They have their opinions, I have mine. They can express them, and I can express mine, including my first amendment protected opinion that they are not sane.

That's how this free speech thing works. And a lot of people are confused - thinking they can say whatever they wish, and no one is allowed to react to it.

The Al/air battery is a frustrating one. The best way I can see it successfully deployed is in replaceable cartridges. As for the size of those, I'm not certain. But in a replaceable cartridge system range anxiety would certainly go away.

SO calls them Penile Compensation vehicles. Now whether or not that is true, there does seem to be a common personality trait that makes them believe that the bigger and less efficient the vehicle is proportionally related to their patriotism, and they have a particular dress habit that they tend toward.

And the Calvin cartoon in the rear window with him pissing on whatever it is the driver hates, the Trump/Pence sticker with Pence's name painted over. And so on.

Amen.

"Folding Ideas" did a nice bit on this (it is long!) a while ago - I have seen nothing since then that makes me think any different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g?s...

And there we have it - coming to understanding that extremism is on both sides.

But I have no intention of legitimizing either group. They are both insane in my constitutionally protected opinion.

These ideology wars are based in that if you don't support Trump's plan to build concentration camps for 11 million people and don't think it is a good idea, that you are so left wing you support men and women using the same restrooms, or that if you aren't a left wing biology denier (trans are actual women, and women are physically the same as males that you must be an insurrectionist Putin endorsed 5th column.

And once you side with either far right or far left group - you become the enemy of the Constitution and the country.

Pretty quaint.

However, in a year, the SCOTUS could change their minds. Even now, they are considering a case that effectively ends the SCOTUS. That would be that there is no limit on presidential immunity. As the previous occupant has already stated he would be a dictator on day one, and within his legal teams definition, he has the right to execute anyone he wishes with impunity. Their argument that he would have to be impeached, then prosecuted has a presidential loophole. Just kill anyone that opposes you. You can't have an impeachemnt if anyone that wants to impeach you is killed.

The constitution is written to be interpreted. Under most circumstances, it works out okay. I don't really have a big issue with the present interpretation. But as we have seen, SCOTUS is pretty free to change previous law to suit political parties opposed to it's own previous rulings.

Which of course, in it's present president as dictator hearings, determination, is the equivalent of a democracy taking a democratic vote to end the democracy. There is a right to keep and bear arms. They clarified and emphasized the meaning for stating this right as explicitly protected, that being there needs to be a population of men trained in arms so that a militia can be raised quickly.

It was never ambiguous, but those opposed to protecting our rights thought to try creating ambiguity by misinterpreting plain English. That worked up to a point, and in the past 30 years or so people have been clawing back these protections. One example is "constitutional carry". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I was with you up until the point of "active criminal or mentally ill". People do have the right to buy and possess firearms, there is no right to use them against other US citizens. Assault is a crime. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is assault. Those lacking sufficient mental faculties to know how to safely handle dangerous items do not have the right to arms. This lack of mental capacity could be due to age, intoxication, injury, or mental illness. But to have any rights removed requires a legal process, evidence must be presented, the person must be able to provide a defense, and so on. The courts ruled on this as well.

Are there those that believe there's some right to use firearms against others? No doubt. Are these in any way seen as credible or a threat? Perhaps. What do you propose we do about it? It appears you would like the government to censor people, disarm them, perhaps even have them locked up without due process. I fear the government imposing such restrictions more than any loony tunes militia.

Wasn't impossible. It was just a chess game. Those small countries were proxy wars designed to be limited in scope. This was US vs Soviet Union, and occasionally Maoist China.

The romanticized brave farmer standing down the Monster from the USA with a pitchfork, and succeeding gloriously is missing the entire concept. Vietnam had weapons that were on par with the US.

I do hope you know that if the USA were to take a WW2 approach - and it could have - the war could have been over in a few weeks. On the other hand, it might have triggered WW3.

If you have an accident because the car in front of you makes an emergency braking, blame is not on the algorithm. The safety distance must be such that at any time the car in front can brake and you're able to stop behind it at your current speed.

My point is that it is not a news story, it's an opinion piece. News stories generally inform the reader of the news in as neutral and balanced way as possible. This was a badly written opinion piece. Going to the sources is the job of the journalist. The fact that even you are suggesting that this is needed means that clearly the so-called journalist did not do their job.

My irony meter just jumped up its own ass.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Reserved" in this context means "exclusive."

That is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It supersedes all Acts of Congress, all orders of the president, all rulings of the Supreme Court (or any other court), all acts of any legislature, governor or state court, and all acts, orders or rulings of any other government or official in the United States without exception.

It has exactly the same force of law as the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the articles of the Constitution that established Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.

Because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend taxpayer money on some guy's Internet bill, the Tenth Amendment makes it illegal for Congress to do so, regardless of its justifications. That's the law. The end.

Yup, monitoring is not censorship. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. And others are likewise legally allowed to read them.

But extremism is a real thing, and some people end up going off the deep end.

So there is also the concept of liability. If someone promotes an armed insurrection on a particular date on a public forum, and it happens, there will be a lot of finger pointing, asking why no one was paying attention. Probably why Amazon got rid of an extremist group hosted on its servers. Get something bad enough and end up in court.

Ironically, some of the same people promoting insurrection and using social media want social media held responsible for anything that is posted on it. That is contradictory, but it shows their ideology and plans to a certain extent.

If they are extremists, they are indeed kooks. And that's what this is all about.

There is a bit of ambiguity to the second amendment - "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That well regulated part, now what does that mean? Obviously the national guard is well regulated.

But those I have met who are in the unorganized milita want absolutely no constraints. They want anyone at all to walk into any gun store, show, or any gun show car trunk seller and as long as they pay, that's it. No ID needed, no background investigation, You can be an active criminal, or mentally ill, The believe all of those have an unalienable right to buy, possess and use firearms against other US citizens.

As nice as the no constraints at all group's ideology sounds in a perfect society, society ain't perfect. Hence the need for regulations they do not want.

I enjoy and use firearms. At this point in life, I mostly target shoot, and polish my shooting skills. There is something that is just enjoyable and relaxing about it.

So yeah - I 100 percent support the second amendment - all of it, not just the last 13 words.

In support of your point, I recall as a teenager, and interested in model airplanes, it was "common knowledge" that there would never be a battery powered model plane. Today we are starting to implement battery driven planes that carry people. Despite this, there are still people who have a 1950's mindset. Battery technology is mostly about adapting the characteristics of the well known chemical properties of the elements used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And the research needed to make the battery perform to it's potential is the big thing, along with the use case. So yeah, sodium - ion batteries can be very good batteries when researched and engineered to their potential.

And it is so odd that we now have people going on as if Li-ion batteries are the pinnacle of battery technology. They aren't. If we really want energy density, Calcium-ion might be the way to go. Thing is, Energy density is only one aspect, and so many people seem to think that Lithium based batteries are a universal solution. Li-ion has good energy density, but with that comes the fact that they don't handle abuse very well, and are kind of dangerous.

This. Exactly this.

Energy density is just one aspect of battery systems, and while some people think it is the most important one, it is not. All depends on the use case.

Some times you don't care about or even want super high energy density. That's because packing in a lot of energy means that problems tend to be more dramatic.

Your grid storage comment is spot on point. You can take something like a nickel-iron battery, pretty much the opposite of the Li-ion battery. It doesn't have good charge retention, and is quite heavy. You'd never want it in your smartphone.

But it is tough as nails and can withstand a lot of abuse. The electrolytes (potassium and lithium hydroxide) are not consumed or altered during chugging or discharging, and are nowhere near a problem as other types. And it doesn't have toxic metals like lead or cadmium. And it doesn't have the propensity to explode or catch fire that Li based batteries do.

So need some storage at the bottom of your solar array or wind turbine? You calculate out what you want, pour a concrete pad for the number of batteries needed plus the electronic conditioning, and there ya go.

Pathetic anti-EV sentiment? It's true that the detractor's and their whining is getting pathetic. But this as some sort of boomer problem is way off the mark.

The biggest haters of EV's at least in my area, are 20's to mid 40's males with their overpriced pickup trucks that get maybe 9 miles per gallon, and their leaders with the diesel engines who when they see an EV, elect to "roll coal, having detuned their rides in order to belch out huge plumes os smoke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And the dreaded boomers, who apparently caused every problem on earth - they developed so much of the technology that others claim they hate.