Comment Re:No need to attack (Score 1) 164
How many countries has Iran invaded since the revolution in '79?
Iran, or their armed and funded proxies?
How many countries has Iran invaded since the revolution in '79?
Iran, or their armed and funded proxies?
No wonder we have such big, out-of-control government.
Given your desire for the EPA to be used as a bludgeon to keep evil companies from hegemonizing burgeoning whatevers by creating more and more rules to smake them down with, you are being hypocritical beyond all imagination here.
You haven't read the bill, you cannot comment on it intelligently. You are a waste of time.
Electric traction motors are far more efficient than ICEs. That's why diesel locomotives don't actually connect the diesel engine to the wheels.
You are high. The diesel engine turns fuel into mechanical energy. If you change that mechanical energy into electricity and then back into mechanical energy, there is no way that could give you more efficiency than a simple mechanical transmission (which is typically well over 90% efficient). The reason for the electric transmission is flexibility. It does away with a big honking clutch and a multi-speed gearbox and gives you very smooth transition from standstill to forward motion.
Newton is a unit of force. BTU is a unit of energy. You should be using megajoules.
1 BTU = 0.001055055853 MJ, or 1000 BTU = 1.055055853 MJ
1000 BTU per person mile = 0.6555813132 MJ/passenger-km
Any combustion engine running at surface conditions can do maybe 20 - 30% efficiency tops.
Better than that. There are internal combustion engines which reach 50% at sea level. The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C 108,920 hp marine diesel exceeds 50%. Heck, even the TDI diesel engine in my 1999 Golf tops out at very close to 40%. The LM-2500+ gas turbine, a derivative of the CF6 which powers some 747s, adapted for shaft output, is over 39%.
Sony bitches about $200 million lost in piracy? Let the IRS tax them on their new made up bullshit number.
You want to hand Sony a $200 million write-off on a loss? Wow. Oh wait, you want to TAX a loss, not allow a deduction for it.
Suddenly IP "losses" go to sane levels.
Why do you care what Sony claims for losses as long as they don't get to write them off?
I want IP taxed at 15% of the value claimed,
IP is taxed when it makes money. You want wealth redistribution, not honest taxation.
And I am even more certain that YOU have not read it.
Exactly so.
You have the nerve to claim that I haven't read the bill and then admit that you haven't bothered to read it yourself. You'd rather make asinine claims about what the bill would require without knowing what the bill actually says just so you can play political football. You're arguing against the bill without even knowing what it says.
Can you think of a more valid reason to oppose it?
Yes. If it were a bad bill it would be a more valid reason to oppose it. You realize, I hope, that you've just admitted that you are opposing every bill Republicans propose just because they are Republicans. I really hope I never find you saying that the Republicans are bad because they opposed Obama's policies and hoped that none of them passed.
Further, are you sure there is even a problem for this Republican solution?
I see no problem with this "Republican" solution. You have shown none, all you've done is make stuff up and parrot the talking points you've been given.
How many of the EPA regulations are based on "secret science" anyway?
Who cares? Why are you in favor of regulation based on nothing more than heresay? Wait, I know, it's because you think the EPA should be a bludgeon against those awful companies that make money. Spouting about "hegemony" was a dead giveaway.
Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Iran NOT have a nuclear weapon ?
Because of their frequently asserted world view and actions.
It's rich since the government in the region of Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1820
Right. It's too much trouble. That's why they send material and support to others to do it for them.
Let me put it very simply: because I have no power to vote for or against American politicians, they should have NO power to influence my life.
So, should China have had any power to influence the lives of people in Japan when Japan started its whole Pacific Rim debacle some decades ago? Should the people of Eastern Europe have considered it just too rude to think about modifying the capabilities or behavior of their friendly neighbors, the Ottomans, as those neighbors gathered up a head of steam and sought to spread their friendly culture westward?
Do you live in a country that begins its legislative sessions with group chants about the destruction of other countries? Does your country aggressively support groups that state their objective of slaughtering others specifically because of their religion and/or heritage, and then indeed actually go and help them do it? Do you really think that the world isn't connected, and that people bent on an apocalyptic world view aren't a good fit for having the leverage of nuclear weapons as they seek to control, among other things, major global shipping lanes?
Do you think that just because you don't think someone else should be able to impact your life, that that will actually stop someone who thinks you should be killed for allowing your daughter to read, or for trimming your beard, etc., from not exactly seeing the world in a way reciprocal with you? Being an isolationist doesn't work when someone trapped in a brutal, medieval, theocratic mindset thinks you're suitable only for death, and thinks that isolationism by others is for the weak, and is to be exploited.
My guess - no, my certainty - is that you have not read this law. That you have no idea what's really in the law, or what the law covers and does not cover.
And I am even more certain that YOU have not read it. You talk about trade secrets or banning the words "climate" and things that aren't covered at all. You talk about "previous versions" of this bill that "ban models", yet haven't noticed the implicit acceptance of computer models in 2(3)B(ii). You think that data about a specific company's fracking mix has to be made public before studies that show any of the chemicals in that mix can be banned for use in fracking, and that's just not true.
It should be clear I've read it. I've quoted from it extensively in previous discussions about it, and in this one.
I don't have a problem with the EPA not allowing me to inject benzene into the aquifer. Do you?
Stop being obtuse. If the only jurisdiction the EPA had was how much benzene someone could inject into an aquifer you might have some point. Their reach extends MUCH further than that, and you don't know what rules they might make tomorrow that impact you. Now, it's nice that you want them to be able to do it based on "we say..." from someone who can't produce a scientific study supporting their claims, but I am not so tolerant of government regulation.
What's your biggest beef, personally with EPA regulations?
You haven't read the bill and cannot support any of the claims you make about it, so you try to turn it into some personal issue to sidetrack the discussion. I have a common sense belief that they need to justify ALL of their regulations with science that can be reviewed by anyone who wishes to do so. It's that simple. Why do you have a problem with such review? What regulations do you personally want that cannot be supported by scientific studies and fact? I know because you've already told us: anything that can smack down evil corporations.
Because you're trying to prevent my burgeoning hegemony over government and politics?
No, because YOU support any regulations that the EPA can come up that would smack me down, based on nothing more than "PopeRatzo says
By the way, the job of the EPA is not to "prevent burgeoning hegemony" over anything, it's to create rules to protect the environment. Period. Those rules need justification. Why shouldn't they? I have yet to see anyone explain why they shouldn't.
With a name like "Obfuscant" I'd lean towards the former.
And now your argument is pure ad hominem.
As far as I can tell, the actual bill requires all data to be reproducible.
You tell wrong. Are you making it up out of whole cloth? It requires data to be available online in a form that anyone who wishes to verify or reproduce it can. It makes no requirement of reproducibility. Some people even lie and say that this law requires the EPA to reproduce it.
That means the raw data used by a study has to be available publicly (and probably on the internet) or it's "secret science" and can't be used by the EPA.
Close. You could read it for yourself if you want. It says nothing about all raw data, only "all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action". The raw data leads to results, the results are the scientific and technical information that are relied on.
In fact most sources I've seen actually say that even including difficult to reproduce data bans the EPA from using the study.
They lie. There is no such language in the law. Read it for yourself. It is even shorter than the FCC net neutrality rules.
Several say flat-out that private data of all types is banned.
They lie. The data isn't banned, but use of data that isn't available "in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results" cannot be used in formulation of EPA regulations.
But what about private medical data? Doesn't have to be made available. "Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law." If your private medical data is covered by HIPAA, it doesn't have to be made available -- but it doesn't have to be made available anyway, only the results used to support regulatory actions. If you've signed away your legal protections to that data, well, you should have gotten legal advice prior to signing.
The Amendment that would have fixed this would have given peer-reviewed articles a free pass on the point, and it was voted down by the committee.
The process of peer-review is prior to publication. If it is published, then put it online and the law is satisfied. People here seem quite enamored with Open Access publishing, so any law that furthers the cause should be greeted with open arms. But here we have opposition to law, so keeping science private is somehow good.
So please, tell me how you could use a private database in your study and still get it used by the EPA.
That depends on what the "private database" contains, but I'd say that if you want public regulations then you should provide support for your desire and not just "because I say so". If your entire study is based on someone's private database then you have reproducibility and validity issues from the get-go and that means you aren't really doing science, you're trolling for data to support whatever conclusion you're looking for. That's the kind of science this law would stop, and I think that's just fine.
No, they're allowed to pollute groundwater by lobbyists bribing legislators to make it so that regulatory agencies have to accept corporate oversight.
This law has nothing to do with corporate oversight.
And through creating a climate of fear where government scientists are told that certain words, like "climate" and "change" are not allowed.
This law says nothing about preventing the use of certain words.
Remember, an earlier draft of this bill forbade government agencies from using scientific "models".
THIS law says nothing about banning models.
The only solution is to make corporations afraid for their very lives. If it takes an EPA with the ability to make them squirm, then that'll have to do
So, basically, fuck science, if the EPA can write regulations that stop companies from doing things you don't like just because you don't like it, that's fine with you. The EPA doesn't have to have any reason at all to enact regulations strangling some corporate activity because corporations don't deserve fair treatment based on scientific evidence, they just need to be punished.
I would have hoped you understood that EPA also impacts private citizens and the same regulations that apply to evil corporations also apply to people like you. I say, fuck science, any regulation the EPA can come up with that smacks PopeRatzo down is a good'un. If science isn't necessary for corporate rules, they aren't necessary for public rules either.
Benzene can be a useful substance in certain controlled situations, but it's not safe for people to drink. How does "banning chemical Z if it's harmful" deal with that?
Because the actual regulation wouldn't be "ban benzene", it would be "the MCL for benzene in public drinking water is X ppb", just as the regulations regarding MCL in drinking water are already written. I didn't think you would see a statement about banning chemical Z as a claim that the regulation would say nothing but "ban chemical Z". Sheesh. I thought the context of "toxic chemicals used in fracking" would have been obvious and assumed.
How do you think "Z" gets banned?
By writing a regulation. That regulation doesn't need to say anything about the mix of chemicals some oil company is using to frack, or any knowledge about the mix at all. All it has to do is ban Z for that use -- based on solid, reviewable studies that Z actually is bad and not just someone saying they think is must be bad and should be banned. Nobody needs to know what the mix is, or even if company XYZ is fracking or not. All there needs to be is a study showing why Z should be banned. For use in fracking. By ANY company.
The only reason we're getting this micromanagement by congress of the EPA
It's not micromanagement to require EPA regulations to be based on publicly available and reviewable science. It's common sense.
because the corporatists can smell victory over any government oversight or regulation.
Oh for goodness sakes. The law requiring public availability of data that regulations are based on doesn't prevent regulation. Not even close. Do you even know what the law says?
Public safety users cannot do that. Commercial radio repair will be a scarce resource.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
