Actually, no. Conservation of energy means that converting solar radiation in electricity simply changes the form of the energy, not the amount.
Energy can be heating up mass on Earth or it can be radiating to deep space. Solar power causes more energy to be contained on Earth, heating it up rather than the latter. Energy is conserved, but it need not be present on Earth. And I already stated the mechanisms by which this would happen.
1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.
Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of a part of Earth and the result electricity produced will generate heat through work or inefficiency.
And physical exponential growth forever is not a serious scenario to consider.
A nuclear accident could easily release a lot more radiation than a coal plant.
Sure, if we don't do anything about it. But coal burning plants operating normally are far more common than nuclear plants in the throes of meltdown.
Yes. However, that is something you choose to do.
It's also riskier for people who don't choose to be anywhere near a car. There's probably more people dying from vehicles crashing into buildings or driving through non-road areas. And that's ignoring the effects of air pollution from vehicles.
with currently available digital imaging you still would not need to be below 350 feet for that..
I'm obviously speaking of future digital imaging not present digital imaging.
Plus, if there really is no advantage to lower ceiling flights, then why shouldn't any such flights, no matter how high the ceiling, be subject to the same restrictions?
you also would not be running into any problems with that as it is your OWN property so there is no limits on what you can do
Except when your own property is not very big or the drone can't be launched from inside the property. Flying near someone else's property may trigger the law especially since it won't be obvious in some cases (due to the limits of human sight) whether the drone has crossed a property line or not. It forces very serious constraints on where a drone can fly.
If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.
Which is real convenient here. I don't buy it at all. It's three years after the elections in question and it'll be even later than that by the time any access is obtained, if ever. That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
I think there's a reasonable case here for illegal vote manipulation and that this illegal activity is just as bad as vote coercion.
Kill every right winger, kill their families and especially their children. Their very existence is an act of aggression. You won't go to hell for killing them, every celestial being understands why you did it.
Well, ok, as long as you use drones. We wouldn't want anyone's life risked unnecessarily.
The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold