Look, your whole argument is a combination of circular reasoning and ignoring reality. It's just not happening. You need a new model.
1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.
If it's paid for with tax money, it's not independent. Everything else you mentioned is window dressing and easily worked around. Let us also note here that if 3845 accredited news agencies say Trump is a liar and Fox News doesn't, then a lot of people are going to believe Fox News.
Sorry, but there's a great deal of magic thinking here. Government, like any large, unaccountable bureaucracy would readily subvert such a massive program. As I see it, the biggest difference between today and such an alternative is that far less of my money is being squandered on bad media today.
Yes, of course, they must be idiots.
Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.
A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.
Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) . That's possible too especially given the complete lack of evidence for your claims.
But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research
You do recall I already found one example in your linksv where they did just that?
A high labor participation rate means you have a society where salries are not high enough for one parent to stay at home and instead both need to work and children need to go to day care.
Asserting that both "need" to work, assumes that in most such households one parent would want to stay at home. I don't see why that would be the case. Sure, it often is the case that some families want to do that and a number do, even in these alleged "not a rich societies".
But there are a variety of advantages to two income families that go well beyond the alleged "not a rich society" story. First, they're considerably wealthier (I don't think it's a coincidence that the wealthiest (your so-called "not a rich") societies have a lot of two income families and such). Having a job is empowering (you don't have to rely on a potentially unreliable spouse for the income). And it gets everyone out of the house for part of the week.
As for the gas angle, natural gas is OK but has nothing on Hydrogen, which will be the mass replacement for the gasoline engine.
Methane has two things going for it: 1) higher hydrogen density than hydrogen in the same phase (liquid versus liquid or gas versus gas), 2) better handling properties. It leaks far less than hydrogen does - hydrogen leaks through anything. Methane also become liquid under far milder conditions than hydrogen does.
And the big drawback is that methane is a significant greenhouse gas. Hydrogen can react with oxygen to form water vapor, which is also a significant greenhouse gas, but I believe most hydrogen gas leaked in the open manages to escape Earth altogether.
The information I'm seeing is that your average satellites cost anywhere from $50 to $300 Million.
And you typically can launch several satellites at a time.
Before SpaceX, launches usually ran around $100 Million plus
Not in Russia or the Ukraine.
Insurance only spreads out the cost.
Among other launches as I noted. The problem with the original assertion that Russia was doing it for the insurance money, is that even a small number of such tricks would greatly harm the rest of their business. One doesn't pull stuff like that unless one is short term thinking and cashing out their business. I don't believe that is happening in this case. They simply have too much to lose in future business to attempt it.
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Your links undermine your argument. There is growing abundance in the US from 1950 on to the present, yet fertility collapsed to barely 1% growth (driven solely by immigration of high fertility population, I might add). If there was evidence for your claim, we would see it now. You wouldn't need to strongly and repeatedly assert it without evidence.
In abundance, a society's population will grow faster.
Which is false in practice. The high abundance societies all and I do mean all have negative population growth once you exclude first and second generation immigrants (who have higher fertility). The key seems to be women in the workplace. When that happens, you have a substantial decline in female fertility.
I first expressed this as a corollary to my theory of scarcity; someone eventually pointed me to Malthus, who had correctly described in the 1800s that population grows rapidly in abundance.
Incorrectly described. If his theory had been correct, we would have seen massive die-offs in the 19th and 20th Century.
That totally applies in the USA as well.
Where would we be without the "but the US does that too" circle jerk? Funny how nobody complains that way about any other country.
Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney