I don't doubt that this does occur. Any time you have kids even in public school, abuse will occur. Most of the abuse though is occurring among the immigrants themselves. We've reached the point where children are being used for crossing then sold back for another trip. The thing people don't appreciate is when you make it easier for people with children you incentivize this kind of thing. I don't see these people as refugees either... They are at best economic migrants

Their article today about the ruffians and thugs in Hong Kong is pretty rich. The comments section on the article is bristling with Chinese patriots.

Commentary: Hong Kong rioters must be severely punished for beating reporter

Because they never consider such as swathes of micro-plastic in the air.

But they will add it, and once more declare that we must hand over our cash and life or face apocalypse.

My first thought was to assume that the dwindling supply of Pu-238 precluded the use of the simpler RTG. Would it be simplistic to muse that restarting Pu production would be better from cost and reliability perspectives?

Oh god, I thought AC shit was not allowed anymore.
Anyway.
Thank you for devolving a discussion and proving Godwin's Law yet again.
Well done.
The fact is that Germany treated their prisoners of war rather well until they started running out of food, for themselves and for their prisoners. Can't say the same for the Vietnamese, but then you were invaders and you did your own fair share of raping and pillaging and erasing villages full of innocents. Agent orange, Napalm, depleted uranium shells, cluster bombs, the list goes on. But let's not think about the bleak side of America invading countries illegally and raping and killing and bombing weddings and journalists and that sort of negative thing. Fuck no, everyone hates America because of Freedom Fries.

The law disagrees with you. Read the first sentence (actually, read all of it, but the refutation to your claim is in the first sentence): https://uscode.house.gov/view....

That's for a court to decide.

It probably seized and acted like a typical lifter. That would certainly wear out the cam faster. I suppose it could have gotten loose and the lifter pushed it up into the top of the head and ended up in the oil pan. Or it just got ground into the cam lobes. Not sure what else it could to. But it's not good.

Yeah, it wasn't a fun engine bay to get around in. I had a friend who put a 429 in a Maverick as well as a couple friends that put SB and BB Chevy engines in Monzas. I remember the big block in the Monza was a bitch because standard long tube headers would have gone out into the fender well too far and rub the tires if the wheel was turned too far. I think he ended up using some kind of hugger headers. My favorite was a 383 in a Corvair.

Agreed. I thought the SC's were pretty nice when they came out, but by the time I was in the market for a car they had been around for too long and lost some of their appeal. They're stall pretty good used cars even though they stopped making them in 17 years ago.

I am not sure what this is about, but it appears you have tapped into Joe "Mad Groper" Biden's stream of consciousness.

I thought assistant software was supposed to do what you ask? It's limited by brand?

The problem is that "may" also has a couple meanings that could also be confused in a similar context. Are you saying "may" as in having permission, or as in it's a possibility?

You're not even sure what patriotism is, so you added on that 'at least' clause to cover for you.

Except that's not what's going on. Legal asylum seekers are being separated from their kids.

Did ya hear Joe Biden the other day? That's right, folks, Joe Biden said "we've discovered a cure for tuberculosis". Yeah Joe Biden. Favorite son of Pennsylvania. What Joe doesn't realize is he didn't discover anything. Did Joe Biden discover tuberculosis? I don't know, maybe he'll discover tuberculosis someday. Do you think Joe Biden would take credit for discovering tuberculosis if it got him just one little donation more? Of course he would. Lock him up. Take Joe Biden, please. Folks, Joe Biden is a disgrace. I'm telling you he's a DIS-GRACE. And he wants you to let him pass laws allowing Joe Biden to make decisions for you. I guess the democrats want Joe Biden going through their mortgages and physicals (I'm in excellent health by the way). But Joe Biden, well. Isn't he the face of fear? Can you imagine Joe Biden looking through your window in the middle of the night. I'm a big guy, I live in the White House. I'm not afraid of much. But yeah, I shivered a little at the idea. He's probably not a bad guy. He probably just wants to get some photos so he can compare what you have to what he has. Cmon Joe, tell me I'm wrong. So Joe says yeah I can cure - you hear that? He can CURE - tuberculosis. So why Don'tcha cure tuberculosis Joe? What's stopping you? He wants your money. And then, after you give him your money, guess what? Oh, I'm sorry folks, it turns out... There was a little mistake... We weren't able to cure it quite yet. Yeah, we need more money, more democrat votes. There he is now (points to man with MAGA shirt and Biden mask). Joe Biden ladies and gentlemen, I love you all, good night. God bless America!

Natural gas is pretty cheap. It's not only cheap but it's an energy source. Storage of any kind is an energy sink, because there will be losses. Natural gas has an inherent ability to store electricity, it's stored as fuel in the tanks. Electric storage offers the ability to shift electrical energy in time but, again, with a loss and only if there is another source of electricity. You want to tell me that electricity storage is going to drive natural gas off the market? Then where is this electricity coming from that is supposed to be cheaper even after the cost of storage is taken into account?

I will not dispute that wind, water, and sun can provide all the energy that the USA needs. I only question how much this will cost. Here is a place that can give an idea: http://www.renewable-energysou...

You think that offshore wind will replace natural gas? Offshore wind is one of the highest cost energy sources we have. It only exists because of government subsidy. Solar, hydro, and onshore wind are pretty cheap but the costs listed on the link I gave do not include the cost of storage.

How much does this expanded grid cost? So, you offer energy from wind, water, and sun, which needs electrical storage and a "smart grid" to meet minute by minute shifts in electrical demand. Why would we want this? Is there some reason why you left nuclear power out of this plan of yours?

I keep hearing on how with economy of scale and advancement in technology we can bring down the costs of offshore wind and electrical storage. Sure, I'll go with that. This can also happen with nuclear power. Nuclear power isn't as cheap as wind, water, and sun right now but it also doesn't need expensive storage to keep the lights on. With some research and development we can bring down the cost of nuclear power. Storage will no doubt be helpful with nuclear power matching supply with demand, just like it would with wind, water, and sun.

You think that electrical storage technology only makes wind, water, and sun look good? I believe that if there is a cheap storage technology on the market then that makes nuclear power look absolutely awesome. Nuclear power can run at 100% rated output for 18 to 24 months at a time before needing to shutdown for refuel, inspections, and maintenance. Add some kind of battery to that so that it can match the variations in demand over the day and there's nothing that can match that. Get a fleet of nuclear power plants to allow for continuous output as each reactor goes through it's refuel periods and there's no need for expensive and unreliable solar or offshore wind.

Offshore wind with storage simply cannot compete against nuclear power with storage on costs, reliability, environmental impact, or just about any metric you can think of. Some new electrical storage technology won't make offshore wind more competitive, it will drive offshore wind out of the market.

I've heard of the paper but never looked. Just read some of their About Us page:

"People's Daily Online is 12-time winner of the China News Prize, with its credibility, influence and comprehensive disseminating power topping the list of China's news websites for a long time."

I literally laughed out loud.

It made a difference on Maui. I visited there before and after the ban. Before, there were fence-like accretions of plastic bags on sugar cane field edges near roadways. After: clean. I will guess that there was deliberated effort to clear the stranded bags. I believe that HC&S subsequently stopped growing cane and refining sugar.

Closer to Pakistan, on a visit to Bangalore in 2006, bags were everywhere on the ground. Within a short walk from the tech-plex along Hosur Road, there was a bedraggled cow tethered to a utility pole, eating plastic bags, which were littered all around. I will also guess that a $70 fine in Pakistan will act mostly as a license for a reduced fine in the form of a direct bribe.

Some people are capable of having a beer and not assaulting a coworker.

I gave a talk at a co-working place once. Before I went up to the podium they handed me a pint. It was an unusual experience, but not an unpleasant one.

Actually, it's not a bad idea. Free beer in the office. If you're not mature enough to handle it, you're fired.

They apparently believe some very inaccurate and some debunked false claims designed purely to outrage people. So, they are're not so bright if they are so easily manipulated by the media. Heck, you probably want them out of the company so they don't end up sabotaging the product, or the company, or do something even more desperate "for the cause". Google should let them resign in protest - "We understand you are not willing to work for the company doing business with the US government. We respect your choice. Here is your final paycheck."

>Can you, not like, you know, read?

Oh boy. Treating legalese as "like just read a book bro".

The law gives discretion to the government via the Secretary of Homeland Security and particularly the Attorney General.
8USC 1325:

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,"

If immigration officers say "go to ports of entry". Then that means "Any alien" must go through port of entry and any entry not through ports of entry are unlawful.

Why? Stupid investors, VC or public, should be more than welcome to throw their piles of cash around. At least it redistributes some of it.

Institutional investors and funds holding money in trust should be prohibited from participating.

Then why didn't they apply for refugee status before illegally crossing the border? The reality is that most of the people crossing are not eligible for refugee status, and they know it. Why would they risk their own lives and those of their children in such a way otherwise? I don't blame them for wanting a better life, but does that mean America must now accept ANYONE who feels like coming to America regardless of whether they are refugees or not? The fact is these children were forced to accompany their parents who were hell bent on committing illegal acts, do you think they would be better off with their parents? Don't forget, the people doing the illegal crossings are the dregs of society. They have no education, they have no prospects, otherwise they would have applied to enter legally and been accepted if they met the criteria. Sure, they are all desperate, and they are all looking for a better life. But without entering legally all they are doing is placing a further burden on Americans. They don't pay taxes, since they are not registered, but you can bet they will end up in medical clinics when they get sick, placing a further burden on legitimate tax payers. Why is this something anyone would want to allow? You can stand on your soap box and say "they would have asked for refugee status" but the fact is they SHOULD have. Trying to cross before getting permission using illegal means is fucking illegal. Criminals should be locked up, and their innocent children should be separated from them and placed into decent care. Unless you think that potential refugees/criminals should be treated differently to American citizens? Because separating children from parents in prison is the norm.

Appeal to utopia fallacy right there.
Your logic seems to be "There exists at least one case where perfection is not obtained, therefore the system is corrupt."
That doesn't logically follow.

In every country that I've ever been to, when approached by government representatives, you need to produce documentation for some thing or another. Be it a birth certificate, passport, driving license etc.
In your scenario, anyone can come into the country and must never have proof of who they are. Good luck avoiding identity theft.
Also, good luck finding out who's carrying out criminal acts. What you're proposing is essentially an anarchy. And that usually ends with things being run by the people with the best guns and the most brutal personalities; society by and large is a balanced agreement. We agree that we have some ability to be identified, and agree not to do some things that generally would cause grief to others. In return, we get people looking out for us, and trying to stop the odd rogue entity trying to take advantage. No, it's not perfect, but it's as good as can be managed in an imperfect world.

A financial columnist pointed out in an article I read recently that the rich have such giant piles of money that they're having trouble finding things to do with it. Interest rates are essentially zero so if you don't want to just lose it to inflation you have to invest it. Throwing money at stupid startups has the advantage that if they bomb the losses are tax deductible, and who knows, one might hit it big.

I'm genuinely curious where you see this trend going. Trump will be out of office (in 2020 or 2024 who knows) but either way due to US politics the pendulum will swing back way left.

We will be a first world welfare nation bordering a bunch of..not first world countries. We will effectively (if not literally, gotta worry about that $50 fine if you're caught!) have open borders.

Now please explain how you can have a first world welfare state with free health care and guaranteed welfare if you can get a food across a very porous border and not have people by the _millions_ flood in and eventually overwhelm the standard of living of those in the "first world" country.

Hint: You can't explain it, it's a natural and inevitable consequence.

By definition, you mean this one?
"A place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution."

Where large numbers of people are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities... Sounds pretty much like we we have down there. Just cause it makes you uncomfortable to call a spade a spade, doesn't mean you get to finger wag and go bury your head in the sand. Those facilities weren't built for this, and policies enacted by the current administration are such that they deliberately contribute to making the situation worse.

Per capita is meaningless. The world is dying IN TOTAL.

If this matters to you, do something to reduce your personal contribution and encourage your government to reduce your regional contribution.

If you can demonstrate success at this, then please give your expert advice to the rest of the world... until then, stuff it.

So do you propose sending the children to jail with their parents instead of into foster care?