Just like we stay away from active volcanoes.

Which is why 47 people didn't just die in a Japanese volcanic eruption a couple months ago? In the country with probably the best volcano monitoring on Earth?

Please, do go on about Ukranians. I want to hear about how they crucify children to torture their mothers for revenge.

Who's the actual target?

I once knew someone who was in military intelligence during the Cold War who had lots of good stories about where the intelligence to analyze came from. One good source was an undersea Soviet cable that the US had covertly tapped. Another was their predecessor to cell phones. They were analog and unencrypted, but they generally realized the risk and didn't use them anywhere near where there might be a listening post. However in issuing guidelines for their usage they apparently miscalculated on the fact that the signals also propagate up, believing that the low power transmissions would be too weak and distorted by the time they got to orbit to be demodulated. The US however had a satellite that could do precisely that.

The Soviets were also very good at covertly tapping US communications. They (and their Russian successors) also made good use of them in other ways. In the Chechen conflict, their leader Dzhokhar Dudaev stayed in communications with his contacts via short calls by satellite phone. The Russian solution to this was to create a system that would specifically recognize his phone, and mounted it to a HARM - the sort of missile normally used to take out radar transmitters, which homes in on a specific radio signal. It was the world's first - and only - "Anti-Dudaev Missile", and worked quite effectively.

embarrassed themselves by proposing obvious nonsense

Okay, I'll bite. here's a comparison of historic forecasts from skeptics and from mainstream scientists, versus actual measured temperatures. Who, exactly, is embarrassing themselves here?

It's long been known that the temperature of the thermosphere is highly dependent on what the sun is doing. It doesn't "store" energy, and there's essentially nothing above it to block it from radiating out into space. It also represents a mere 0.002% of the atmosphere.

It's not the thermosphere whose temperature people care about. It's the first few dozen meters of the troposphere that matters.

and it's about the coolant effect of CO2 in the middle and lower atmosphere, not the troposphere

You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

(Hint: the troposphere *is* the lower atmosphere - and if you define "middle" by "half of the mass" rather than "half of the altitude", it's that too)

Why is it "bullshit"? Do you actually think there's really no health cost to dumping PM, SOx, NOx, CO, VOCs, etc into the atmosphere (just ignoring CO2)?

Quite true. People complaining about randomness on the grid and uneven supply usually don't stop and consider that the grid already faces huge randomness from the other side - demand - and deals with it just fine. Baseload is indeed a problem, not a solution, and peaking and storage are interchangeable.

I think people focusing on storage are letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". I think storage is the ultimate future, but we're talking long term. Mid-term, peaking is the answer. Switch over the lion's share of generation to renewables, get them as type-diverse and geographically-diverse as possible, use peakers to fill in the gap like we already do, and you've taken out 90% of the problem (at least on the electricity side - still have to deal with transportation and other anthropogenic emissions).

That page is ridiculous. They credit 171k deaths to hydro from a single Chinese dam failure without bothering to mention that it failed because of a freaking cat-4 (nearly 5) typhoon. And dams have saved far more people than that through flood control. The 1931 floods in China alone killed as many as 4 million people.

And beyond that, pumped hydro != conventional hydro. Pumped hydro generally uses proportionally small reservoirs, and it's not usually situated in populated areas like river valleys. Where there's a big coastal rise it's popular to use the ocean as the lower reservoir.

As I described earlier, nuclear is a bloody awful choice if you're looking for a peaker (not going to go into why yet again)

Lastly, hydro, even pumped hydro, isn't my preferred solution (for ecological reasons). My preferred mid-range solution is a geographically diverse (stretching across multiple climate zones that don't experience the same weather at the same time) high power HVDC grid with diverse renewables generation in each location (so that their randomness doesn't correspond well with each other), with natural gas as peaking. You could probably get a 90% renewables / 10% gas solution in that manner. And a HVDC grid provides a ton of other benefits beyond just reducing net randomness - it syncs up disjoint AC grids allowing power sharing, it spreads out demand peaks over broader regions where they occur at different times due to different timezones, it makes underwater transmission lines much easier, it lets you use energy resources that are "the best, period" rather than having to settle for "the best that's close enough to the demand", it lets industry position itself more ideally, it helps you keep pollution away from populated areas, and on and on.

Holy Red Herrings, Batman! It's almost as if I wrote "If you have HVDC, and and solar power generation in a single geographic region suddenly become stable", rather than what I actually wrote:

Probably the best thing you can do is simply have a powerful HVDC grid so you can move power between different geographic regions and to use different types of renewables techs

Even in Germany, solar plus wind alone is much less random than purely solar or purely wind. But combined over a broad geographic region, the figures are surprisingly stable. HVDC lines also (their main purpose today) link you up with other regions so that you can use them as peaking when you need it and they don't (esp. regions with hydro, since hydro is much more total-energy-limited than power-limited, and nameplate power capacity can be uprated if necessary with little ecological impact and proportionally very small cost).

then your "high voltage DC net" myth will collapse.

Which is why Germany and Denmark are in a constant state of blackout?

Honest policy by a - say - PHD-in-physics politico would be to demand storage for at least 5 days for every Watt of "renewable" power installed.

That argument of yours makes no sense, since it doesn't account for capacity factor or generation profiles.

It would mean lifting up the entire lake constance by dozens of meters.

This claim is unevaluatable without knowing how much backup energy you're meaning to provide.

But if you are just a fucking liar with a physics PHD, you skip the storage.

Storage and peaking generation are 100% interchangeable. You can use any combination of either. And as stated, the need for either storage or peaking generation depends on the randomness of the supply, and 1) the more types of sources you use, and 2) the broader the geographic area you collect from, the less net randomness in the generation.

It should be noted that the power grid today is already highly random - not in terms of supply fluctuations, but demand fluctuations. Nighttime demand averages about a third of daytime generation, and there are sudden spikes and dropoffs at certain times of day. The current approach to the grid - peaking - deals with high levels of randomness just fine.

(it should also be noted that HVDC across time zones also helps you level out time-of-day demand spikes)

Not necessarily, it depends on your usage profile. If you're talking about power suddenly dropping out for half an hour then coming back, you're absolutely right. But if you're talking about it suddenly dropping out when a certain weather pattern moves in and staying out until it moves on, then of course it'd be useful.

Make a basic income available to everyone (funded by the Fed, not the taxpayer, at zero cost).

The point is that it's not zero cost. Every penny of money "funded by the Fed" comes from your and my pockets - sometimes with a big multiplier - by paths that are not as obvious, but just as costly, as a tax bill.

The biggest one is inflation: If the Fed just prints money, it dilutes the rest of the money. Your wages go down (though the numbers don't change.) Got retirement savings? They go down, too. Your investments go down - but the numbers make it look like they wen't up, and the government taxes the fake "gain". Everything you buy gets more expensive.

... unlike the grand jury proceedings, in which just the prosecutor presents inculpatory evidence and asks for an indictment. Or at least, that's the normal system. Here, the prosecutor didn't even ask for charges, meaning you had no one who was adverse to the cop.

Now you're lying about what I said, even though everyone can just scroll up and read it? Wow. Unbelievable. I never said that "the documents don't include the testimony of eye witnesses" and you know it, which is why you don't even use a quote here, even though Slashdot has a big ol' "Quote Parent" button. It's amazing.You actually think that you can get away with bullshiat like that?

What I actually said was that the documents don't include what you claimed, which was - and here I provide an exact quote, because I'm not a lying piece of shiat like you:

Those are your words. And my words were:

I never said that there were no eyewitnesses. I said that there aren't 7 of them saying what you claim they're saying. Instead, there are actually a bunch of eyewitnesses that say things very different from what you claim they said, including that Brown was surrendering. Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.

Anyways, your misrepresentations of the witness testimony aside, you've now been caught in such a complete and obvious lie over just these last few posts that no one could possibly believe anything you write here, so I think we're done. Goodbye, hypocritical, lying troll.

Nice try moving the goalposts there, but everyone can read this thread and see that, no, we're not talking about whether or not a judge oversees the panel. You called the evidence that was shown to the jury "the judge's published material." That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.

You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.

Maybe if you spent less time ranting and more time citing page numbers in the testimony to support your accusations of lying, you'd have some credibility here. But as long as you keep responding to "where's the support for your claim" with "it's out there! Somewhere! Shut up! Liar!" people will keep considering you to be a hypocrite and a fool.