why is it that all these renewable energy prosthelytizers can never articulate a coherent solution/end game? He is right, the number of pv cells needed to generate the required electrical energy is irrelevant - that is only a part - and possibly only a small part - of the problem. He gets us to all the required PV panels, but glosses over the question of storage, hydrogen, how hydrogen can be stored, air transport, etc. etc. etc. What's the point of a video like this? Waste of time and electrons...

Um, no. Leaving if you're unhappy you lost a political fight or election is absolutely not how democracies work. If it was, why aren't Republicans all moving right now?

No, they didn't. Being Christian doesn't equate to wanting to outlaw abortion. Most Americans are Christian, and a vast majority say they want abortion to be legal when asked. You're logic fails to recognize that some Christians don't believe in forcing their beliefs on others, and many only kind of believe, only when it's convenient, and limiting their options could feasibly hurt them.

No contraception is perfect, lack of sex ed in Texas means many don't even know how pregnancy works before being sexually active. Also I haven't heard of exceptions for rape or incest. These people have no option to use contraception, which fails far too often.
Also, I believe no person should be forced to be an unwilling biological life support system for another, certainly not for just a potential human, absolutely not children under any circumstances.


No, Shit Sherlock, it is not how it works in most of the world, certainly not in the developed world, are you under the impression that abortions only happen in America? Do you think people will accept sex only to procreate?
Access to multiple methods of terminating unwanted pregnancy are how it works across the world, because abstinence is insanely unrealistic and there's no even near perfect birth control without terminations when the main methods fail, which happens between .1% for the implant (the best, but with restrictions, and side effects and problems with having it implanted for 3 years) and >27% for the contraceptive sponge in women who've had a child ...typical methods like the pill fails 7%, condoms 13%, diaphragms 17%, many others in the >20% range. None of those numbers are acceptable when you're talking about an unwanted child without a secondary method with a 100% success rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

If women around the world didn't rely on secondary methods when primary ones fail, which they often do, they would only have sex for procreation and everyone would be exponentially more frustrated and angry. Not a reasonable or feasible solution.

"So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word." yes, but don't expect to return because you committed murder and that's a crime in Texas.

"You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough." Helping to commit murder is a crime.

"So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right? " Again, all of those examples are accomplices in committing murder.

"And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy." Again, all of those examples are accomplices in committing murder.

"So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?" Yes, commit murder and expect the full extent of the law in Texas.

"They don't like it. They can take it to another state. " Yes, just don't return because you committed murder.

"As easy as that?" yes as easy as that. Murder is a crime. Can't be simpler.

So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word.

You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough.

You'd be against reporting people that aid in getting the women into a state that is allows the legal procedure - right? Fall off the log easy.

So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right?

And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy.

So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?

They don't like it. They can take it to another state.

Easy.

As easy as that?

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

Too many tumbleweeds blowing around in Sift Talk.

The definition of "snuff" was incorrectly changed by inserting rules that make it inaccurate.

As a solution maybe make a stand alone rule about "death" videos?

I would never want to see a snuff video here. It's not the right place and I don't think there should be a right place.

Oh shit! You want solutions!? Uh oh.

Maybe a sift talk post or poll to see if changing the definition or policy is popular would be a good start?

Seems like both of these "tools" might be specific to that/some brands of outlets. Doesn't seem like these features are critical to a certified outlet design.
Also what's the usefulness of builtin wirestripper? What are the chances that you get to installing outlets but don't have any tools at hand? Seems like a solution to a non-problem.

Contaminants.
The solution....spider goats with silk in their milk....no, really.

I’m wondering what her solution might be....starting school an hour early so every student can be fully screened before entering a completely closed and sealed campus? Incredibly harsh sentencing for those caught trespassing?

Did she consider the repercussions for her daughter, who was clearly complicit with her criminal plan to expose lax security? Expulsion is a real possibility.

She did prove security is lacking, but was there really any question? Everything is lacking in public schools. Now everyone knows just how easy it is to go unnoticed in schools, does that make the children safer or at higher risk?

Now it’s time for her to pay the price....it should be high as a very public example of what happens to trespassers.

What a maroon.

The problem is, it's complicated.

First off, is the legacy of historical damage still scarring aboriginal communities in Canada.

Even disregarding that complexity though, current structure of governance in Canada makes the problem harder to identify and resolve.

Singh's return question is what would you do if Toronto faced the same problem? The answer is the federal government would by and large do nothing, because water supply is a municipal responsibility and the Mayor and city council of Toronto are responsible for fixing it, and thus federal funds don't go in and instead municipal tax money is used to keep the water supply going. Across Canada that model is working pretty decently, by and large.

The real question then is why are reserves having a harder time? Well, afore mentioned historical trauma aside, reserves represent small communities directly comparable in size and make up as municipal communities. However, the reserves are NOT managed like municipalities. Instead Canada still has a two tiered system of governance, one for reserves and another for municipalities.

In term so governance municipalities report to the provinces and the provinces report to the federal government. Reserves report directly to the federal government.

The affects everything related to governance and is responsible for a host of confusion and difficulty.

Services: Education and Health are provincially funded, and so the federal government transfer money to the provinces and tells them to figure out education and health services. Municipalities then just get those services. Reserves however sit outside that, and get entirely different intermediaries.

Taxation and funding: municipal, provincial and federal governments all gather taxes and distribute funds up and down. Reserves only deal with funding though directly to the feds, again cutting out the provincial intermediary.

Both of the above mean making an apples to apples comparison of communities to try and ensure both are treated 'equally' is impossible. It also means that solutions that work on one side don't in the other.

It's a big mess, and just throwing money at the system and saying that will fix it is just wrong. Not only that, it's been TRIED and failed. The above mentioned differences also apply to rules surrounding transparency, accountability and fraud prevention. Meaning there are a great many more loopholes available on the reserve funding side for anyone involved or attached to providing services(be that council members on reserve, or any number of external entities hired in good faith to perform services). That in turn means the amount of money lost to direct and indirect corruption is harder to find/stop.

So fix all that is the next obvious response. The problem is still complex though because when does 'fixing' becoming simply white folks making aboriginals do things the 'right(white) way that was already the source of lingering historical damage I didn't even consider yet...

It's a hard problem to solve and Singh's just trying to score cheap political points peddling easy and false answers to a complex problem.

And more Derp..
Reported today, the Texas governor and numerous other officials were warned days ahead of the storm by the then chair of the public utility commission of Texas DeAnn Walker that the state did not have nearly enough natural gas on hand to get through the storm. This, she warned, was guaranteed to cause power outages during the deadly freeze which would result in Texans dying unnecessarily.
They made no moves to get more.
Because they refuse to meet minimum federal standards, they could not just go to their neighbors during the emergency begging for help, but could have purchased more natural gas beforehand...they had plenty of warning to prepare.

Instead the asshats ignored the shortages, ignored the deadly storm, and pretended the power went out because their wind turbines weren't weatherized (which they would have been if they ran like California, especially California before deregulation destroyed our systems decades ago). This led to many deaths by freezing. Foreseen, avoidable deaths and billions in damages.


Once again, since you seem ignorant, California's power problems are due 100% to lack of maintenance by the companies that took over when we deregulated decades ago under Republican Pete Wilson's administration. (Btw, because I don't think you know, between '82 and 2011 California was under Republican leadership for all but 4 years) The for profit companies deferred maintenance so much that now they are the main cause for billions in wildfire damages... and the solution? Not catch up on maintenance, just shut down if there's wind. That's what deregulation gets you. That's what you advocate for and support....then deride as a liberal idea when it fails miserably.
So much ignorant delusion. It's all the right is based on today. Baseless lies and morons who believe it and NEVER verify. Lol indeed.

Shut up about the money already. TLDR frankly. Having kids is the biggest investment and responsibility a pair makes. Promising to help take care of them is about the only reason marriage is really useful. Besides some legal technicalities like access to medical information in a crisis, taxes etc. Obviously every time you start only thinking about the money the relationship will go downhill fast.

Two solutions: a) have a business agreement instead of a marriage, or b) stop bitching about the money.

Every time this guy lays down an assertion, he's presenting questionable supposition as fact. He's building all of his points from a shaky foundation of paranoia presented as reality.

There are definitely problems with the way that 24 hour news media is formatted and it is causing social issues. But the problem is a lot more complex than "a conspiracy of rich people controlling you". Any solution is going to require real objective, unbiased and clear-eyed analysis of how the news business works today. This video isn't that.

I think it's more a matter of pointing out that science doesn't provide guidance, only understanding. We should use information provided by scientific research to guide policy, but policy won't always 100% follow that guidance. As an example, if research indicated the best way to solve Problem X is using Solution A, but Solution A is exceedingly expensive, or will cause public outcry, or requires materials from a hostile region, then Solution B might be what you opt for instead. Practicalities may make "follow the science" a poor, or at least less viable option.