Hydrogen is awful for the ozone as it combines to form upper stratospheric H2O which impedes the formation of new ozone while destroying the existing ozone. Why would we ban CFCs if we then just open the door on H2 fuel. Hydrogen is super susceptible to Jean's escape which means that you won't get any unspent H2 back.

27.27% of the weight of CO2 is the carbon portion. 1 carat is .2 grams. So where does the 5.453+ tons of carbon go?

The problem with H2 as fuel is that it is not easily contained. Burning it is problematic because without a 100% burn rate you will invariably lose H2 forever as it drifts into space. This results in a permanent leeching affect on available hydrogen on Earth. Additionally it is twice harmful to the ozone layer as it is reactive with O3 and the resultant H2O at that layer impedes new creation of O3. https://www.caltech.edu/about/....

Please get this out there. There is a number of studies that demonstrate that H2 is bad, very bad, for the Ozone layer. The problem is that H2 is light, very light and it is subject to atmospheric escape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape). On its way up and out it will pass through the Ozone layer where H2 is highly reactive to O3. The result is H2 + O3 > H2O +O2. So you end up with either water or hydrogen peroxide in the ozone layer. That is bad for 2 reasons. 1) it causes stratospheric cooling which impedes the production of ozone 2) Water at this layer interferes with the ozone production while providing not protection benefits.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/...
http://www.theozonehole.com/hy...
https://www.caltech.edu/about/...
https://sciencing.com/hydrogen...
https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dst...

Triton also orbits in retrograde and could just as easily have originated from a different solar system. Sure the popular theory is that it is a Kuiper Belt object, but we don't know that for sure...do we? Also, just because something is in prograde doesn't mean that it must have exclusively formed during the accretion of the solar system. Just give us the science please and stop with the conclusions as fact. Amazingly, this article seems to conclude all the facts in evidence to the point of being a religious mandate. "No more science to be done here, we know what happened because we removed all the variables that we choose to consider...move along pleebs."

Please tell me then how the Republicans prevented Obama from marching our troops home the very month he took office (like he promised). Also please tell us why he'd say he stated that wouldn't sign the NDAA because it could be used to detain citizens and then signed it anyway with the provisions still in there?

I know you think this is about Democrats v. Republicans but when you realized that the NDAA passed despite the efforts of 7 bi-partisan senator's attempts to stop it (3R, 3D, 1I) then you begin to realize that we need to clean house of the whole lot of them (except the 7).

You are reading only subsection of the entire section and not both. BOTH sub-sections are correct. Section 1031 gives the authority to detain ANYONE! even US citizens. Under the provision the military MUST detain the person. Section 1032 stipulates that the requirement that the military must detain the person does not apply to US or legal residents. Instead it is up to the president to decide if the military or the courts will handle the detention. President's discretion. In committee this provision originally stated that the Secretary of Defense had the discretion.

You only have to listen to Senator Levin and Barack Obama's own statements to understand that 1032 does NOT exempt US Citizens. So please do your research as I can tell that YANAL.

Read the Signing Statement. Here he affirms he has the power but promises not to use it.

Watch the movie. Again, he's talking about 1031 which is the detention subsection and NOT 1032 which is the requirement for the military custody.

I love how everyone attacking Paul over the DoE instantly gravitate to nukes, as though that is all that the DoE is doing. This is utterly false. There are certain aspects of these departments that are critical and they get sent to other institutions or decentralized just as they were BEFORE its establishment in 1977. Yeah, that's right, this department is not all that old and there was nuclear oversight before 1977. What Ron Paul is purposing is vast savings by shutting down the aspects of the DoE that have enabled crap like Solyndra and taxpayer money being given to companies that are building cars in FINLAND!?!?!!

Regulatory requirements are hardest on smaller entities to implement. This is exactly the kind of barrier that would make it unprofitable for a small DNS provider to implement. Just as HIPAA favors large HMOs over smaller ones, and SOx helps mega-corporations.

You can replace that router with ClearOS, ClearCenter offers free Dynamic DNS with their free account registration.

Which would return to earth as 'Olympus Mons Pale Ale'. With catchy slogans like "A mountain of a beer" and "the beer that won't leave you flat", it is sure to be a hit.

Having spent some time in the Philippines and learned Tagalog and Ilokano. I love it when they call. I throw in an occasional; Salamat (thank you), hindi (no), and oo (pronounced like the letter O twice, means yes).

It is really interesting to see them taken aback and sometimes lose their place in their script.

It is a common misconception that we are reducing drastically any numbers in our military. This was covered in the NYTimes in great detail. If you can't tolerate reading here is the MSNBC video.

If you really want the troops home, you'll vote for Ron Paul.

The lesson of freedom needs to be addressed here because the interference of the government is exactly why there is a 99%. It is also the reason why middle class is shrinking and people are burdened with debt both individually and collectively as a nation. I would state that in light of all these facts, those government officials who (with even the best intentions) artificially prop up one group of people over another damage the poor. Even when their intentions are to help the poor. This is the case with the housing bubble and it is the case with the student loan bubble. Sadly you CANNOT just spend your way out of these. You cannot 'bail out' the situation without creating yet another bubble. The market has to be allowed to pop. The real dis-service comes from say-anything-to-get-elected, politicians not having the courage to change this. We vote for the kids who says "he can't promise soda in the drinking fountains" instead of the true leaders. There is one politician out there who is willing to take a stand. He's the only one brave enough to take a stand and yes, people will say that 'He hates poor people'. But it is his respect for each and every person that will vindicate that. It is his knowledge that our system as constructed robs the poor of their ability to raise themselves. Ron Paul.

As someone who also took student loans to get through college I declare BS on your assumptions that tuition will skyrocket. The only reason why schooling costs as much as it does is because of the artificial bubble of these government loans. Did you learn NOTHING from the recent housing bubble? When you make loans of whatever amount to whomever you destroy the concept of the free market. Now schools can charge whatever he hell they want and there is no real competition in pricing.