|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
President Barack Obama’s flagship plan to fight climate change is getting a boost from city leaders across the country.
The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and a coalition of 54 local governments are filing arguments in federal court Friday morning in support of the Clean Power Plan, imploring the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases emitted from existing power plants.
The amicus brief, provided in advance to CityLab, argues that the EPA has a duty to protect the public from harmful pollution in ways laid out by the Clean Power Plan. Cities, meanwhile, are uniquely vulnerable to climate change and are already paying for its effects, they say.
These comments come days after the EPA outlined its own arguments in defense of the plan, which is being challenged by 27 states and an assortment of coal and power industry groups. The rule would force changes in the power sector with a goal of cutting its emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. At stake is the scope of the EPA’s regulatory powers, but also the ability of the U.S. government to meet its commitments to fighting climate change, as agreed to in the Paris negotiations last December.
Amicus briefs, submitted to add perspectives and evidence to primary legal arguments, don’t win or lose cases on their own. Nonetheless, says Michael Burger, who wrote the argument on behalf of the cities, it’s valuable for the court to see so many local municipalities line up together on behalf of the EPA.
“This should send a powerful message about the widespread support that the Clean Power Plan enjoys from local governments all around the country, regardless of their size, because the impacts are being felt everywhere and all of these governments are having to respond to climate change,” says Burger, the executive director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Source
|
On April 02 2016 00:04 farvacola wrote:
Fox News tends to do a fairly good job of covering apolitical news stories, and once one gets a good grasp of their partisan inflection relative to political topics, it's usually not too difficult to sift through their bias in the interest of seizing upon the useful components of a given news story. The same goes for most of the main news outlets; a bit of critical thinking and exposure to alternative news outlets are all one needs in order to consume mainstream media without falling victim to its biased tendencies.
In most cases, simply throwing up one's hands and saying "all media is uselessly biased" is cover for some sort of ideological discomfort with what is being discussed.
The idea that we could remove bias from News or media is a fallacy unto itself. It is impossible. But the thing people are looking for is a good faith effort to remove or address bias in News media. And an effort to keep the population informed on the issues the new agency feels is important. Like the long form, 6 month investigation in the movie Spot Light. That part has been eroded over the years as news as become more focused on keeping people tuned it. Long term investigative reporting is almost completely dead.
Its less to do with the bias of the media, which has always existed and everything to do with it for profit news being complete shit.
|
anyone have any bets on nonfarm? 215k and 5% - what were your positions going in? how'd they do?
|
On April 02 2016 00:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 00:04 farvacola wrote:
Fox News tends to do a fairly good job of covering apolitical news stories, and once one gets a good grasp of their partisan inflection relative to political topics, it's usually not too difficult to sift through their bias in the interest of seizing upon the useful components of a given news story. The same goes for most of the main news outlets; a bit of critical thinking and exposure to alternative news outlets are all one needs in order to consume mainstream media without falling victim to its biased tendencies.
In most cases, simply throwing up one's hands and saying "all media is uselessly biased" is cover for some sort of ideological discomfort with what is being discussed. The idea that we could remove bias from News or media is a fallacy unto itself. It is impossible. But the thing people are looking for is a good faith effort to remove or address bias in News media. And an effort to keep the population informed on the issues the new agency feels is important. Like the long form, 6 month investigation in the movie Spot Light. That part has been eroded over the years as news as become more focused on keeping people tuned it. Long term investigative reporting is almost completely dead. Its less to do with the bias of the media, which has always existed and everything to do with it for profit news being complete shit.
I think people expect to get that kind of reporting on a daily basis from CNN which is impossible. Reading the analysis papers of special issues or something behind a hefty paywall like the Financial Times make more sense.
|
On April 02 2016 00:58 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2016 00:04 farvacola wrote:
Fox News tends to do a fairly good job of covering apolitical news stories, and once one gets a good grasp of their partisan inflection relative to political topics, it's usually not too difficult to sift through their bias in the interest of seizing upon the useful components of a given news story. The same goes for most of the main news outlets; a bit of critical thinking and exposure to alternative news outlets are all one needs in order to consume mainstream media without falling victim to its biased tendencies.
In most cases, simply throwing up one's hands and saying "all media is uselessly biased" is cover for some sort of ideological discomfort with what is being discussed. The idea that we could remove bias from News or media is a fallacy unto itself. It is impossible. But the thing people are looking for is a good faith effort to remove or address bias in News media. And an effort to keep the population informed on the issues the new agency feels is important. Like the long form, 6 month investigation in the movie Spot Light. That part has been eroded over the years as news as become more focused on keeping people tuned it. Long term investigative reporting is almost completely dead. Its less to do with the bias of the media, which has always existed and everything to do with it for profit news being complete shit. I think people expect to get that kind of reporting on a daily basis from CNN which is impossible. Reading the analysis papers of special issues or something behind a hefty paywall like the Financial Times make more sense.
You have come to the crux of it. Back in the day we used to pay for news papers and the news on TV was mandated by the government. It was not profitable until CNN and the pundit wars started. I barely listen to anything but the BBC, News Hour or NPR at this point. I read the WSJ too, but the modern news networks are worthless to me.
|
On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded.
Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit.
Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator.
We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away.
Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate.
I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared.
edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide".
|
On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide".
Well Lockheed is definitely pouring money into it, if not, they would of never announced it. I have good faith that Lockheed can get close to a working model. As mentioned, we already have a few working models, obviously ones that run for a few seconds, but it's still better than nothing.
|
On April 02 2016 01:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide". Well Lockheed is definitely pouring money into it, if not, they would of never announced it. I have good faith that Lockheed can get close to a working model. As mentioned, we already have a few working models, obviously ones that run for a few seconds, but it's still better than nothing.
Just look at how long ago we could barely make a transistor work, lol.
Edit:
Krugman - Learning From Obama
A great summary of why Obama's presidency ain't too shabby. Also a really well grounded perspective on why asking for the world isn't always constructive:
The lesson of the Obama years, in other words, is that success doesn’t have to be complete to be very real. You say you want a revolution? Well, you can’t always get what you want — but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
|
TOPEKA, Kan. — Washington is locked in partisan warfare over control of the Supreme Court. But it is hardly the only place. Look at the states, where political attacks on judicial decisions are common and well-financed attack ads are starting to jar the once-sleepy elections for State Supreme Court seats.
Nowhere is the battle more fiery than here in Kansas. Gov. Sam Brownback and other conservative Republicans have expressed outrage over State Supreme Court decisions that overturned death penalty verdicts, blocked anti-abortion laws and hampered Mr. Brownback’s efforts to slash taxes and spending, and they are seeking to reshape a body they call unaccountable to the right-tilting public.
At one point, the Legislature threatened to suspend all funding for the courts. The Supreme Court, in turn, ruled in February that the state’s public schools must shut down altogether if poorer districts do not get more money by June 30.
“A political bullying tactic” and “an assault on Kansas families, taxpayers and elected appropriators,” is how the president of the Senate, Susan Wagle, a Republican, responded to that ruling, which was based on requirements in the state Constitution. Mr. Brownback spoke darkly of an “activist Kansas Supreme Court.”
In March, in the latest salvo, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to authorize impeachment of justices if their decisions “usurp” the power of other branches. But the climactic battle is expected in the November elections, when conservatives hope to remake the seven-member Supreme Court in a flash, by unseating four justices regarded as moderate or liberal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/outraged-by-kansas-justices-rulings-gop-seeks-to-reshape-court.html
Losing my faith in our political society just a little bit more every day.
|
Kansas is bleeding once again; luckily, Brownback's opponent for governor looks to be gaining a fair bit of traction. Furthermore, the downfall of Kansas will provide a clear-cut example of how damaging slash-and-burn Republican policies can be. Wisconsin is sure to follow, and Michigan ain't so far behind.
|
On April 02 2016 01:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide". Well Lockheed is definitely pouring money into it, if not, they would of never announced it. I have good faith that Lockheed can get close to a working model. As mentioned, we already have a few working models, obviously ones that run for a few seconds, but it's still better than nothing.
Money is not the only issue why i believe they're bullshitting.
The whole process (isolated team of a couple of scientists not only topple, but annihilate the entire worldwide community of scientists?) is dumb. The person allegedly behind the fusion reactor is someone who never once attended a congress of scientists. On top, every single scientist actually working in the field that looked at the patents said it's impossible that what they patented would actually work, because it's missing the core part (and the one thing that we can't solve sufficiently as of now). You can't enclose hot plasma in the design of Lockheed Martin, and that's essential for actually having a reactor.
Starting a fusion reaction is "easy". We did it plenty of times already in hydrogen bombs. It's the "not letting the resulting 100 million degree hot plasma touch the zero degree walls" part that is troublesome.
I'm not saying that Lockheed did a dumb thing. It's a publicity stunt. They're using two german concepts, that were disregarded decades ago, because they're proven to not work (magnetic cup/magnetic mirror).
And yes, we have a couple of working models. All of them are at least 20x the size of what Lockheed is proposing. Built by the biggest eggheads in the world, funded with billions of governmental money (in case of Wendelstein for example). And that's euros, not dollars.
It's a bit like the EM-Drive, it's something that simply doesn't work the way they say unless we rewrite physics.
|
On April 02 2016 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Kansas is bleeding once again; luckily, Brownback's opponent for governor looks to be gaining a fair bit of traction. Furthermore, the downfall of Kansas will provide a clear-cut example of how damaging slash-and-burn Republican policies can be. Wisconsin is sure to follow, and Michigan ain't so far behind.
Compare that to Oregon's changes over the last 10 years. Economy through the roof. It makes the poor hipster college students of Portland salty that they can't find a hip 700 sqft studio for $500/month though.
|
On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide".
it was a joke. He didn't say it's 5 years away from us but 5 years away from being 5 years away and implied that that cycle is going to keep going for, at the very least, a long time.
|
On April 02 2016 02:00 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide". it was a joke. He didn't say it's 5 years away from us but 5 years away from being 5 years away and implied that that cycle is going to keep going for, at the very least, a long time.
That's what Nyx said.
Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded.
That's what Kwark said. I'm not sure that i misunderstood.
5 funded years away, or four years after the first year is funded. That's how i understand it.
edit: but i don't disagree anyway with the first notion, i'd (and many scientists) be very surprised if we were to see usable fusion power in our lifetime.
|
On April 02 2016 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Kansas is bleeding once again; luckily, Brownback's opponent for governor looks to be gaining a fair bit of traction. Furthermore, the downfall of Kansas will provide a clear-cut example of how damaging slash-and-burn Republican policies can be. Wisconsin is sure to follow, and Michigan ain't so far behind.
The zero respect for checks and balances the the current Republican have amaze me. So now he is going to defund the Supreme court? What will that do but make them work without paychecks and then they will look like the most amazing civil servants?
|
On April 02 2016 02:01 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 02:00 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2016 01:19 m4ini wrote:On April 02 2016 00:06 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
fusion is five years away from being five years away. Fission is really expensive and has lots of drawbacks. There's simply no need for it given that pretty much every developed nation could go fully renewable in the next few decades. I'm pretty sure there is some MIT study out there that has modeled this for every US state until 2050 or something Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded. Fusion being 5 years away is a unrealistic estimate. Very unrealistic. The first commercial powerplants are still decades away. Even when fully funded. There's things you simply can't rush, like building shit. Wendelstein X7 took 10 years to build alone. And that's a device just to test one possible option for fusion, the stellarator. We're not even talking commercial here, we're talking the knowledge/ability to build one is still decades away. Even the idiotic claim of Lockheed Martin, that they already have a working reactor and will be able to shrink it to truck-size (lol) still has a 10 year estimate. I think people really underestimate the process of nuclear fusion. A fission reactor is stone-age technology compared. edit: and yes, of course one could pour more money into the research (i'm all for it!) - but it's not "criminally underfunded", at least not "worldwide". it was a joke. He didn't say it's 5 years away from us but 5 years away from being 5 years away and implied that that cycle is going to keep going for, at the very least, a long time. That's what Nyx said. Show nested quote +Fusion is five funded years away and will be four years away after they actually fund it for one year. It's criminally underfunded.
That's what Kwark said. I'm not sure that i misunderstood. 5 funded years away, or four years after the first year is funded. That's how i understand it. edit: but i don't disagree anyway with the first notion, i'd (and many scientists) be very surprised if we were to see usable fusion power in our lifetime.
oh my bad, should have probably quoted Kwark instead or I'm not getting his joke
|
Yeah no way fusion is actually five years away, there are so many conceptual problems wit reactor design and so on that all the money in the world isn't going to solve. From what I've read physicists are expecting working reactors that actually produce energy somewhere between 2050 and 2070. Show me one guy in the field that supports the idea that we could have fusion in five years please.
|
On April 02 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Kansas is bleeding once again; luckily, Brownback's opponent for governor looks to be gaining a fair bit of traction. Furthermore, the downfall of Kansas will provide a clear-cut example of how damaging slash-and-burn Republican policies can be. Wisconsin is sure to follow, and Michigan ain't so far behind. The zero respect for checks and balances the the current Republican have amaze me. So now he is going to defund the Supreme court? What will that do but make them work without paychecks and then they will look like the most amazing civil servants?
That's what you get when you pander to the anti-government part of the population.
Surprise, you get a non functional government. And shocker, but the government actually does a lot of good for people.
|
The CIA "inadvertently left" explosive material on a school bus after a training exercise with local law enforcement in Loudoun County, Va., the agency and the country sheriff's office say.
The bus then remained in service for two days, transporting students to a high school and two elementary schools, before the explosive material was found during routine maintenance, the sheriff's office says in a statement.
According to a statement from the school district, the bus carrying the material "made eight runs totaling 145 miles carrying 26 students attending Rock Ridge High School, Buffalo Trail Elementary School and Pinebrook Elementary School."
The CIA put the material in the bus as part of a regular joint exercise to train explosive-sniffing dogs at Briar Woods High School on March 21-24 during spring break vacation, the sheriff's office says. The Loudoun County Sheriff's office and Fire Marshal's office took part in the drill.
Source
|
On April 02 2016 02:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The CIA "inadvertently left" explosive material on a school bus after a training exercise with local law enforcement in Loudoun County, Va., the agency and the country sheriff's office say.
The bus then remained in service for two days, transporting students to a high school and two elementary schools, before the explosive material was found during routine maintenance, the sheriff's office says in a statement.
According to a statement from the school district, the bus carrying the material "made eight runs totaling 145 miles carrying 26 students attending Rock Ridge High School, Buffalo Trail Elementary School and Pinebrook Elementary School."
The CIA put the material in the bus as part of a regular joint exercise to train explosive-sniffing dogs at Briar Woods High School on March 21-24 during spring break vacation, the sheriff's office says. The Loudoun County Sheriff's office and Fire Marshal's office took part in the drill. Source
That's hilarious! Lessons learned:
- Those dogs suck at finding the stuff,
- kids can boast that they've ridden on a bus packed with explosives
- Explosives don't explode:
It adds that the material is "incredibly stable" and "benign," without disclosing details. Loudoun schools spokesman Wayde Byard tells The Washington Post that it was "a 'putty-type' material designed for use on the battlefield and which requires a special detonator; such putty, or plastic, explosives — including the well-known C-4 — are used in demolition."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
