|
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. |
On April 19 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency has released a major upward revision to its estimates of total emissions of methane, a hard-hitting if short-lived greenhouse gas, in an annual inventory that the agency submits to the United Nations. The revisions will further up the stakes in a political battle over regulations that the agency is preparing to issue that could affect operations at thousands of oil and gas wells.
“Data on oil and gas show that methane emissions from the sector are higher than previously estimated,” said the agency in a news release upon the report’s release. “The oil and gas sector is the largest emitting-sector for methane and accounts for a third of total U.S. methane emissions.”
Prior inventories, such as last year’s report, which provided data through the year 2013, had suggested that the U.S.’s highest source of methane was ruminant animals like cattle and other livestock, rather than the oil and gas industry.
The agency revised upward total methane emissions in the U.S. for the year 2013 from 636.3 million metric tons to 721.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, driven in significant part by increased estimates of emissions from oil and gas operations. And the overall methane emissions number is still higher for 2014, the most recent year in the inventory, at 730.8 million metric tons.
“What EPA essentially is doing is restating the numbers using the better data, that has been collected from the field,” said Mark Brownstein, who heads the oil and gas program at the Environmental Defense Fund, which has focused heavily on the methane issue in recent years. “What has long been thought is that emissions in the field are higher than what had been historically reported in EPA’s emissions inventory, and now, when you use that better data, it is higher.”
Some of the most substantial upward revisions involved emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems across the country — an emissions source that has increasingly been targeted by environmentalists, who say that the boom in domestic oil and gas production has driven greater methane emissions. Source
It's also worth noting that while methane is short lived in comparison to CO2, it's a very disingenuous euphemism to use. The GWP of methane over a 20-year period is 86x that of CO2, and even factoring in the fact that CO2 hangs around for a lot longer, the GWP of methane is 34x that of CO2 over a 100-year period. In other words, a kg of methane causes ~34x that caused by a kg of CO2 if considered over the timespan of 100 years (methane will have been mostly processed out of the atmosphere after just 12 of those, but even so causes the larger amount of warming).
The reason global climate change politics focuses on CO2 is because we are producing such vast amounts of it, but methane is considerably worse for our environment than CO2.
|
On April 19 2016 08:33 Lord Tolkien wrote:In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the case against the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
I thought that it would be 6-2 or 5-3, but I'm having doubts. The government relies heavily on the "self-inflicted injury" argument on standing. That's the kind of argument that some judges "see" and others just don't. Beyond that, the government has a very difficult argument on the merits.
If Roberts were so inclined, he could throw his hands up in the air, point to his Massachusetts dissent and say, "See, I told you this would happen." That's the tack that Jerry Smith took in the Fifth Circuit opinion.
|
On April 19 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Was nicer than the National Review's version... Show nested quote +What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision. sourceWe could stick with The Center for Public Integrity Show nested quote +But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.
Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. sourceOr we could just ridicule anyone who talks about it, as to avoid talking about the substance? Quite honestly, you're probably right that doing so is the best option.
These aren't sources at all. This is you using people who agree with you as some sort of evidence. I don't see how you can read those and see them as some sort of neutral source giving you matter of fact discussion.
This thread is going to be a very interesting place tomorrow.
|
On April 19 2016 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol greenwald is a 'source' Was nicer than the National Review's version... What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision. sourceWe could stick with The Center for Public Integrity But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.
Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. sourceOr we could just ridicule anyone who talks about it, as to avoid talking about the substance? Quite honestly, you're probably right that doing so is the best option. These aren't sources at all. This is you using people who agree with you as some sort of evidence. I don't see how you can read those and see them as some sort of neutral source giving you matter of fact discussion. This thread is going to be a very interesting place tomorrow.
But do you disagree with the statement "that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. "?
Mook didn't have an answer for this either.
|
On April 19 2016 08:33 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 06:33 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 04:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4. 6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3. Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however). Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst). There is no chance of a 4-4. Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later. The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case. A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court). On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen. In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing. Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2016 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol greenwald is a 'source' Was nicer than the National Review's version... What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision. sourceWe could stick with The Center for Public Integrity But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.
Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. sourceOr we could just ridicule anyone who talks about it, as to avoid talking about the substance? Quite honestly, you're probably right that doing so is the best option. These aren't sources at all. This is you using people who agree with you as some sort of evidence. I don't see how you can read those and see them as some sort of neutral source giving you matter of fact discussion. This thread is going to be a very interesting place tomorrow. But do you disagree with the statement "that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. "? Mook didn't have an answer for this either.
as i've said the campaign she is running now is under present conditions. in a world without this much corporate money, her campaign would obviously change. however, she will still be viable because of how strong a candidate she is, but whether she or a dumb populist type wins out is another question. the dumb populist would be able to get all the low information voters but the one with studied policy answers but lack of personal charisma would be less able to mine the elite support. it's good if you have a charismatic AND intelligent person like obama but you don't always have it.
|
|
|
On April 19 2016 10:12 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol greenwald is a 'source' Was nicer than the National Review's version... What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision. sourceWe could stick with The Center for Public Integrity But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.
Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. sourceOr we could just ridicule anyone who talks about it, as to avoid talking about the substance? Quite honestly, you're probably right that doing so is the best option. These aren't sources at all. This is you using people who agree with you as some sort of evidence. I don't see how you can read those and see them as some sort of neutral source giving you matter of fact discussion. This thread is going to be a very interesting place tomorrow. But do you disagree with the statement "that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. "? Mook didn't have an answer for this either. as i've said the campaign she is running now is under present conditions. in a world without this much corporate money, her campaign will still be viable because of how strong a candidate she is, but whether she or a dumb populist type wins out is another question. the dumb populist would be able to get all the low information voters but the one with studied policy answers but lack of personal charisma would be less able to mine the elite support. it's good if you have a charismatic AND intelligent person like obama but you don't always have it.
So if she is falling behind month after month in fundraising despite her doing everything Republicans are (and then some), and that she and Democrats say they want to stop, why is Bernie's fundraising model not better in every way?
John Kasich's campaign is running on a red paper clip he found in his pocket, and he's probably going to at least make it to the convention.
The new rules wouldn't stop someone like Trump from spending whatever he wants anyway, so she can't use that excuse. So is what Hillary saying, whether or not she is/was up against people using the loopholes she is she's going to use them so she can be the strongest on closing them?
Her Victory fund is unilateral, so the unilateral disarmament argument doesn't work if you've escalated all by yourself.
|
Good lord. If it isn't the obvious tan contrast its the awful demeanor...ugh. I feel dirty now.
|
Only 8 out of 62 counties in New York will have polls open at 6AM the rest won't open till noon, because only Republicans want to suppress the vote.
Anyone want to defend the long lines that will be in New York now or will we wait till tomorrow and act as if we couldn't see it coming?
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 19 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Only 8 out of 62 counties in New York will have polls open at 6AM the rest won't open till noon, because only Republicans want to suppress the vote.
Anyone want to defend the long lines that will be in New York now or will we wait till tomorrow and act as if we couldn't see it coming?
Don't worry, since a bunch of people were apparently removed from the lists of registered voters I'm sure the lines will be fine.
|
"What would you do to protect me and my husband from institutionalized discrimination?"
"Yeah god, and stuff, also religion very important, did i mention it's very important, and religious freedom? It's very important. In other words, go fuck yourself you fag, once i'm chief, you better get the fuck outta here."
Like.. What? It wasn't even a nice way of telling him that he doesn't give a shit. And all those sheep nodding their heads like he said jesus' last wisdoms - not a single person actually trying to get him to answer the actual question. Mindblowing.
I honestly thought trump is dangerous, but Cruz is literally the personified american cliche. God here, earth totally 6000 years old there (but not flat, we're not dumb, you know), etc.
Just wow, i need to shower now. Also: yeehaw republicans. The two front runners literally are pest and cholera.
|
On April 19 2016 11:19 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Only 8 out of 62 counties in New York will have polls open at 6AM the rest won't open till noon, because only Republicans want to suppress the vote.
Anyone want to defend the long lines that will be in New York now or will we wait till tomorrow and act as if we couldn't see it coming? Don't worry, since a bunch of people were apparently removed from the lists of registered voters I'm sure the lines will be fine.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's going to make the lines hell, as I can guarantee people will stand in line anyway and then take ages for the people to figure out they can't vote while both individuals involved get extremely agitated.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 19 2016 12:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 11:19 The_Templar wrote:On April 19 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Only 8 out of 62 counties in New York will have polls open at 6AM the rest won't open till noon, because only Republicans want to suppress the vote.
Anyone want to defend the long lines that will be in New York now or will we wait till tomorrow and act as if we couldn't see it coming? Don't worry, since a bunch of people were apparently removed from the lists of registered voters I'm sure the lines will be fine. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's going to make the lines hell, as I can guarantee people will stand in line anyway and then take ages for the people to figure out they can't vote while both individuals involved get extremely agitated.
Don't worry, it's sarcasm.
|
On April 19 2016 09:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 08:33 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 06:33 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 04:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4. 6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3. Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however). Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst). There is no chance of a 4-4. Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later. The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case. A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court). On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen. In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing. Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States. The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).
The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.
Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.
The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).
The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).
The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.
Also,
www.scotusblog.com
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 10:12 oneofthem wrote:On April 19 2016 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2016 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol greenwald is a 'source' Was nicer than the National Review's version... What is beyond doubt is that Secretary Clinton just gutted the basis for her long opposition to the Citizens United decision. sourceWe could stick with The Center for Public Integrity But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.
Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. sourceOr we could just ridicule anyone who talks about it, as to avoid talking about the substance? Quite honestly, you're probably right that doing so is the best option. These aren't sources at all. This is you using people who agree with you as some sort of evidence. I don't see how you can read those and see them as some sort of neutral source giving you matter of fact discussion. This thread is going to be a very interesting place tomorrow. But do you disagree with the statement "that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. "? Mook didn't have an answer for this either. as i've said the campaign she is running now is under present conditions. in a world without this much corporate money, her campaign will still be viable because of how strong a candidate she is, but whether she or a dumb populist type wins out is another question. the dumb populist would be able to get all the low information voters but the one with studied policy answers but lack of personal charisma would be less able to mine the elite support. it's good if you have a charismatic AND intelligent person like obama but you don't always have it. So if she is falling behind month after month in fundraising despite her doing everything Republicans are (and then some), and that she and Democrats say they want to stop, why is Bernie's fundraising model not better in every way? John Kasich's campaign is running on a red paper clip he found in his pocket, and he's probably going to at least make it to the convention. The new rules wouldn't stop someone like Trump from spending whatever he wants anyway, so she can't use that excuse. So is what Hillary saying, whether or not she is/was up against people using the loopholes she is she's going to use them so she can be the strongest on closing them? Her Victory fund is unilateral, so the unilateral disarmament argument doesn't work if you've escalated all by yourself.
what are you even talking about? no campaign is unilateral and why would you even use unilateral in this context
how does hillary being behind in money help your argument?
|
Clinton being ahead in delegates despite less funding is pretty inspirational.
|
Speaking of the a red paper clip, there's a story of how some dude traded a paper clip all the way up to a house. My negotiations class did that, I managed to get $200 wine gift card. There was some girl who got a electric guitar, and another guy got a pair of tickets to Ultra. Shit was cray.
|
On April 19 2016 12:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
Speaking of the a red paper clip, there's a story of how some dude traded a paper clip all the way up to a house. My negotiations class did that, I managed to get $200 wine gift card. There was some girl who got a electric guitar, and another guy got a pair of tickets to Ultra. Shit was cray.
I'm interested to hear the chain of events that lead to either of those upgrades
|
On April 19 2016 13:02 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 12:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
Speaking of the a red paper clip, there's a story of how some dude traded a paper clip all the way up to a house. My negotiations class did that, I managed to get $200 wine gift card. There was some girl who got a electric guitar, and another guy got a pair of tickets to Ultra. Shit was cray. I'm interested to hear the chain of events that lead to either of those upgrades
I don't remember the exact series since it's been 2 years, but I know the electric guitar one involved the girl getting an iPhone for a pair of Beats and the other one involved trading comprehensive notes for b-law, derivatives and international finance, a ticket to a Paul Simon concert and an autographed poster by some one. Mine was pretty mundane, I traded the red paper clip for a a box of tea bags, traded that to my friend for a Starbucks gift card, eventually got to a textbook for some class and some other things.
Here's the Wikipedia article about the guy who came up with idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
