how frying pan control reduces frying pan crimes then I see some real studies that match gun ownership to crime rates. Turns out the safest places in the world have little gun control.
But the USA has more guns than (some subset of the world) and has a much higher crime rate than those other nations. Why are we filtering out other nations from this data set? Why does not Mexico, or Venezuela, get included? Because they have horrendous crime rates, restrictive gun ownership laws, and therefore would make gun control look bad.
In other words to make gun control look like a good idea you have to torture the data until it tells you what you want to hear.
He owned a Desert Eagle. That thing costs over $1000 new and can be easily bought/sold second hand for half that, quite likely more.
A marriage license costs what? $100? With that you are married. If you want a ceremony then get out your best suit and re-use that prom dress and go to church. Give the preacher $100 for his time and rental of the church. Want to have some friends to participate? Send out some e-mails, costs nothing, and tell them it's a pot luck. A few more bucks will get you use of the church hall, or a public park, or just find a friend with a large backyard. A few more bucks for a cake, maybe a couple bottles of champagne, and everyone is happy. Play some music on that kickin' stereo in your car with the doors propped open and everyone dances until they fall down drunk.
People have been getting married on the cheap since man met woman. Every couple can afford to get married before having kids.
Couldn't afford birth control either.
Costs nothing to keep your pants on. There's lots of places that hand out condoms for free. If for some reason they can't find free condoms the cost of one of those.50 AE cartridges would buy a condom or two.
Clearly couldn't fucking think properly and plan ahead, so why are you surprised by this?
I'm surprised that society has devolved so far that these two were not shamed into marriage by their peers after the first kid.
Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.
I care about crime rates, not "gun crime" rates. Gun deaths went down after the 1996 confiscation but gun deaths were already declining before that. Murder rates went down too but those were also declining before 1996.
Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.
"Propaganda"? There are multiple instances of the police getting caught looking into firearm ownership records to take lawfully owned firearms. It's not a widespread phenomenon but it happens in the USA regularly.
Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use.
Is that why the effort to ban them was successful in the 1930s? It was not successful because there were women's groups concerned about being unable to defend themselves. Seems a lot of people disagree with you on that.
No one should be allowed to posses a hand gun without a federal concealed carry license (so you can easily carry it across state lines, we should change the laws so they issue them, not the states).
There is an effort to enact a law where a concealed carry license issued in one state is valid in all states, kind of like how licenses to drive are still valid, marriage licenses are valid, and so on. What is also happening is a lot of states are doing away with their requirements for a license to carry a handgun, 12 so far. Seems to me that they think that if you are a law abiding person before you pick up the gun that you will continue to be one after you pick up the gun.
Would also be interesting to know how they got the gun. Seems like you need a licence to drive a car but apparently not to operate a deadly weapon.
Federal law in the USA requires that a person be older than 18 years to buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun) from a federally licensed dealer and 18 years to *own* a handgun. This means for a 19 year old to own a handgun it must be gifted by a family member or purchased on the private market.
At least 10 states allow for carry of a handgun, openly or concealed, without a license. At least 40 allow for open carry without a license. There are at least 40 states that will issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to anyone with a clean record that applies (commonly called "shall issue" laws). The rest are "may issue" states which means you have to give the sheriff an envelope filled with cash to get your license. Age to carry a hand gun is usually 21 with exceptions for military service and/or employment where it would be 18 years.
So, how does a 19 year old get a Desert Eagle? Buy one from an older friend most likely. Is this legal? Most likely yes.
So we have one idiot out of 300 million that got himself dead from playing with a handgun. Does that mean we need to change the law on owning them? No more than if he was successful in killing himself with the other stunts mentioned in the article like jumping off a roof into a swimming pool, or driving a go-cart too fast, or what ever else he did.
Also, since when has the lack of a license to drive stopped anyone from driving? Do a Google search on how many unlicensed drivers are in the USA. You will find that no one really knows, except that it is likely in the millions. I think we should do away with the license to drive. Responsible parents will still send their kids to driving school and irresponsible ones will still let their idiot kids drive without training. We all win by no longer having a DMV to deal with.
Frying pans specifically or just improvised bludgeons in general? I can't imagine too many deaths by frying pan but I do recall reading how the sale of baseball bats go up with every street riot.
Murder rates generally are unchanged or go up with restrictions on gun ownership. I can't imagine death by stupidity would be changed by gun control laws either. This guy was looking to get killed, jumping off of roofs and driving go-carts like mad.
I'm paraphrasing Penn Gillette who said something like passing insane laws to stop the insane from doing insane things is itself insane.
California has solar subsidies while Arizona does not. Or at least the subsidies are more attractive in California than Arizona. When California has a lot of sun but not enough demand it is in the best interest for California solar power producers to pay the solar power producers in Arizona to reduce output.
In other words California taxpayers found themselves in the interesting situation of subsidizing Arizona solar power.
Some may ask why fossil fuel plants don't just cut back output. The reason is that the boilers in those plants need to be kept hot because allowing them to cool means getting their steam back is very expensive, that is fuel burned for no energy produced. They need to keep the turbines spinning and so on or they risk damage to the equipment. It's cheaper for them to pay Arizona to take their power than throttle back for short periods. Longer lasting reductions in demand are more readily apparent and can be accommodated in their fuel burn rates.
In other words California taxpayers are paying higher energy rates with the solar subsidies but not seeing any real reduction in CO2 output.
What about natural gas peak power plants? Can't those be used? Sure, but as pointed out in the articles the solar funded lobby is using "new math" to show that the solar power output is exceeding growth in demand so therefore fossil fuel plants should be shutdown. They neglect to point out the minute by minute shifts in demand in their calculations which leads to the interesting situation we have, needed to pay Arizona to take power only to buy it back later.
In other words California taxpayers are paying their government regulators to create a state grid in which the electric ratepayers often have to pay for their electricity twice.
This is what solar energy subsidies have bought us, expensive and unreliable electric grids. I can hear it now, "What of the fossil fuel subsidies?" Those should go away too and for the same reason.
Reminds me of a comment my not-a-fan-of-Apple brother said about my new iPhone, he told me that it should work well for scraping the shit off my ass. If he ever asks to borrow my phone I'm going to refuse.
Because the materials, land, labor, etc, to build and operate a facility that can collect and concentrate the sun to melt the PV waste costs money. This is far from "free".
Also, how do you propose building such a facility? Silicon melts above 1400C, and boils above 3200C. Even the hottest solar concentrator plant or molten salt nuclear reactor top out around 1000C. Collecting the solar power with PV panels and using arc furnaces or something to melt this PV waste has got to have a lot of losses in it. How much land would this facility take to get enough sun?
Obviously we can build furnaces to reach these temperatures since we refine silicon in much the same way but to do so we burn a lot of coal. I don't just mean burning the coal to produce the electricity, coal is a feedstock to the chemical process.
I read Psalm 72 and what I get out of that is that King Solomon will protect the weak from the strong, treat all people fairly, poor and wealthy alike, and spread the word of God to all in his land. I don't see in there any demand that the government provide welfare, only that the government treat all equally under the law.
Charity is giving of oneself. A government official cannot use tax money to give to the poor and consider that "charity" as it cost him nothing. Charity has to "hurt" to be charity. Giving when it costs you nothing is certainly being nice, but that's not charity in its truest sense. A government can only give what it takes from others. Giving to the government what it demands in taxes is merely following the law, not charity. A government giving to the poor may be good domestic policy but it is not charity.
I have people ask how I can be so "mean" by saying the government should not tax people to give to the poor. I reply by saying that I cannot support using the force of government to take from the so called "rich" as that is just theft by proxy. It's also has hints of envy, sloth, greed, wrath, and vanity. I want no part of that.
The one death from cancer was lung cancer, in someone that smoked heavily.
Why you are such an idiot is beyond me. Perhaos you read to many spy stories and take stuff like 'Pollonium can be flushed down the toilett and is then non detectable after a few days" literally? Sorry... to really write such nonsense you don't had bad teachers in school but you simply are an idiot.
Perhaps "a few days" is a slight exaggeration but it is very difficult to detect, and decays to a common isotope of lead in a short time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps you could explain how polonium would be detected if flushed down a toilet?
Cadmium, Lead and the other stuff you are freaking out about are 'metals'!!!!!
Of course cadmium and lead are metals. I'm quite certain that English is not your first language so I can understand your use of words like "silicium" but I'm pretty sure that "metal" is something that translates well to many other languages. If cadmium and lead are not metals then what are they? They are not gasses, I'm sure of that.
You simply heat what ever you want to recycle and then one metal after the other is melting (like ice in a glass of your favourite drink).
How much does that cost? How much energy does that take? No one is arguing that they cannot be recycled, only that the means we know of today are too expensive to be worth the effort. If we heat this PV mess up and distill out the different elements then that would separate everything out but that is a very expensive process.
We do that since about 6000 before christ, I really wonder how dumb you are and why there are idiots that are even dumber and mod you +4 informative.
I just think you are jealous that I got modded to +4 and you did not.
You should really consider to let more foreign workers into your country, the IQ or knowledge level seems to be absurdly low in the 'ingenious' population.
You said you are from Europe, right? I read the news and I've seen what your recent immigration trends have been doing there. I do not believe that America should be taking advice from Europe right now on immigration policies. I think we are doing quite well by comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a lot of people with heat pumps. When natural gas and propane prices spiked heat pumps got real popular here in the Midwest. As popular as they were everyone had a propane or natural gas "backup" furnace. What this meant is for about 2 months per year the heat pump would run, 6 months the furnace would run, and the rest was with air conditioning. It just gets too cold here for heat pumps to keep up. Last I checked Norway was closer to the poles than us.
Then they mention electric heat. I've seen that heat pumps are quite popular in the southern US too. Even then they have an electric resistance heat backup, though they use it much less. Temperatures in these areas rarely get low enough that a heat pump cannot keep up. This also has something to do with a lack of topsoil. It's easy to run natural gas pipes in the Midwest due to the deep layers of soil. When I lived in Texas it was almost unheard of to have this thing called a "basement". The bedrock was under only a couple inches of soil, so electric heat it is.
The only way I see Norway not using some petroleum product to heat their homes is if electricity was really really cheap compared to the USA. A couple quick Google searches tell me that they pay about the same we do, perhaps more after taxes. What's going to happen to those prices once they have a government mandated monopoly on heat in a nation that straddles the Arctic Circle?
So, not going to happen.
Listen, if you don't want any idiot to decide what your children get taught then send them to a private school. It's nonsense like this that makes me wonder why we even have public schools. We're long past the time I'd think some large portion of the population would throw up their hands and declare the bullshit got too deep and the government was getting out of the education business.
One reason I hear that we should have public schools is because I benefit from educating my neighbor's kids. I also benefit if my neighbor's kids mow my lawn but I don't think that the government should be involved in that either. Government is wasteful. Rarely is a government project on time and under budget. If parents were allowed to keep the money they have taken from them in taxes then they'd be able to afford a better education than anything the government could provide.
What of the parents that cannot afford to educate their children? First, perhaps they should not have had children. It's not like birth control is a foreign concept today. Second, they can do like my brothers do, hold school fundraisers. They pay tuition for their kids but also raise funds to subsidize education for their kids and the less wealthy. Even with all the government funds in public schools people see the value in a private education because they are free of a lot of the bullshit in public schools, so private schools often set aside some money to allow poor parents to send their kids there gratis.
If I'm paying for your children to get educated then don't be upset if I go to the school board demanding that I be heard on how MY money is getting spent. If you want me to shut up then the answer is simple, pay for your own stupid kids' education.
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused. If the EPA doesn't want to enforce this rule then I'd expect this rule to disappear right quick. I realize that there are procedures they have to follow to remove a rule from the federal register so follow the procedures and make it happen.
Here's what I expect to happen, the EPA will appeal and in the mean time not enforce the rule AND start the process to remove the rules they don't want to enforce. By the time this gets to SCOTUS the rules will be gone and the point moot.
Also, seems like just another dick move by Obama to enact a rule that he would not have to enforce. Not that Trump has not already done similar things in his short time as POTUS, this is a common dick move by all elected officials and I'd rather they stop doing it.
It's real easy to make a law or rule that does not come into force until the person that passed the law or rule does not actually have to deal with. They get the praise for "doing something" but if it fails then someone else gets the blame. Kind of like what is happening right now.
If filling up at home is that important to you then getting a tank and a refill contract for it is not difficult. The reason most people don't bother is because it takes about 15 minutes once per week to refill their gas car at any of several gas stations in their vicinity. When I had a shorter commute and a smaller vehicle I'd regularly go two weeks before having to refill. A couple 5 gallon jerry cans filled with gas served as an emergency reserve and to fill my lawnmower. Such a reserve is not available to EVs as cheaply.
I don't understand this fascination with refueling/recharging at home. Are people so anti-social that they cannot be bothered to go to a filling station once per week and maybe come into contact with another human that is not their parent, spouse, or child?
I'd think that 15 minutes once per week is a small inconvenience for a vehicle with effectively unlimited range (stopping for a piss and fuel on long trips), can run even when there is a power outage, and is cheaper to purchase than an electric. I did some calculations on total cost of ownership of electric, gasoline, and natural gas, I found that gasoline would have to get much more expensive to make up for the higher cost of electric vehicles. I'm sure newer EVs have changed the math a bit but I can get a used gasoline car pretty cheap, an EV not so much.
Well, what do you define as "a lot"? Also, what defines "generosity" in your lexicon?
Over 9 million single mothers sounds like "a lot" to me. This "generosity" comes in the forms of food stamps, welfare payments, and more. If there was not this "safety net" such women would be compelled to marry the father of their children, find a suitable husband, or learn to keep their pants on. I could not find the number of single mothers with more than one child but if the number of single mothers is 9 million and the number of children in a single parent household numbers around 15 million then there must be a lot of single mothers that failed to learn their lesson with the first child. And they all can't be twins and triplets.
What's notable about the article is that there is a claim that the majority of single mothers in the United States are separated, divorced or widowed
Being unmarried means choosing to not stay with the father. Being separated or divorced also means a choice. The only mothers that could not have chosen to be single parents were the widows. Even then they have a choice to re-marry, but I will concede that such women will have difficulty in finding men willing to raise another man's child. I'm sure that some of the mothers chose to leave the father because of things like abusive behavior or other reasons for their safety and the safety of the child. This might be a necessity and it can also mean they made a poor choice on who to fuck.
Half of children in the USA today are in "broken" homes, that is where the parents were unmarried, separated/divorced, or re-married another spouse. Such children tend to have behavior problems in the future, such as not marrying and staying married to the person they have children with. I put a large part of this on the government enabling such behavior.
That works so long as people like yourself are in the minority. What happens if a large number of people get electric vehicles and expect to be able to rent a car to visit granny for Thanksgiving?
I suspect that rental cars won't be so cheap then.
I'm not a fan of electric cars but I'll play devil's advocate here.
Presumably if people are waiting in line for a charging station this would be an indication that more stations are needed. One would hope that with a proper analysis of usage patterns and such the building of new stations would be such that as more people buy electric cars the growth of charging stations would grow as well. Meaning wait times should not increase but more likely decrease as people get charging stations in places more convenient to their driving habits.
One should also be able to safely presume as people switch from petroleum fueled vehicles to electric ones the filling stations would shift from offering gas and diesel to also offering electric charging.
Maybe we'll have solar cars where charging stations won't even be necessary - or even stopping to charge.
No, just no.
I worked on a solar racing car in college. It had to charge from sunup to sundown in order to "race" for maybe a couple hours. This was a "car" with a single passenger, no air conditioning, built more like a bicycle than anything someone might recognize as an automobile. This "car" had a motor with 1500 watt peak output power, about 2 horsepower. What does the typical car have for power output? 200hp? Or about 150kW?
This "car" also cost an estimated $250,000. Perhaps mass production could bring that down a bit.
That would be AWESOME!
Trust me, the "awesomeness" wears off real quick when the interior temperatures get to be around 40C.
We did that regularly on the farm. Pull the truck up to the gravity tank we had, 5 seconds to put the nozzle in, wait five minutes, 5 seconds to pull the nozzle out and put it back on it's hook. No need to wait overnight.
When my last car was ready to die I looked into getting a natural gas car. To refill I'd have needed a compressor on the natural gas line to my house. I'm pretty sure the process was something like, pull in the garage, hook up hose, push button, and walk away. In the morning the car would be full, unhook the hose, and drive away.
I don't think it's that fewer young men are failing to become fathers, it's that fewer young men are failing to become married. There are a lot of single mothers that simply decide to live off the "generosity" of the government instead of marrying the fathers of their children. Without the incentive to provide for a family young men will choose to continue living the life much like they did in their teens. An extended adolescence if you will.
Also, women have been getting encouragement to join the workforce instead of raising their children. A young married couple where both work will drop the kids off at a day care and then both take off at the same time to pick up the kids and be home for supper. In a household where only the husband works the mother will care for the children and household, which means the husband is motivated to work harder and does not see the same pressure to leave work. There is still the desire to be home for supper, which is flexible, but not when the daycare closes, which is not.
I know couples with multiple children and both work. Both will have to leave work so that one can get the older kid(s) from school while the other gets the younger one(s) from daycare. If there are three children then this can go on for some time.
Certainly the improvements in birth control has delayed the need for men to provide for a family but I believe there is more to it than that.
No you stupid fuck, it's because Mexico and Venezuala are developing nations with piss poor social structures.
You think that maybe Mexico and Venezuela are such shit holes because the people lack the ability to defend their lives and property from roving gangs? You think that maybe, just maybe, the crime rate would go down if a few of these raping and pillaging assholes got a hole in their head once in a while? Would not the ability for the common citizen to shoot a thug that's busting down their door encourage the survivors to think twice before doing that again?
I'm not talking about vigilantes going around, as the gun grabbers accuse those that see the brilliance in the Second Amendment of wanting. What I'm talking about is people living in peace to continue living in peace because they know that if someone kicks down their door they can shoot the fucker before they do any more damage.
It's real hard to build your own wealth if some strongman can just take it if they think you have "too much". It's real hard to have an honest and fair election if thugs with bats are wandering about on election day to "educate" the public on who should win.
I think this says something about climate models too.
Yes, it says they are based on science.
Sure, I don't doubt they are based on science. I have to wonder if they are based on reality.
I heard that crime is getting so bad that the government has allowed or is considering allowing people to own handguns and shotguns.
What can't the average citizen own? Rifles.
Turns out that the Russian government knows that to have a successful uprising a rifle would be very helpful.
I believe that the spread of the internet, and things like 3D printing will make all gun control laws impossible to enforce. A truly accurate rifle made from scrap metal in someone's spare bedroom is a way off yet but we are really close right now.
Murder rate goes way down with restrictions on gun ownership, stop drinking the cool aid.
Show me. Do you have a citation of any kind?
I go do a Google search and I'll find all kinds of articles on how "gun control reduces gun crime" but is that really what we want? Less "gun crime"? I thought the goal was to make society safer, as in reduce ALL crime.
But no, we can't have people get shot. Would you rather they were tossed out a window?
If I sift away the nonsense on how frying pan control reduces frying pan crimes then I see some real studies that match gun ownership to crime rates. Turns out the safest places in the world have little gun control.
But the USA has more guns than (some subset of the world) and has a much higher crime rate than those other nations. Why are we filtering out other nations from this data set? Why does not Mexico, or Venezuela, get included? Because they have horrendous crime rates, restrictive gun ownership laws, and therefore would make gun control look bad.
In other words to make gun control look like a good idea you have to torture the data until it tells you what you want to hear.
Could be they couldn't afford to get married.
He owned a Desert Eagle. That thing costs over $1000 new and can be easily bought/sold second hand for half that, quite likely more.
A marriage license costs what? $100? With that you are married. If you want a ceremony then get out your best suit and re-use that prom dress and go to church. Give the preacher $100 for his time and rental of the church. Want to have some friends to participate? Send out some e-mails, costs nothing, and tell them it's a pot luck. A few more bucks will get you use of the church hall, or a public park, or just find a friend with a large backyard. A few more bucks for a cake, maybe a couple bottles of champagne, and everyone is happy. Play some music on that kickin' stereo in your car with the doors propped open and everyone dances until they fall down drunk.
People have been getting married on the cheap since man met woman. Every couple can afford to get married before having kids.
Couldn't afford birth control either.
Costs nothing to keep your pants on. There's lots of places that hand out condoms for free. If for some reason they can't find free condoms the cost of one of those .50 AE cartridges would buy a condom or two.
Clearly couldn't fucking think properly and plan ahead, so why are you surprised by this?
I'm surprised that society has devolved so far that these two were not shamed into marriage by their peers after the first kid.
Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.
I care about crime rates, not "gun crime" rates. Gun deaths went down after the 1996 confiscation but gun deaths were already declining before that. Murder rates went down too but those were also declining before 1996.
Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.
"Propaganda"? There are multiple instances of the police getting caught looking into firearm ownership records to take lawfully owned firearms. It's not a widespread phenomenon but it happens in the USA regularly.
Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use.
Is that why the effort to ban them was successful in the 1930s? It was not successful because there were women's groups concerned about being unable to defend themselves. Seems a lot of people disagree with you on that.
No one should be allowed to posses a hand gun without a federal concealed carry license (so you can easily carry it across state lines, we should change the laws so they issue them, not the states).
There is an effort to enact a law where a concealed carry license issued in one state is valid in all states, kind of like how licenses to drive are still valid, marriage licenses are valid, and so on. What is also happening is a lot of states are doing away with their requirements for a license to carry a handgun, 12 so far. Seems to me that they think that if you are a law abiding person before you pick up the gun that you will continue to be one after you pick up the gun.
Would also be interesting to know how they got the gun. Seems like you need a licence to drive a car but apparently not to operate a deadly weapon.
Federal law in the USA requires that a person be older than 18 years to buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun) from a federally licensed dealer and 18 years to *own* a handgun. This means for a 19 year old to own a handgun it must be gifted by a family member or purchased on the private market.
At least 10 states allow for carry of a handgun, openly or concealed, without a license. At least 40 allow for open carry without a license. There are at least 40 states that will issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to anyone with a clean record that applies (commonly called "shall issue" laws). The rest are "may issue" states which means you have to give the sheriff an envelope filled with cash to get your license. Age to carry a hand gun is usually 21 with exceptions for military service and/or employment where it would be 18 years.
So, how does a 19 year old get a Desert Eagle? Buy one from an older friend most likely. Is this legal? Most likely yes.
So we have one idiot out of 300 million that got himself dead from playing with a handgun. Does that mean we need to change the law on owning them? No more than if he was successful in killing himself with the other stunts mentioned in the article like jumping off a roof into a swimming pool, or driving a go-cart too fast, or what ever else he did.
Also, since when has the lack of a license to drive stopped anyone from driving? Do a Google search on how many unlicensed drivers are in the USA. You will find that no one really knows, except that it is likely in the millions. I think we should do away with the license to drive. Responsible parents will still send their kids to driving school and irresponsible ones will still let their idiot kids drive without training. We all win by no longer having a DMV to deal with.
Frying pans specifically or just improvised bludgeons in general? I can't imagine too many deaths by frying pan but I do recall reading how the sale of baseball bats go up with every street riot.
Murder rates generally are unchanged or go up with restrictions on gun ownership. I can't imagine death by stupidity would be changed by gun control laws either. This guy was looking to get killed, jumping off of roofs and driving go-carts like mad.
I'm paraphrasing Penn Gillette who said something like passing insane laws to stop the insane from doing insane things is itself insane.
California has solar subsidies while Arizona does not. Or at least the subsidies are more attractive in California than Arizona. When California has a lot of sun but not enough demand it is in the best interest for California solar power producers to pay the solar power producers in Arizona to reduce output.
In other words California taxpayers found themselves in the interesting situation of subsidizing Arizona solar power.
Some may ask why fossil fuel plants don't just cut back output. The reason is that the boilers in those plants need to be kept hot because allowing them to cool means getting their steam back is very expensive, that is fuel burned for no energy produced. They need to keep the turbines spinning and so on or they risk damage to the equipment. It's cheaper for them to pay Arizona to take their power than throttle back for short periods. Longer lasting reductions in demand are more readily apparent and can be accommodated in their fuel burn rates.
In other words California taxpayers are paying higher energy rates with the solar subsidies but not seeing any real reduction in CO2 output.
What about natural gas peak power plants? Can't those be used? Sure, but as pointed out in the articles the solar funded lobby is using "new math" to show that the solar power output is exceeding growth in demand so therefore fossil fuel plants should be shutdown. They neglect to point out the minute by minute shifts in demand in their calculations which leads to the interesting situation we have, needed to pay Arizona to take power only to buy it back later.
In other words California taxpayers are paying their government regulators to create a state grid in which the electric ratepayers often have to pay for their electricity twice.
This is what solar energy subsidies have bought us, expensive and unreliable electric grids. I can hear it now, "What of the fossil fuel subsidies?" Those should go away too and for the same reason.
Your phone must never leave your backside...
Fixed that for you.
Reminds me of a comment my not-a-fan-of-Apple brother said about my new iPhone, he told me that it should work well for scraping the shit off my ass. If he ever asks to borrow my phone I'm going to refuse.
Not necessarily the christian god.
Could for example be the god of destruction (of fidget spinners).
Shiva has spoken!
Or something.
Because the materials, land, labor, etc, to build and operate a facility that can collect and concentrate the sun to melt the PV waste costs money. This is far from "free".
Also, how do you propose building such a facility? Silicon melts above 1400C, and boils above 3200C. Even the hottest solar concentrator plant or molten salt nuclear reactor top out around 1000C. Collecting the solar power with PV panels and using arc furnaces or something to melt this PV waste has got to have a lot of losses in it. How much land would this facility take to get enough sun?
Obviously we can build furnaces to reach these temperatures since we refine silicon in much the same way but to do so we burn a lot of coal. I don't just mean burning the coal to produce the electricity, coal is a feedstock to the chemical process.
I read Psalm 72 and what I get out of that is that King Solomon will protect the weak from the strong, treat all people fairly, poor and wealthy alike, and spread the word of God to all in his land. I don't see in there any demand that the government provide welfare, only that the government treat all equally under the law.
Charity is giving of oneself. A government official cannot use tax money to give to the poor and consider that "charity" as it cost him nothing. Charity has to "hurt" to be charity. Giving when it costs you nothing is certainly being nice, but that's not charity in its truest sense. A government can only give what it takes from others. Giving to the government what it demands in taxes is merely following the law, not charity. A government giving to the poor may be good domestic policy but it is not charity.
I have people ask how I can be so "mean" by saying the government should not tax people to give to the poor. I reply by saying that I cannot support using the force of government to take from the so called "rich" as that is just theft by proxy. It's also has hints of envy, sloth, greed, wrath, and vanity. I want no part of that.
They die a horribble death by leukemia and bonce cancer.
Not quite.
http://warisboring.com/the-sci...
The one death from cancer was lung cancer, in someone that smoked heavily.
Why you are such an idiot is beyond me. Perhaos you read to many spy stories and take stuff like 'Pollonium can be flushed down the toilett and is then non detectable after a few days" literally? Sorry ... to really write such nonsense you don't had bad teachers in school but you simply are an idiot.
Perhaps "a few days" is a slight exaggeration but it is very difficult to detect, and decays to a common isotope of lead in a short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps you could explain how polonium would be detected if flushed down a toilet?
Cadmium, Lead and the other stuff you are freaking out about are 'metals'!!!!!
Of course cadmium and lead are metals. I'm quite certain that English is not your first language so I can understand your use of words like "silicium" but I'm pretty sure that "metal" is something that translates well to many other languages. If cadmium and lead are not metals then what are they? They are not gasses, I'm sure of that.
You simply heat what ever you want to recycle and then one metal after the other is melting (like ice in a glass of your favourite drink).
How much does that cost? How much energy does that take? No one is arguing that they cannot be recycled, only that the means we know of today are too expensive to be worth the effort. If we heat this PV mess up and distill out the different elements then that would separate everything out but that is a very expensive process.
We do that since about 6000 before christ, I really wonder how dumb you are and why there are idiots that are even dumber and mod you +4 informative.
I just think you are jealous that I got modded to +4 and you did not.
You should really consider to let more foreign workers into your country, the IQ or knowledge level seems to be absurdly low in the 'ingenious' population.
You said you are from Europe, right? I read the news and I've seen what your recent immigration trends have been doing there. I do not believe that America should be taking advice from Europe right now on immigration policies. I think we are doing quite well by comparison.