All Activity

Well of course there's a meltdown, very fact that you have to take the time to deny it shows that it's obvious You're repeating yourself, you're struggling with your English again, you're basically pooping your pants again. It's always obvious to us when you're having a meltdown, everybody here can see it and it's been pointed out to you a million times. I just don't understand why you're so emotionally fragile

You kind of have to explain what your talking about?

The example. In my own home I have a number of critical components plugged in to batteries which remain charged for when the power goes out. I'm fairly remote so the power goes out several times a year and sometimes for more than 24 hours But those batteries only last long enough for my emergency generator to turn on and begin supplying constant on demand power as well. The batteries collectively would only last about 10-15 minutes. But tank of fuel can run my generator for 9 days. And the cost of that fuel for 9 days is about half of what I spent on the batteries. There's just no comparison, we can only hope that one day electrical storage will be as efficient and affordable as chemical storages now

It's a tactic we unfortunately see commonly enough on the left. This is in the same category as the "Why are we even talking about this" Tactic where when they can't refute an argument they suggest that the argument itself is petty and beneath notice. In this case they are trying to suggest that because of the price and by labeling it as a multi-tool instead of a knife that the weapon itself is petty and beneath notice and isn't really a weapon. Now I'm willing to believe that the kid had it on his possession not necessarily to use as a weapon but it damn sure was a lethal weapon when he pulled it out of his pocket. It's not a $10 multi-tool, it's three and a half inches of sharpened hardened steel capable of slicing through clothing and human flesh with little resistance and penetrating deep enough to reach vital organs with a relatively small amount of force. The moment you take that out of your pocket with the intent to do harm you are obviously aware that it is quite capable of taking a life.

Batteries are remarkably great at providing energy to the grid when needed; it is a constant and on-demand solution. The issue is cost and scale. This is nothing new as a concept, businesses and homes are doing this right now every day with UPS. The issue here is the grid size scale. We are nowhere near close enough for that.

News Headline: Mass killing with a mutl tool. Shows the complete dishonest clown act @Hodad is engaged in.

You spend a lot of time in your basement obsessing about him. Typical leftist, always wanting free handouts.

Yeah and where that doesn't happen there has been severe problems. California Alberta other jurisdictions, you need to be able to tap into power when you need it where you need it which means the energy has to be able to be stored either in a chemical form or some other form where you can stockpile it and draw upon it as necessary And every rational person can see that. Obviously we can't predict when the sun will be out so it's an unreliable power source on a day-to-day basis so without the ability to harvest and store that energy long term we can't rely on it as a primary energy source But for some reason this goes over beaver fever's head

I honestly dont think batteries are an answer. Energy...especially electricity has to be constant and on-demand. In other words...perpetually generated and fed to the system.

Looks like we'll have to shut more bullshit democrat programs down to get the funding to fix the problem.

Says the guy who has spent the last 4 years saying Russia is winning, any moment now, this is the month Ukraine will lose! I am not interested in your opinion, I am interested in facts. I know what the bill is, I have read the section. This is your silly argument, you show me what parts of the bill say what you think they do. I am, once again, not interested in spamming links to others opinions. But since that is how you want to engage... here is some spam back: Your skepticism is warranted. After reading the underlying claims about Section 224, I'd separate this into two questions: Does Section 224 increase U.S.-Israel defense cooperation? Yes, absolutely. That appears to be the intent of the provision. It calls for expanded joint R&D, co-production, technology cooperation, supply-chain integration, and coordination in areas such as AI, cyber, autonomous systems, and other defense technologies. (Responsible Statecraft) Does it "integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries" in the way the article implies? That's where the rhetoric starts outrunning the text. Where I think the article overstates things The headline and repeated use of the word "integrate" creates the impression that: Israeli officers would command U.S. forces. The U.S. would be obligated to fight Israel's wars. Military chains of command would merge. The two militaries would become a single operational force. Nothing I've found suggests that. The provision is about defense technology cooperation and industrial integration, not merging command structures or creating a NATO-style mutual defense treaty. (Responsible Statecraft) That's an important distinction. The "U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data" claim This is one of the biggest leaps. The article points to language about "network integration" and "data fusion" and then concludes: "the U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data" That is speculation. "Data fusion" is a broad military term. NATO allies, intelligence partners, and joint task forces routinely fuse selected datasets without giving each other unrestricted access to everything. The article presents the most expansive interpretation as though it's the obvious outcome. (Responsible Statecraft) A more cautious reading would be: The bill may create frameworks for increased information sharing and interoperability. That's very different from: Israel gets all U.S. military data. "Higher level of integration than any other country" That's another claim that should raise eyebrows. The U.S. already has: NATO alliances. The Five Eyes intelligence partnership. Integrated defense projects with countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia. Permanent joint command structures with some allies. (Wikipedia) To claim this would create a relationship "beyond any other country" requires evidence and comparison. The article largely asserts it rather than proving it. (Responsible Statecraft) Where the article is strongest The strongest argument is not the scary headline. It's this: Section 224 would likely make the U.S.-Israel defense-industrial relationship deeper and more difficult for future administrations to unwind. That seems like a fair interpretation. If you create joint ventures, shared R&D programs, co-production agreements, and integrated supply chains, those relationships tend to become politically and economically entrenched. That's a reasonable policy concern someone can have. (Responsible Statecraft) What I would call fear-mongering These are examples where the language goes beyond what has been demonstrated: "Integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries" as if they become one force. "The U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data." Suggestions that this effectively makes the countries inseparable militarily. Implications that Congress is secretly handing over control of U.S. defense capabilities. Those are possible worst-case interpretations, not established consequences of the text itself. (Responsible Statecraft) What I think is the balanced take A fair summary would be: Section 224 appears to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, joint development, and industrial coordination. Critics are justified in debating whether that is wise policy and whether it creates excessive dependence or influence. However, describing it as "integrating the militaries" in the sense most people would understand, meaning merged command structures, mutual war obligations, or a combined military force, goes well beyond what the publicly described language appears to do. (Responsible Statecraft) So based on what I've read, I think you're right to question the framing. The underlying policy proposal is real. The headline and some of the conclusions are written in a way that maximizes alarm rather than carefully distinguishing defense-industrial integration from military integration.

No meltdown...that is what happens to you when I tap dance in your LOSER head LOL LOL LOL Once again, your post only proves confux the LOSER is suffering from blatherskite HA HA HA

Well...it looks like a merger of military and Intel to me. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-quietly-moves-to-integrate-us-and-israeli-militaries/ar-AA24k4XA Here's the bill. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr7540/text This is probably not a good idea.

And I know they're doing research into incredible new battery technologies that could be absolutely game-changing. Within the next 10 years we might see new forms of energy storage that allow for massive amounts of energy to be harvested and stored long-term and then suddenly solar becomes the only power that people will want. If you can harvest energy when the sun is out and store it easily and cheaply in large quantities you can spend all summer dumping surplus energy into storage and then having enough to last you all winter when the sun isn't out as much. The current battery technology just doesn't really allow for that. Allows you to offset some of the peak load for that day or that week but as a long-term storage solution we just don't have that yet

Well, America has the most unqualified, incompetent people ever running the government these days. What do people expect? Y'all voted for a circus clown. And that is what you got. Shrug.

https://www.factcheckradar.com/fact-check/proposed-300-billion-fund-for-iran-sparks-debate-over-war-reparations And no talk of the so called Nuke issue. Good Job Donnie.

Yep. Many renewable energy providers also rely on natural gas turbines to supplement their grid commitments because they don't have anywhere near enough batteries to do so when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Well giving your difficulties reading it would probably be easier if I just show you

I wonder if there will be free TACO's?

Linking to some other clowns' online opinions is just that... Not interested. Try reading the actual law.

No projection is something else. This is just observation. If I were wrong you would be in a position to refute that observation by providing evidence and facts to the contrary. But I appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate that you're stupid by misusing the word projection you had ONE WORD in that reply and you STILL got it wrong And as usual you can't actually refute what was said and so revert to ad hominems in a desperate attempt to cover up your own lack of intellect I don't know if I'd call it adorable but it certainly entertaining

I wonder if Diaper Donnie 2 Dolls can stay awake?

And that's SOOOO FREAKIN OBVOIUS that a child could get it. Yet @BeaverFever insists that it's not true. And the reason this is coming up again is he's so amazingly butt hurt over having to face that fact previously that he can't let it go. And he thinks if he twists and turns enough that somehow up will be down, left will be right, in will be out, and black will be white and he'll get himself killed at the next zebra crossing. Like I just don't understand. There's no actual arguing this it is so obvious. We cannot store energy from solar the way we can store energy from fossil fuels and until we can at a similar price in similar concentrations we can't use solar for anything other than secondary power

I don't know for sure if this is true yet but...it appears to be. https://weichert.substack.com/p/new-senate-bill-wants-to-fuse-israeli Is this a good idea? Probably not, eh?

😄😄