This already exists in sorts. Many pallets are shrink wrapped and have corners added that increase the rigidity of them. These corners are anything from wood slats, cardboard slats to other materials as needed/determined by the shipper to ensure the products arrive safely. Some are banded using metal or nylon straps and use tops that lock the products into place using their casing material as sort of walls.

Most material is placed on the pallets in interlocking patterns that allow the weight of the level on top secure the layer below. This stabilizes the layers and sort of creates the same wall type thing. Add some shrink wrapping and it will take a lot of abuse before falling.

Actually, there is.

Police can speed and break all sorts of traffic laws in chasing criminals as well as rushing to a scene. They can and have broken into buildings and houses in pursuit of suspects/criminals fleeing. There is actually a long list of things- some of which even cause people to lose their life that the police seem to be absolved from which if you or I had done would be instant jail time.

You may be correct that there is no law or principle allowing that. But the reality is that the prosecutor and the police share common interests and prosecution is not likely even in extreme obvious cases.

When the outcome it the same, what is the difference?

Seriously? What is the difference between having a steller lawyer defend you who doesn't have the time to do it correctly and an imbecile who passed the bar because his uncle was giving the examination if the outcomes are the same? Now I'm not saying all people with poorly executed defenses are innocent or anything. I'm just wanting to know what the differences are when neither the "far better than decent" defenders cannot spend enough time to prove their worth and those defenders who don't care or are incapable of doing a good job.

Please, by all means, tell us how the "Just us" system is supposed to work and how reality differs?

and yes, I said "Just us" because at this point in time, I do not think Justice is even close.

The taxes are for finding solutions.

No they are not. It's to subsidize the pet flavor of alternative energy of the month. That and off-shoring manufacturing is how it has been used everywhere it has been implemented.

No one is sitting around and finding solutions for nothing. You find a solution because you figure it is cheaper than paying the tax.

Yes, you create artificial hardships until the people bitch loud enough for someone to do something about it. Great concept there, except for the concept in and of itself. Like I said previously, if the governments who are worried about it would actually do the research themselves and then make the tech available as it is discovered and/or implemented by regulation when it is feasible, it can all be fixed without creating hardships on the populace. Except this isn't about a fix, it's a political solution about power and control over people.

The rest of your post is simply idiotic unscientific phantasy, or science fiction.

No more so than the entirety of your post. Or are you admitting that science will not find the answer to alternative energy and it is just wishful thinking for those of us who think some honest research would go a long way?

We as well could have cold fusion and hot fusion tomorrow. That is as likely as finding an economic industrial scale process to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

You could get AIDs or Ebola tomorrow and die for all we know. You not getting it is just as much fantasy as you getting it. No one can predict the future. The best we can do is assess the likelihood and take steps to either avoid it or encourage it. You sound like you want nothing to do with a future where we do not need to oppressively tax people, restrict their behaviors while causing hardships in the process. Perhaps you are in it for other reasons?

Growth is not restricted.CO2 production is.

Yes, and no reliable and efficient form of energy exists on the scales in use that does not produce Co2 (exempt Nuclear but that too has it's booger man). So yes, while you are technically right just as the idiots who say a square peg fits into a round hole when everyone paying attention knows its not supposed to.

LThat s a no brainer ... no idea why you believe it is super easy to remove CO2 (at some point in the future, when it is probably to late) from the atmosphere but it is not possible to have an economy that uses less energy. Hint: Europe already is showcasing it. It is possible, and it is rather simple.

Actually, no Europe is not. They are exporting their Co2 production to China and India where imports from them have increased over 10 fold and Europe is facing de-industrialization issues not only with those two countries but with former soviet countries who have no restrictions. The only thing Europe is showcasing is how to export Co2 production and tank their economies.

Who says microsoft isn't?

Or is it google that has you upset?

I doubt, Joe Biden will score even so much as a nomination â" despite his desires â" which will, of course, be even more embarrassing for the Democrats, than him losing the subsequent election.

This is likely the number one reason why no one has attempted to assassinate Obama. They know we would get Biden in his stead.

Then take it up with the several articled snd scientific research they cite. And no, it is not just one article, it is several that say the same things.

And i do not believe any of these articles address three years of tornados. They are linking global warming to them which is opposite of yhr premise originally replied to.

Physics laws don't change over night, nor do they in 200 years.

You are correct, this is ROFL.. Physics laws do not change but our abilities to harness and utilize them for our own benefit does. Sometimes this can be overnight, sometimes it takes 200 years.

So what if in 50 years, we find a way to take the Co2 from the atmosphere, separate the carbon and manufacture fibers from it that replace steel in automobiles and bridges and other uses we now spend a lot of carbon energy on. What if in 100 years, we become more efficient and are able to do this with methane too?

This is the problem with the global warming crowd. Instead of finding solutions, they want to claim oppression of people via taxes the will severely strain their ability to enjoy lifestyles as they already know it and disrupt business while forcing their own agenda onto everyone is the only way. The fact is, there are several ways global warming can be addressed and these ways will be added to in the future as out knowledge increases. If the governments of the world were actually worried about global warming, they would be creating research teams devoted to finding solutions like efficient, reliable, and cost effective energy sources as well as ways to make use of emissions in a productive way and then make this knowledge available to the world so that it can be implemented. But instead, it's about restricting growth in first world nations while forcing investments into third world nations, it's about power and control of the populous.

1: I am a scientist, and while I admit I don't know everything ( who does ? ) about climate change I have seen enough data to be concerned, not panicked mind you, but concerned; especially so since anything on a global scale has so many variables as to be be possible to accurately model.

I think the problem is that concern is too often turned into political advantage by panicking people. Some of the original scientists came along with political motivations like James Hansen and his support for Jubilee2000 which dispersed with the creation of the Kyoto accords (too long of a connection to make in this short post to why that is suspect).

2: While those people you linked may be ranked high in their fields, the pages you linked to don't cite papers published in a reputable journal for peer review... probably because they are not reproducible as science demands.

Actually, they do cite sources. It's those underlined strings of words that look like those annoying popover ads but are actually links. For instance, the mother jones article says the change was from a paper published here http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

The New scientists article actually cites at the bottom of the page. It links to an article called climate dynamics The increasing efficiency of tornado days in the United States.

3: your third link is just braindead political bashing.

Did you think you were pointing out something I didn't already know? Or were you answering my challenge to which link was a conservative site? Anyways, I think you completely missed the point even though I spelled it out. It doesn't surprise me seeing how you missed the citations in the articles too. But the point was that political entities have been claiming Climate change does make predictions about tornadoes. So this idea that it is unheard of for claims if climate change or global warming and tornadoes being linked is fabricated. That was the only point, that the claims have been made.

That conclusion fell into question late last year, though, with a paper by Diffenbaugh and two colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Using a suite of the most state-of-the-art climate models, the researchers found, once again, that wind shear decreases under global warming. However, they also found that that didn't really matter, because the number of days with both high CAPE and high shear nonetheless increased. "We find that in fact, at the monthly or seasonal scale, that decrease [in shear] does occur over the US," Diffenbaugh says, "but it's concentrated in these days with very low CAPE." That means that the net number of days with high CAPE and high shear was still projected to increase in the future.

It goes on to explain how this cape and shear will increase tornadoes.

You really should learn to read the entire article and perhaps the links within the article further than just finding what you want it to say when someone points out that it says something other than what you want it to say. The mother jones article does indeed say

Diffenbaugh and his colleagues looked at this parameter too, and they found an "increase in the fraction of severe thunderstorm environments that have high CAPE and high low-level shear," as Diffenbaugh puts it. As the authors wrote, this result is suggestive "of a possible increase in the number of days supportive of tornadic storms."

The paper by Diffenbaugh and his colleagues represents "the first significant evidence that we might expect to see a change in tornadoes," says NOAA's Brooks.

More generally, the upshot of this research is that tornadoes must change as a result of climate change, because the environments in which they form are changing.

And you can follow the same link, that was selectively copied from it. Please, in the future, absorb all the information presented, think about it for a while, then think again before spouting something silly about it.

HE didn't miss it. Didn't you know that when you are hiding from reality, things like Nationalist and International can make almost otherwise identical organizations politically opposite as in left verses right. So by focusing on the geographical structure of national verses international, the person can completely ignore the political ideology of nationalism and socialism and conflate the similarities of other words in order to provoke any misunderstand that fits their desired worldview that they can imagine.

And yes, Nazi Germany was very progressive. They had free university education, instituted minimum wages and lead the science front. In fact they advance Eugenics to the point of the Aryan race being the true race and made a foundation for the final solution to the inferior races. But we won't let facts bother some people. They are happy with their misaligned worldviews and history will repeat itself. It's like the constant calls for more funding for failed institution. If only more money was thrown that way and they could try the same things again, it might work this time. Get used to it.

hmm.. A simple google search shows that nobody is a lot of organizations that appear to be somewhat scientific in their approach and presentation.

Also, the new scientis or articles on their site seem to attempt to make predictions about tornadoes

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Mother Jones does another story connecting it too.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

Of course one article is dated march of 2014 and the other august of the same year. But of course politicians have been making claims about the links for a while now. Here is an article presented in october of 2014 which examines political discourse about the global warming tornado threat somewhat.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Now note, one of those sites is a conservative site. Can you guess which one that might be? Well, it doesn't matter because the information is not inaccurate and came about before this was even on the radar. In fact, it was attempting to impeach the credibility of the political hack appointed to oversee the ebola fiasco and manage political fall out from reported cases reaching American shores.

So lets not ignore the fact that connections have been made.

Having someone - anyone - in a class that screws up the bell curve makes others feel bad.

I think the bell curve is likely the entire problem. There simply should not be one. If kids are failing the subjects, they shouldn't be getting C and B grades because the smart people got removed to be in their own class. If the smart people excel, by all means have the ability to push them further and if that means another class, fine. But if the not so smart people are failing, the options should not be adjust the grading scale, but to supplement the education in ways that make them satisfactory students.

People learn in different ways. Perhaps the answers might be in sending teachers more gifted to smarter kids to those smart classes and concentrate more efforts on the no so smart kids with teachers and course material better prepared for their abilities. I was that way in school, I could read something and pretty much tell you where in the book the information was covered a week after. But after a lecture, I could tell you what color the teacher's socks were but nothing about the topic covered. I remember one teacher that I nicknamed king crab because he always had chalk dust on his pants near his privates if there was a lecture and I knew it was going to be a bad day. Other students need told instead of reading and some might need a varying mix of it and other things like hands on practice too.

This isn't really a new anti-foaming measure, it's making them more effective. That was the point, the magnetic field made the particles tinier so they could disperse and bond more per unit.

But you appear to be wrong about hops only to do with flavor, aroma, and preservation as at least one beer maker and several scientists seem to think it has to do with combating too much foam also.