All Activity

Evidence:

Are you talking to yourself?

Well battery's the way that we know them would be problematic, but remember that at the end of the day a tank full of chemical fuel is basically just a battery as well. You stored chemical energy which you will convert into useful electrical energy. If you think about it that way it changes things a little bit. What we need is essentially a container that holds electricity. What we have right now is a system that Inefficiently stores chemical energy to be converted into electrical energy. You're looking at some really cool and interesting stuff using quantum technology and such that would allow for vastly more storage of energy at much lower rates in a much smaller size vessel that would be even remotely conceivable at the moment We'll have to see how the technology progresses but at the end of the day for solar power to be a true replacement we have to take that energy and be able to contain it in some fashion or another so that we can store it in large volumes and then use it when we need it the same way that we store fuel in large volumes and use it when we need it

The year is 1949. The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more in Britain. The year is 1956. Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over. The year is 1966. A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots. The year is 1979. Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005. The year is 1985. Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning. The year is 1992. There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with. So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now. Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one. It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

True. The scale is immense. Although...it could elevate the popularity of the Energizer Bunny.

LOL, skepticism over what? Why? Once again, this is YOUR argument to make. What blanket information sharing about American citizens? What privacy concerns? Show me the law you are citing here. What "the people" are you talking about here, what usury?

Dude...Romper Room was above the Beave's head. Im quite sure he thinks it was racist. I just see battery storage as the creation of a new problem.

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. For someone who disputes Democrat actions and policies daily, you sure don't apply the same skepticism when it comes to military actions and policies. Tell me, what possible benefit can any of this have for the USA, and why is blanket information sharing about American citizens, anything but dangerous? Do you really think Mosad gives a rat's ass about the privacy of Americans? Have you learned nothing from the Epstien fiasco? It is not a good idea to get too close to the people who made usury their cash cow.

Another $100,000,000 to Palestine.

Yep. I would love it, but the issue is that you really need to pair it up with solar power so you can have that battery only for night time but now we are talking $$$$$$... and even then, the folks I know who are really off grid, have propane to back it all up because when winter comes around or rain or you live in a climate that doesn't have enough sun, you still need some kind of supplimental power supply to get you through. At that point, the Tesla battery becomes a really expensive UPS.

Well there's the problem. I mean it's a perfect example, a Tesla battery bank cost about $21,000 and as you say my power at home for a day or so at the same power levels as my generator. My generator cost $6,000 installed including all of the wiring and automatic failover and start system and has a capacity To run for 9 days and be recharged in less than a minute from a fuel truck. And if I decided that wasn't good enough for about $1,000 I can double that capacity of fuel permanently And I could have picked a bigger generator to generate even more power if I needed more on demand for only a small amount of additional money. Those Tesla batteries are fairly limited as to how much energy you can extract from them at any given point in time before you overload it.

Yep. I would add, that the testimony of witnesses show he was the one provoking and threatening. This is not self-defense. The moment you start taunting the other person to attack you, you start to lose any self-defense claims. "Anthony began repeating “touch me and find out” as the two argued, the witness said. Anthony put his hands in his backpack, but his threat wasn’t taken seriously, he said. Metcalf leaned in to push Anthony and was stabbed, the witness added, noting he did not see the knife. Metcalf fell down the bleachers onto his back, then pulled himself up, lifted his shirt, and on seeing his bloodied chest, looked frightened, he testified." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/karmelo-anthony-fatal-stabbing-trial-rcna348642

Talking about running away AGAIN...LOL! Do you have tourettes or something?

Criticizing a stupid thread is not a defense of Trump. It is just that. You are so obsessed with hating Trump...

For sure, but some people buy stuff like a Tesla battery to go with their solar panels, and that can typically supply enough power for about a day, or maybe 2 if you are only running basic stuff. That battery is expensive though, and it only lasts for maybe 10-20 years. No way every home in America could have one... It's a luxury for people or a splurge for off-grid enthusiasts. To your point... it is VASTLY cheaper to just keep a generator on hand and fuel for it... OR to power your home with Propane.

Crying "Wolf!" for the 38th time? Funny how the resident lackeys leap to Trump's defenxe without even knowing what they're defending him from....

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