It is however entirely sensible. I rarely agree with trumps lackeys, but Jesus, I have no idea what gateway was meant to be for. This on the other hand will actually be useful.

If Hong Kong hadnâ(TM)t returned to china, then under UK law, the police could demand their password for any reason at all, with similar sentences in the case of national security related offences.

Some states are not allowing RealID that has an address outside the voting precinct. This is why Student IDs are needed. Certainly when I was at school my driver's license indicated I lived in a different state.

ReadID does not include an indication of citizenship and non-citizens can get them.

It is unfortunate that some of the items that can be used to get a RealID are also proof of citizenship and thus they could have added this information to the card at that time. I'm not sure what to do if somebody thinks they are a citizen but lack any of the acceptable proofs, they may have to get the RealID without the citizenship indicator if they need it soon, and there will have to have another option than a RealID to register to vote.

None of this has anything to do with using RealID or any other license or card at the polling station. That is ONLY to prove you are using the right name, you have to be registered in order to vote.

You need ID to register to vote. Stop lying.

Do you carry your birth certificate with you because you needed it to get your passport?

The ID at voting is supposed to confirm that the person is a particular registered voter. If they are not allowed to vote then they would not be registered.

I do agree that people would feel more comfortable about the voting system if voters produced a physical object rather than the current scheme of saying a name that is registered and they can assume nobody else will say. If they allowed a few obvious things like Student ID's or utility bills the number of disenfranchised voters would be small enough that it would not effect the voting results (it would not be zero though so there will always be sob stories for opponents of ID). Crossing names off in a register is still going to be done since that is the real prevention of fraud (including stolen IDs), but public comfort even if it can be proven that the IDs do nothing can be considered a useful goal.

The Republican attacks on the ability to register to vote are pretty serious. IMHO anything done by the government that happens to know if you are eligible to vote should automatically register you, in particular getting a RealID drivers license, and quite a few methods of applying for benefits. The attacks on mail-in voting are also blatant, mail-in votes are a good deal more secure than any non-biometric ID since they require the voter to have access to the mailbox that the numbered ballot is delivered to. I also personally know I will be out of the country on Election Day so I am personally disenfranchised by this. The continuous claim that the only thing in that bill is ID at voting is a LIE, stop doing it.

Actually the companies generated quite a bit of greenhouse gases directly from mining, refining, and delivering the product. They are directly responsible for the vast majority of methane being emitted. People who buy methane tend to make sure it gets burned.

But I think the big deal is that they knew what the gases would do and did not tell anybody, and actively denied when others made the same conclusion. This is going to be difficult to prove without a lot of paper evidence that they did such research, however.

Correct. The people pushing for this law are admitting that climate change is real.

For the last many years (before the pandemic at least) my "jury duty" has amounted to checking online each evening for a week to see if I need to go to the courthouse the next day. I have not had to ever go in, and I have to go to work like normal.

This is LA County, maybe it is different in other places?

No, it's just that "defund the police" is a really stupid misleading slogan.

Even the most radical leftist ideas of what it would mean would raise the budget. All proposals require more personnel to be hired and to put more people in the field and fewer at desks. The only way it could lower the police budget is to make up some other department and say a lot of these new people are employees of that new department. I believe some proposals do try that subterfuge to try to hide the increased budget. There is also a claim that they should spend less on weapons and military equipment, but unfortunately the cost of that is small compared to the salaries.

If you don't like how things are now, why do you think they will be more agreeable to you 20 years in the future???

- Why a tokamak? Two reasons. One is that the UK has been on the cutting edge of tokamak research for years, so itâ(TM)s what they know and can contribute to most. Two, because itâ(TM)s the safe bet. High temperature superconductor based reactors are at a point where itâ(TM)s all but certain that theyâ(TM)ll produce power in the next few years. Other approaches like helionâ(TM)s are far less certain, and a whole new research avenue.
- why a supercomputer? Because while plasma control is incredibly difficult, it is proving to be tractable. The UK and china have both been making strides in understanding how to do it, and have managed to run their reactors for longer and longer. What it does need though is powerful computers both to research how to do it, and to actually do the modelling to control it.

Because ITER is a boondoggle thatâ(TM)s outdated before itâ(TM)s even finished. Small high temperature superconductor reactors like the ones the UK are planning are far more feasible to build, smaller, cheaper, easier to iterate on, and much further inside the area of the graph where fusion works.

No, what was needed was the discovery of rare earth, barium copper oxide superconductors, and the necessary research to figure out how to build large magnets with them. Thatâ(TM)s why commonwealth fusion systems in the US is also predicting the same timeline.

For what itâ(TM)s worth, the UK has pretty much always been on or near the cutting edge of fusion research. Itâ(TM)s in no way surprising that theyâ(TM)re one of the first to be saying âoeyeh, we think we can actually build a working reactor nowâ.

Yes that is a good idea.