ZenOps

So goes the argument, why not make things like coins? I mean, it takes some effort - but they dig 150,000 ounces of gold every three months out of places like Malartic. What else would you use it for. I mean, if you have an overgrowing forest, why not make a nice deck and patio furniture out of it? We are in a land of vast resources where we can actually produce real things from raw materials. If we don't produce real things, then why bother producing anything at all, let the beavers have it all. It is because a banana split takes effort to make which makes it valuable. It is because a coin takes effort to make which makes it valuable. If you don't like to carry coins or bills, simply don't use them. If you are happy with digital credit and debit, go ahead and use it. Its not like you are forced to pay your taxes in pounds of copper. Although arguably, we all might be much better off if everyone was forced to pay their taxes in tonnage of copper. Imagine if every millennial who owed $100 had to pay it back with 50 pounds of refined copper, it would be grueling - but in the long run could pave the way for great things - like everyone on the planet having access to electricity.

Thing is with truckers and deliveries. A lot of them transport oil. Electricity has no weight. Also: Two ton combustion delivery vehicle to deliver two pound pizza or 15 pound electric drone to deliver same pizza, quicker and without need of human driver. Electric vehicles could be very distruptive in that the efficiencies gained would probably destroy the old infrastructure that is based on weight (oil and things like billion gallon oil tankers) But in general: The less humans you need to do something, the better. If you had to have a human switch every single pixel on your computer screen on and off by hand, you would keep them employed sure - but the amount of effort expended would hardly be worth it compared to just being more efficient. Electricity is crazy efficient when you think about it from tonnage of carbons you don't have to shift around on roads, rail, ships every single second of every single day just to transfer some useable energy. That's not to say you don't need carbons, but if you simply build a couple more natural gas plants at 60% electrical energy conversion efficiency and then push out the energy as electricity - it would make too much sense to do that compared to burning one barrel equivalent of natural gas to extract two barrels of oilsands, which is then transported by rail to Texas for refining to gasoline, then sent back to Canada on a oil truck, to fill up a gas station that may or may not have an attendant in as full service. Humans flipping pixels on your computer screen by hand and the current gasoline combustion engine - they both would employ an incredible amount of people. But at what cost?

A good chunk of electric vehicles will be overnight topper uppers, or 1500 watts or so for the eight hours between 10pm to 6am. The effect these cars will have on the electrical grid is negligible, because its really only peak power that is an issue with electricity. In many ways - overnight chargers will greatly improve the efficiency of energy distribution throughout cities. Only the people who need a quick charge at peak hours (those who drive over 200 miles a day) will affect the grid in a meaningful manner. Actually the combustion engine is the most lethal device you will ever own, its got fluids that are toxic even in tiny amounts, its got moving parts that can maim in an instant. Not to mention the fuel, which requires insane amounts of expenditure to make sure it gets to and stays in your gas tank instead of exploding in your face when you accidentally rub your wool sweater the wrong way on fillup. Armored oil tankers are not cheap, and that's what they use because you just never know when road rage will strike and someone starts shooting on the highway. Electricity is stupidly cheap by comparison, once you have laid the lines, and pretty much all of North America is hooked up to the grid.

Canada is a big place. It was only about a decade or so ago that 10% of Canada had cellular coverage. Switching from analog to digital was a huge boost to the economy. Yes, you can easily go a few hundred kilometers between banks pretty much everywhere except the denser cities. Banks simply do not open in areas that can be serviced with the far more efficient cash system in remote areas that may or may not have digital means of authenticating credit or debit cards (farmers, etc) Places that have an actual copper line going to them? Extremely rare. http://canadianspectrumpolicyresearch.org/canada/inventory/canadian-network-coverage-national-carriers/ Want to buy a hot bowl of soup at a mountain chateau in the Rockies? It will be cash only for quite a few decades to come. The tech advance of drone deliveries, now that's something to celebrate. It might actually mean a tin of campbells soup might not be $15 at said mountain resort, lol. It always makes me laugh to see truck commercials where they go up a rocky hill and call it a mountain, nonono - its horse delivery on a path that is three feet wide or a backpacker to deliver things in remote areas. There are plenty of farmers and contractors in remote areas begging that they start printing more $1,000 bills.

Thing is, the west (North America) was built on immigrants from all around the world. When you say you are "protecting" it, who exactly are you protecting it from? The indigineous American natives it seems. Arguably, Europe has a right to protect their lands as it has been their ancestral home for tens of thousands of years, but America - very few can claim more than 80 years of heritage.

Except, the Korean war never ended and the US never even hinted at peace. Exactly whos fault that is will be up to the survivors at this rate.

Wherever they are on the timeline, it does look like its going to be Trumps watch for when North Korea has the ability to nuke Los Angeles

On a slightly different note: the ICBM that North Korea launched yesterday (July 4 2017) went almost straight up. If they were launching it conventionally, it would have hit Alaska pretty easily. Kim Jong might go for the ultimate bargaining chip, an orbital nuke. An orbital nuke that passes over the USA, Britain, Australia, Antarctica, basically everyone on the planet every 7 to 14 minutes or so for at least a couple years (like a LEO satellite) Afterall, if they actually drop one in an arc over Hawaii, it might elevate a first strike attempt. They could set it so that any tampering would cause it to detonate on impact (so, wherever it randomly landed - North Korea would easily be able to blame the US) and only North Korea would have a "don't explode" code. China has had some small success taking down an orbital satellite, but its far from perfected, especially a fast moving LEO satellite.

BTW: Its completely silly for the US to sue Khadr. If Khadr was three years older, and had a sniper rifle - Absolutely no one would be questioning a military casualty. You lost, man to man against a defending force, you don't get to sue the enemy sniper when you are trying to snipe him. That is simply the craziest thing I've ever heard. I think the US is just buttsore that with the massive spending and supposed military superiority, that they lost to a 15 year old kid with $20 worth of homemade explosives. Side note: The US also almost lost a $1.5 Billion destroyer to a collision with a Japanese/philipino freighter that was only about 3x the size. Could you sue because the ship was made of wet cardboard instead of hardened steel? Maybe. Could you sue because the flak jacket was made of wet cardboard instead of grenade absorbing materials? Maybe. Can you sue a guy for trying to defend his home, family and friends? According to the US - yes you can. And if that is the common sentiment in the US, Fuck the US.

Psssh, the US just needs justification as a "win" Realistically Khadr won the $134.2 million. A wise man once said, the winners in legal matters are actually irrelevant as money changes hands in an instant, the only true winners are the lawyers who take their cut. Just like how the US has to be always on the moral side of "human rights" in North Korea, when its the US that was the worst human rights offender of all in North Korea (killing millions of civilians and laying millions of landmines, and stopping shipments of food and oil, that is starving the people) Khadr is a hero, and deserves at least a million, maybe 10, probably 100 million. If he was a white guy defending his home in Europe from a black US soldier, would we be even having this conversation. Absolute hero. If a white or black, or female US soldier shows up at my Canadian doorstep and my neighbors Canadian soil doorsteps with a loaded weapon aimed at my face, I am throwing a grenade at him too. You better not throw me in jail for it either.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/khadr-settlement-1.4189146 Just for reference, the US courts awarded Khadr $134.2 million in damages, of which Khadr is unable to collect on currently. So, even the US acknowledges they messed up. If there wasn't the possibility that he is now mentally unstable as a result of torture, I would put Khadr in high office for the defense of Canada. Seriously, the guy has skills if he fended off fully combat geared US soldiers with a homemade hand grenade at age 15. At very least, I'd put him in charge of the US/Canada border wall construction.

The US is at least partially to blame for creating instability in the area. Realistically, conventional weaponry pales in comparison to radioactivity. Two grams of polonium, a few pounds of cobalt and nickel mixed in a mash could easily cause a US city evacuation. Kim most definitely has enough nuclear waste now to screw over every single city in the USA without even detonating an actual nuke. The US has had several decades to try and apologize, it may be too late now. The bigger question to me is: Will North Korea attempt just eye for eye retribution, or will they attempt a real invasion on US soil?

Collective defense might not be such a good thing. Mexico is not part of NATO, and yet I've never seen Kim Jong (or anyone else for that matter) try and invade Mexico. Realistically, we pay into NATO so that the US will not invade Canada like they tried in 1812, or when the US fought Mexico back in 1845. Why is the wall going up? Because Texans know history and Calfornians and New Yorkers are clueless. 2% of GDP to build and maintain 30,000 nukes (on submarines and aircraft carriers with bombers) was arguably the biggest expenditure ever. Not one was used to constructive purpose, not one was used at all in seventy years. But at least US personelle all got paid to babysit them for two lifetimes. Was it a waste of money? Maybe, realistically a few hundred nukes (like what China has) is a much more sustainable number. With only a few hundred nukes, you could put that effort towards building things that people want like clean running water (Detroit) and cellphones.

North Korean hate of the US is well founded. The US really had no reason to try and "pacify" North Korea. If it was simply to stop the flow of "communism" why did the US do absolutely nothing to stop the takeover of Crimea? Probably cuz - White. The approximate 1 million civilian deaths and maybe a hundred thousand or so military casualties on North Korean soil is pretty hard to justify. Without doubt the US was an external agitator. One could definitely argue, what the hell was the US doing on the other side of the planet anyhow? Testing out their new aircraft carriers I guess. What concerns me more than the nuke, is that Kim now probably has bred a couple grams of polonium from underground nuclear testing. Aersolized, one gram of it dispersed in a city core could destroy it for 168 years as no one would dare stay in the area if they ingested a few nanograms of it.

Still, its nothing compared to the million tons of conventional bombs the US dropped on Vietnam, Korea, and any number of middle eastern states. I mean, when they talk about bombing European nations they talk about thousands of deaths. When they talk about Vietnam and North Korea, its millions. NATO seems to be roughly 20 to 1,000x more likely to kill a non-white, the numbers are staggering. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-nato-article-five-israel-saudi-arabia/528393/ They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Do you think Trump likes NATO.

If you stuck a pin in every nation that the US and NATO have "intervened" upon, you will find nearly every nation being traditionally non-white. By definition, when the US drops millions of tons of bombs twice every decade or so - they are not allowed to do it on the majority of traditionally "white" nations who pay up to 2% of their GDP to make sure their nation is not bombed, and the money only goes to toward fighting outside their borders. Since Russia has the nuke, they also never get bombs dropped on them. That really only leaves non-white nations that this massive military spending goes toward. The US/NATO took a completely standoff approach to Crimea, and I can imagine no bombs will hit Ukraine. The main argument that NATO was formed to stop "Communist Russia" does not seem valid, as Putin was basically handed Crimea on a plate. Is there a reason to keep NATO other than to prevent the US from invading places like Greece (which in defaulting on international payments of bonds, basically nullified their payments into NATO since the start)

To get to South America they had to go through North America. So technically, Mexicans and those futher south are probably the oldest true Americans. White people only showed up later.

As an unincorporated territory or simple US commonwealth member, they can't declare bankruptcy. At most, they can declare insolvency. Bankruptcy assumes automatic debt forgiveness, which they do not have. Puerto Rico could technically be required to garnish wages and recind pensions until the amount is paid in full. It would be a nasty thing to do, but such is the price of colonialism.

The US would take over South Korea because they can. Just like Wesley Clark said on the middle east, they really wanted to take out one country, but if they were lucky they would be able to take out seven or eight, and maybe a few neutrals. Once the war machine starts, you really don't stop for peace loving people just because they might have been slightly helpful (naïve) Realistically even if you wanted to stop a war machine, it might not be possible. Trump wants to charge South Korea for "protection" services under THAAD. Could have seen that one coming. THAAD high altitude ICBM interception missles, can just as easily deploy nukes like Starfish Prime as they can shoot down other ICBMs.

I think South Korea is pretty naïve. To think that the US wouldn't somehow try to take over South Korea if North Korea was successfully invaded is crazy. I mean look at what Wesley Clark had in mind for the middle east, he outlined a campaign that would have one country fall, hopefully seven, maybe eight and also being able to prepare friendly nations as puppet states. Alliances in war are only usually good for as long as it is useful, but once war actually starts, you do not want to have too many unknowns within your own country, and the US is a huge unknown to have in your own country *just* for the idea that leadership changes every four years.

A modern Starfish Prime would knock out communications and the power grid of a continent. It would instantly make hundreds of satellites and tracking systems useless. The GPS system would be effectively useless, for a time anyhow. Arguably, missile defense systems are a stupid idea if they are not designed to intercept a nuke in high altitude space.

I've always felt that the US will do what is in the interest of the US. Meaning that its possible that the US will do what gains it the most, whether it is by selling guns to both sides of a conflict, or by keeping enemies closer. South Korea is actually in a very vulnerable state right now, no leadership on impeachment, and a populace that more or less thinks that the US is "on their side". I would not be surprised that if a war did break out, the US would simply *let* North Korea soften up the South and then simply use their bases in the south to establish dominance over South Korea. I mean seriously, turncoats are a solid part of US history - and you turncoat if you think its in your best interest. Its not in the US interest to invade North Korea, there is really nothing to "take". That's not to say that the US would ally with North Korea, but they could definitely use North Korea to establish a puppet regime in South Korea. I think South Korea might have already lost.

So, you can give $50 million to 4,000 people OR you could do what the US does and give $53 million to Kanye. At least with the US way, you get a few rap songs out of it.

Slaves have difficulty paying two masters. Crown stumpage fees on the production *and* 20% tariffs to King Trump on the consumption? Ouch.

Better acceleration profile than combustion engines. Battery is at the base of car, so center of gravity is low meaning better handling than combustion engines. 20 moving parts, possible lifetime warranties, possible zero maintenance costs. At 3 cents per kwh in Calgary, 1/10th the cost of gasoline. Its completely silent, so you can enjoy your music Contains little to no toxic or deadly fluids. From a maker perspective: Should be less expensive to produce than combustion engine cars. For the cities: No smog or noise.