Jump to content

SH3RL0CK

Senior Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SH3RL0CK

  1. I agree 100%. I don't know the best solution, but the fact they had all that and everything was still legal seems a bit too lax. More importantly, there was no way to tell if it was legal. I am not suggesting a ban on any large group of weapons - just saying there's got to be a better way to fine tune the laws with this one.

     

    Or better enforcement of current laws. I do not know if the guns, ammo, etc. were legal. Alternatively to them being legal, they were possibly illegal, but perhaps the DA didn't want to take the case to court. Perhaps he didn't think he had a strong case, maybe he was lazy or overworked, maybe they thought the sentence was sufficient punishment, there could be lots of reasons for this. In fact, I had thought that conspiracy to commit robbery is a felony and that it is illegal for felons to own guns...but maybe that was not the case in the early 1990's?

     

    More and stricter laws do not help when current laws are not being enforced.

     

    EDIT: Indeed the DA really dropped the ball here by returning their guns. Felons, even in the early 1990's were not permitted to own or possess guns...

     

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128620083

     

     

    While convicted felons generally are not permitted to own guns, a provision in the federal firearms laws allows someone who has served his time and been released to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to own a weapon.

     

    But the ATF hasn't green-lighted any felon's request for relief ... It can't. In 1992, Congress eliminated the funds that enabled the bureau to do it and has refused to restore them ever since.

     

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/cri...ome-felon.html

     

    Under current federal law, the vast majority of felons are prohibited from so much as touching a gun or ammunition, on pain of punishment of up to 10 years in prison...

     

    The only felons who can lawfully retain a gun, according to exceptions written into the statute, are those convicted of anti-trust violations or crimes involving unfair trading practices.

  2. the risk for most varieties increases with age

     

    So since people are now living much longer today than they were in the past (due to better medical knowledge), it should be expected that cancer is more common now. During the stone age cancer was probably rare because most people died before reaching 40 years old. Now that people live to nearly (on average) 80, there is more opportunity for cancer.

     

    What is difficult to deduce however, is if some of the increase is due to chemicals we are exposed to that simply weren't around during the stone age.

  3.  

    These programs didn't evolve to compete with Obamacare, but in response to the failings of the current system. To argue that they are perhaps unneccessary would be to argue that the current system adequately serviced the needs of the community. Good luck to anybody defending that idea.

     

    To be fair, I did hear about this program several years ago - long before Obamacare. And for the most part the criticisms of this plan can be said of our current system (i.e. coverage being dropped, paperwork regarding claims being a horrible mess to deal with, etc.). Not that I would put my money into one of these plans... however you've got to admit there is no evidence (at least I couldn't find any) that these are any worse than the current system.

     

    I agree with JohnB, and additionally I think the facepalm should really be towards the current (broken) system, not to people who are proactively pursuing alternatives. Were the system working, this "patch" as Padren states wouldn't exist.

  4. You mean this article? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_vaccine_death

     

    Certainly, people occasionally get sick and/or die from vaccine injections. In the past, there wasn't any outcry, but I think some reluctance on the part of people to these vaccines is understandable.

     

    IMO, the difference is that in the past the vaccine was to prevent illness which was both more serious and more immediate. An example would be the smallpox vaccine - smallpox is both highly infectious and has a high death rate. Thus, even though there may be some problems with a vaccine, the cost/benefit analysis is clear. But with a vaccine for HPV; the cost/benefit isn't as clear...the disease is not as easily transmittable nor does it have as high a death rate (at least in the short to medium term). I still think the HPV vaccine is probably a good idea, but the case here isn't nearly as strong as it is for other diseases.

     

    At some point (and we might be there now), the pharmacutical companies and regulatory agencies will need to grapple with the concept that the cost and problems associated with a vaccine or with a new miracle drug isn't justified by its benefits. That won't be pleasant to the pharmacutical company that spent $billions to develop the vaccine/medicine. Nor would it be for the regulatory agencies who are expected to so something to fight disease (the public and politicians are never pleased to hear the proper course of action is to do nothing).

     

    I'm not an expert on medicine, hopefully people with more knowledge will be weighing in on this topic.

  5. I have a problem with the quoted lines of reasoning.

     

    Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. Combined with ultra-heightened prices due to scarcity and risk, we get a stupendously thriving economical bull market for illegal products awaiting underground venture capitalists everywhere.

     

    And all those products are instantly expendable, drawing repeat customers, therefore putting heaps of delicious icing on the already golden cake.

    The dealer of the illegal product does not care why their customer comes to them, except where the dealer can use these reasons to increase sales. You are correct that the gun black market will be/is smaller because of the above, but in the end it is no different, just a smaller market. There are, no doubt, criminals who will sell whatever (drugs, prostitutes, guns, etc.) brings them cash.

     

    Plus alcohol, weed, and sex can be made at home, where guns are a different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

    Not at all. A gun is not really that technologically challenging. You can build a crude gun from components and chemicals you can legally buy at the hardware store. In my opinion its at about the same technological level as a crude "still" for making alcohol. It might actually be easier to build a gun than to produce some of the drugs out there...I'm not sure - will coca (the feedstock for cocaine) even grow in a temperate climate?

     

    Trust me, it's best to just use the one argument that's strongest and enjoys a higher moral ground: it's in the Consitution.

    true, this is the best arguement, but its far from the only one...but it is good to think through all the reasons for forming an opinion, not just the best.

     

     

     

    I can't imagine any party wanting to be known in the future as the one who caused that empty space in the Bill of Rights. If anything, they'd probably use national emergency reasons of an urgent nature to indirectly bypass a guaranteed right.

    Well, I think Prohibition clearly shows this isn't necessarily the case. But whatever the future for guns and gun control, it probably won't fall along party lines (much as Prohibition, IIRC, didn't). The gun issue doesn't divide along either political parties.

     

    I do feel the 2nd amendment is quite secure, however we shouldn't take our rights for granted. You may be on to something with regards to efforts to indirectly bypassing the rights, and not just for the second amendment. I think many other rights could also be threatened in this manner...

  6. Not quite. If Obama were to say that citizens stocking firearms vs government were to be treated as enemy combatants (or perhaps a terrorist organization?) and so not entitled to habeas corpus, I'd then say it qualifies your claim.

     

     

    Well, the big red flag, to me, on what may be Obama's extremism is his following belief:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...un_Control.htm

     

    Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok ...

     

    Unless I misunderstand Obama's position, a local gun ban is where a city declares no guns by citizens permitted under any circumstances within the boundaries of the city. Local gun bans are, to me, an extremist belief (however reasonable restrictions such as a "shall issue" licenses are ok with me). The rights of citizens should not depend on where that citizen happens to live or work. You cannot say you respect the 2nd amendment, then immediately state something absolutely contrary as being acceptable.

    Would Obama feel the same way about the 13th amendment not being applicable in Birmigham Alabama?

     

    I accept that he views more gun restrictions as the proper course of action and I respect this viewpoint. But to do as he suggests, a local gun ban, without trampling on the constitution would, in my opinion, require no less than an amendment to the Constitution repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. It should not be attempted by local, state, or even federal laws.

  7.  

    My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

     

    ... Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

     

    No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

     

    There probably is a black market for guns just as there is for drugs. While I suspect most guns in this black market are from the US (originally sold by a licensed dealer), there are probably lots of ways these guns go from legal to illegal hands. And there is no realistic way for the law to stop the black market for guns. For example, if you are part of a criminal enterprise shipping in a few tons of cocaine from Columbia, I don't think it would be a big deal to throw in a few guns as well. As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked).

     

    My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?
    Yes. This is expressly permitted by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.
  8. This is very good news. Very good news indeed, I don't think the advantages (no CO2 emissions, no shortage of fuel, etc.) can be understated.

     

    IIRC, back in the 1950's (nearly sixty years ago) fusion power was said to become developed for comercial use within 50 years...of course as we now know, using fusion to generate electricity is much more difficult than it appeared then. Glad to see we are actually making progess and its now only 24 years away ;)

  9. Wow, very interesting. The biggest question I would have, is how easy would it be to dupe the system into launching a first strike?

     

    Well, one thing about this system, the retalitory strike wouldn't have to happen right away. Later might even be preferable. Whoever would have control of the red button could wait a while, maybe even a couple of weeks just to be sure, before launching.

  10. I do like the idea of the space elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) to enter earth orbit. As the saying goes, from here you are half-way to anywhere.

     

    Interplanetary, I still favor chemical and ion rockets and/or solar sails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail) as I'm not excited about nukes in space for lots or reasons.

     

    Interstellar, I would prefer a solar sail if this could be made workable. But I think it would have to be one of the nuclear proposals you mentioned above.

  11. SH3RLOCK, I think you're just trying to play devil's advocate here...

     

    Show me the specifics on Obama's anti firearm legislation/voting...

     

     

    Obama is CLEARLY for common sense firearm laws, and I'm not sure why you would believe otherwise...

     

     

    Specifics? Look at my link in post # 31. It is NOT CLEAR what Obama stands for. Much of what he says appears contradictory to itself and to how he has voted.

     

    You have made the claim that he is for common sense firearms laws.

    Look at Obama's voting history on gun related issues... Almost everything he has supported is "common sense".
    You need to back up your statements here. Perhaps you should explain what is "common sense" to Obama as I can't tell? You should also try determine if Obama's "common sense" is the same as the nation overall.

     

    You have made other claims you have not supported, and when I asked for this all I got was a wiki article which seemed to support my view and the original link you provided which does not provide the full picture (and which, to be fair, I can't view).

     

    see for example you stated

    there's much more ignorance surrounding the republican party...

     

    The majority of the republican voters (fanatics) seem to be either.. A.) Gun owners who think Obama will take away their guns (which going by his voting record is a myth or conspiracy theory). Or B.) just political fanatics, who will overlook reality on all the issues just to maintain faith in their party.

     

    Maybe republicans are more likely (compared to democrates) to be manipulated by propaganda and the powers that be

     

    The gun fanatics (and NRA, cheerleader) honestly believe that Obama will take away their gun rights, like it's his secret agenda or something. Yet, there is no proof that Obama wants to do this, and his voting record shows he's for "common sense" gun laws (which he admits) .. (the NRA are anti - common sense guns laws)

    I think my links show the above is simply not the whole picture

     

    the N.R.A ...are absolutely anti-any_type_of_gun_regulations_what_so_ever ... This is a fact, not an opinion..
    I've demonstrated that you haven't proven this...In fact, I have provided evidence to the contrary.

     

    I still feel the NRA takes an extreme stance for gun rights
    Based on what? What is their stance (perhaps its on their website ;) -- http://home.nra.org/) and why is it extreme?

     

    All I have done is try to demonstrate that neither Obama nor the NRA are especially evil here (and neither are being exactly honest either), they are simply both playing politics. What, really, would you expect from a politican and a lobbyist group (though I think its clear the NRA is much more than just a lobby group)? You on the other hand are painting the NRA, Republicans, and others in a very bad light without any supporting documentation.

     

    Gun control and the NRA are separate from the Republican party; the NRA routinely backs Democrats as well as Republicans and there are many Democrats in favor of gun rights just as there are Republicans in favor of gun control. This particular issue doesn't divide cleanly along party lines.

     

    In fact, your original question in this thread was asking if the Republican party was a cult. It seems to me the consensus answer has been a resounding no, unless you have some point or example which has not yet been brought up. If not, consider your original question answered.

  12. This is the problem with using voting records to reach conclusions like SH3RLOCK's "he's more extreme than the NRA". A deeper look is required.

     

    I agree, which is why I asked

    I think the problem is his rhetoric isn't matching his voting. So should we accept what he says today or how he voted 5 years ago?

     

    This wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question, but rather to point out the uncertainty that at least I have on Obamas position regarding guns. Neither previous voting records nor his rhetoric are entirely consistent, nor do I think they are extensive enough to completely determine his actual views on gun control. Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough information to get a deeper look (and this is probably intentional on the part of Obama - he is, after all, a politician).

  13. And take a look at that site, http://gunbanobama.com/, so you understand what I'm talking about...

     

     

    Again, I can't do so from work and am busy this week with other things. I'll try to do so this weekend.

     

    But you should really try to consider that perhaps the NRA aren't being the extremists you make them out to be...looking at my link on Obamas stance on guns there is certainly ample reason for concern for the 2nd amendment. Looking at his actual voting record, I'm not sure the assessment by factcheck.org is accurate - I think the problem is his rhetoric isn't matching his voting. So should we accept what he says today or how he voted 5 years ago?

  14.  

    yes it is. I agree the NRA is targeting Obama - but they feel this is necessary. Again, this is called politics, something all political parties and action groups engage in.

     

    But to my question, what is Obamas voting record?, see http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

     

    A quick summary is as follows, I'll bold some items of interest:

    Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions ...

    Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws ...

    FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban...

     

    an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."...

    nice. So people who maybe disagree with him are "frustrated" and "cling" to guns or religion or bigotry? Is this what Obama really thinks? I'm curious that it appears he views his oponents in terms of guns, religion, and bigots ... and belittles people who disagree. But I'm not here to bash Obama, who B.T.W. I think has done a decent job as president so far.

     

    Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok ...

    An obvious contradiction here that cannot possibly be reconciled...how do you tell someone they can't have free speech in Washington DC? Or how do you tell someone that the equal protection clause doesn't apply in Miami? Or how do you tell a religious person they can't worship in Chicago?
    2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month ...

    Concealed carry OK for retired police officers...

    Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities ...

    Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality ...

    Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban ...

    Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions ...

    Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers....

     

     

    Obamas not the most extreme politician out there, but there is certainly enough where I can see why the NRA does not view Obama as friendly to the 2nd amendment. Which would explain the normal political mudslinging they are engaging in. I'd also say Obama is much more extremist here than the NRA actually...

  15. I still feel the NRA takes an extreme stance for gun rights, and I'm talking about legislation and political views specifically not safely and hunting programs, classes, etc (They do believe in and promote guns safety education, and I'm not arguing that at all) ... I still haven't seen any pro common sense gun law supported by the NRA. Please post a direct link if you have one.

     

    You are free to make your beliefs. But you have certainly not convinced me that they are extremist - to the contrary. You made the claim, you need to back it up or withdraw it. Whether or not they propose common sense gun laws has no bearing on whether or not they are extremists.

     

    Here is the DNS information:

     

    Administrative Contact:

    Hayes, Tony webmaster@nrahq.org

    National Rifle Association of America

    11250 Waples Mill Rd

    Fairfax, VA 22030

    United States

    7032671097

     

     

    And back to the topic... Lots of extreme anti-obama-he'll-take-my-guns away views exist out there... What do you call this type of misconception (conspiracy theory)?

     

     

    To be fair, I haven't looked at the site (I am at work) but regardless of what is there, so what? It can't be any different than some of the propaganda put out by moveon.org, etc. Its called politics; you can go talk to Michael Moore about how unfair this is if you would like... I will, however, try to find time to look at it (I can't, unfortunately, tonight and probably not until the weekend either).

     

    Also, to be fair to Obama, you have claimed

    Look at Obama's voting history on gun related issues... Almost everything he has supported is "common sense".
    I'm not familiar with how Obama has voted...considering his short tenure as a senator I doubt any significant gun legislation even came up. How about you provide us with a link(s) on his voting record with regards to gun laws to back up your statement?

     

    Back to topic, I'm not sensing any conspiracy theories out there at all. Just a lot of politics, which is to be expected now that the honeymoon for Obama has ended. Happens to all presidents and doesn't mean they won't be able to accomplish anything.

  16. Sherlock - This is such common knowledge that there's even a whole several sections on the NRA wiki page:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Past_campaigns

     

    Ok, lets look at some quotations from this site:

     

    The NRA sponsors a range of safety programs to educate and encourage the safe use of firearms.

     

    NRA hunting safety courses are offered all across the U.S. for both children and adults.

    In addition to competitive marksmanship and gun safety, local programs supported by the NRA include instructor/coach training, gun collector programs, hunting programs, and programs for law enforcement officers.

    In its lobbying for gun rights, the NRA asserts the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own and use guns. The NRA opposes measures that conflict with the Second Amendment and/or the right to privacy enjoyed by law-abiding citizens who are gun owners. The NRA has supported gun rights on other grounds as well—they opposed the Brady Bill in the courts on Tenth Amendment grounds, not Second Amendment.

     

    On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time in American history in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to own a gun. The implication of this major decision will play out over the next several decades.

     

    In 2005, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and others successfully sued the Mayor of New Orleans and others to stop unconstitutional gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As of March 2006, documents have been filed by NRA, SAF, et al. seeking to hold Ray Nagin and others in contempt of court for violating the consent order. The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. C. Ray Nagin et al..[10][11]

     

    The NRA opposes most new gun-control legislation, calling instead for stricter enforcement of existing laws such as prohibiting convicted felons and violent criminals from possessing firearms and increased sentencing for gun-related crimes.
    Note empahsis on Most, not all...

     

    The NRA is criticized by gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Americans for Gun Safety...The NRA has been criticized by other gun rights groups for doing too little to get existing restrictions repealed, and sometimes helping to draft restrictive legislation.
    Note the specific criticisms by gun rights groups...

     

    From these quotes it appears to me that the NRA has a stance on gun rights which, while certainly conservative in nature, is not extreme. Certainly I cannot conclude it is common knowledge, based upon this, that the NRA is such - did you even read the article and if so what did you see in it that I did not? These statements do not support the assertions by gre:

    They are absolutely anti-any_type_of_gun_regulations_what_so_ever ... This is a fact, not an opinion..
    (the NRA are anti - common sense guns laws)

    Is the NRA responsible for this ignorance, or is it just word of mouth via the bias ignorant folks (brainwashing eachother)?

     

    Should propaganda sites like this be illegal? is it unethical?

     

    What is the word this kind of manipulation?

     

    Here is a N.R.A (propaganda site).

     

    http://gunbanobama.com/

    is this website sponsored or endorsed by the NRA? And gre, why do you imply the NRA is responsible for ignorance considering they do more to educate people about guns and gun safety than anyone?
  17. What? Are you not familiar with the N.R.A at all?

     

    They are absolutely anti-any_type_of_gun_regulations_what_so_ever ... This is a fact, not an opinion.. Their (from what I've seen) mentality is: Any sort of gun requirements or regulations, is just taking away little pieces of their 2nd amendment right.. After enough pieces are taken away, it will be easier to ban guns all together.. That is bad. This is how they think, and to a certain extent I agree with them.

     

    IIRC, the NRA has supported some reasonable gun regulations. From my experience, they are not the rabid extremists you portray them as.

     

    Please provide some links in context, most preferably from the NRA website itself (avoid Handgun control Inc. and the other anti-gun websites as they could be biased), to prove these statements of yours.

  18. My answer's no too.

     

    Yet obviously the Bush underlings thought it a big deal enough to threaten withholding of school funds, bribing journalists to be cheerleaders for it, and then being so very secretive about the offending part.

     

    The feds quite often threaten to withhold funding to get what they want. Its common practice and AFAIK its been going on for a very, very long time.

     

    As far as bribing journalists, well I can't condone that behavior, though I think it also speaks volumes about the quality of the reporting the public receives. Who are they receiving money from this week and how is this influencing the debate on current hot issues like healthcare? Is it any wonder many people are skeptical about the news provided by mainstream media? I don't recall if anything happened to whoever was bribing the journalists, anyone know?

     

    Regarding the secretive behavior, I suspect they felt if they ignored the questions, the questions would go away. And to an extent they were right because this isn't a big deal to me and to many other Americans. Or rather, I should say, it isn't new behavior by the military and the government. In vietnam, you could be outright drafted for service with no need for recruitment by the military.

     

    Nothing at all new or unusual here...

     

    Oddly, they never called me.

     

    Perhaps somewhere along the line, you gave personal some info out before. I know a friend who talked to a recruiter only to be practically hounded by calls for a long while.

     

    I think it is more likely I fit into some kind of profile they believed to be more likely to join. Perhaps you fit into a profile most unlikely to join?


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    Gre,

     

    Clearly, the answer is no.

     

    But what specific issue or topic or action by the republicans makes you ask if the republican party is a cult? There must be something here or you would not have asked.

  19. [

    What you might not realize about the innocently titled (as many Bush laws were, pretty sneaky) No Child Left Behind law, is that it allowed for military recruiters to get kids home address and phone info. Guess who knew about that little sneaky bit? Practically no one until the calls began. Of course if the schools refused to give out kids' info, their new funding was to be cut off. But who cares, it's only public education right?

     

    Just a bit of perspective.

     

    Whats the big deal? The govt. gets this information anyway. You know, the selective service requirement that all men within +/- 3 months of their 18th birthday sign up so, if necessary, they can be drafted.

     

    Of course, the govt. now gets this info a bit sooner than they once did by the selective service, but its not like they can't get this information anyway in the same way that all the other telemarketers keep getting my phone number despite being on the "do not call" list.

     

    And why is it you think the kids, or the kids parents, simply cannot say "no thank you" to the recruiter? I had absolutely no problem telling them this when I was constantly being called by the recruiters many years before the no child left behind act. I think I was contacted by them for a period of about 10 years...they were calling me even after I had graduated with my masters degree! I find it very hard to imagine NCLB making any significant difference here given how easily they were always able to find me, even in college.

     

    Just my perspective on this.

  20. What proportion of the expense is release compared to production? I would have thought that once it is made, it would make sense to release even a rather unsuccessful movie as widely as possible. (I have no idea though.)

     

    But its not just the distribution costs to consider, which I agree are relatively minimal. There is an immense opportunity cost as there is a limited number of screens and timeslots available. Instead of filling a theater with 5 people (= $50) per showing, they could be filling a theater with 50 people (= $500) per showing.

  21. I think it's more of a smart business decision. My guess is that it will quite simply cost them more to distribute it than they could possibly earn by performing said distribution.

     

    The idea is that, since so few Americans accept evolution, very few people would care much to go spend money on a movie about Darwin.

     

    I agree completely. Regardless of whether or not Americans accept evolution, in the end the distribution is a business decision.

     

    I don't think they are really afraid of controversy (there have been many controversial movies that were readily distributed). Sometimes the controversy helps them as people go to see the movie to know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps the movie title "Creation" instead of "Darwin" is an apparently futile attempt to stir up controversy and therefore generate publicity for the movie?

     

    I think the distributors are afraid of a movie that no one will go to see because then they lose money.

  22. Why? Is it because there is more industry in the northern hemisphere?

     

    I have heard theories about this along the lines of the additional soot generated by industry falls on the snow and ice. Thus causing them to absorb more heat from the sun (as opposed to reflecting it back into space) which makes them melt. This doesn't happen (as much) in Antartica due to less industry in that part of the world.

     

    But this is only one theory and I wouldn't use this theory to claim global warming via added CO2 isn't happening...

  23. Rivers and lakes are fine as they are freshwater. I don't like sea.

     

    You really need to think carefully regarding the great lakes. These are indeed freshwater, but at the same time they can be considered as seas as well. Oceangoing vessels routinely traverse these, and these boats have access to the open ocean via the St. Laurence seaway. Also, these lakes have measureable tides and are not always calm. In fact, there have been storms similar to tropical storms in these waters...see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Lake_Huron_cyclone

  24. I hope the Americans will enter the conversation soon...

     

    I am an American, but haven't commented for several reasons. One of the reasons is that the requirements are contradictory. It has already been pointed out that the request for Humidity and Water conflicts with the request for greatest distance from the sea. I might suggest Michigan, except I'm not sure if the great lakes would be considered a sea by the original poster. There are other conflicts in the request as well.

     

     

    I'd suggest Fargo, North Dakota. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo,_ND

     

    From the article:

    Fargo sits on the western bank of the Red River of the North in a very flat region known as the Red River Valley...Due to its location in the Great Plains and its distance from both mountains and oceans, the city has an extreme continental climate, and a USDA Plant Hardiness of Zone 4. The city is known for its long, cold and snowy winters. In sharp contrast summers are warm to hot, and often quite humid with frequent thunderstorms. Spring and autumn are short and highly variable seasons.
  25. Well, theres always the PACER proposal for power generation by nuclear fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(fusion)

     

    From the article,

    The PACER project, carried out at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the mid-1970s, explored the possibility of a fusion power system that would involve exploding small hydrogen bombs (fusion bombs)—or, as stated in a later proposal, fission bombs—inside an underground cavity.

     

    The proposed system would absorb the energy of the explosion in a molten salt, which would then be used in a heat exchanger to heat water for use in a steam turbine.

     

    This can be done today (and could have been built using technology from the 1970's). But it was determined then (and probably still is today) to be impractical. Again from the article:

    As an energy source, the system is the only one that could be demonstrated to work using existing technology. However it would also require a large, continuous supply of nuclear bombs, making the economics of such a system rather questionable. The production of thermonuclear, or even just nuclear, bombs requires high immediate capital expenses, and also has long-term environmental costs. Additionally, the political effects of beginning a large-scale production of nuclear bombs could potentially be large, and with increasing bomb numbers, increased security measures would be necessary. The entire system—fissile material production, bomb fabrication, and power generation—could be carried out in a single well-guarded site, but only for great development costs that would likely never be recovered by generating energy.

     

    See also Project Gnome which was a real test of this concept in 1961: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_GNOME

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.