This article makes it sound that way. Didn't read all of the article, because it has some sort of registration requirement.
One problem is identifying a constituent component as a resource that cannot be replenished. It should be remembered that no atom is ever destroyed. All materials may be recyclable.
Secondly, it seems to show an anti-EV bias. I think EV's are possible. Not that I would endorse Musk's ideas, though.
My impression is that the author has an ax to grind.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Friday, October 27, 2017
Whitney Houston - Greatest Love Of All [Lyrics]
reposted from 4.24.14
still do not know the answer?
the original post follows:
This song is far superior song to Katy Perry's miserable little ditty, which says basically the same thing. But there's still something wrong with it.
And what would that be?
Whitney Houston died of causes indirectly associated with cocaine abuse. So much for the Greatest Love of All.
still do not know the answer?
the original post follows:
This song is far superior song to Katy Perry's miserable little ditty, which says basically the same thing. But there's still something wrong with it.
And what would that be?
Whitney Houston died of causes indirectly associated with cocaine abuse. So much for the Greatest Love of All.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Captain Obvious
After reading Ann Coulter's column on Weinstein, some of my stuff looks like Captain Obvious.
"Houston, we have a problem." No shit Sherlock.
Is grass green, the sky blue? Does a wild bear shit in the woods?
Yeah, but we already knew all this anyway. C'mon. None of this is really new. Everybody knows what the truth is, the question is, does anybody care to do anything about it?
The answer appears to be "no".
I cannot get excited about it because nobody is serious. It is all outrage porn.
Update:
Yeah, the GOP response to all this crap is to pass DACA, and send it to POTUS.
Beam me up, Scotty!
"Houston, we have a problem." No shit Sherlock.
Is grass green, the sky blue? Does a wild bear shit in the woods?
Yeah, but we already knew all this anyway. C'mon. None of this is really new. Everybody knows what the truth is, the question is, does anybody care to do anything about it?
The answer appears to be "no".
I cannot get excited about it because nobody is serious. It is all outrage porn.
Update:
Yeah, the GOP response to all this crap is to pass DACA, and send it to POTUS.
Beam me up, Scotty!
Trailer versus quonset
Prev Next
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
There has been a lot of indecision about what to do next. In particular, what to do about the trailer. Keep it, or move it with me to the property out west.
If I keep it, and move it out there, then I must have a roof for it. A roof big enough would be massive and a bit of a problem to build. On the other hand, if I build something new out there, I can have a plan that would be easier to implement a roof for it that would keep the sun off it.
The sun is just too darn hot in summer, so it must not be allowed to hit the sides of the building. The roof can be insulated heavily to prevent too much heat from getting inside.
The new building would be a variation of what I already built once out there--- a Quonset structure. The difference is that it would have a double roof, and one of those roofs will be a concrete canvas--- if I can get it, and if it is not too expensive.
The Quonset could be modular and not too tall. I can make it fit my size, so it would be just about tailor made for me. The current idea is to make it 26 feet by 7 feet wide. That is about the size of the trailer. A little smaller than the trailer, actually. It does not actually have that much smaller of a roof than the trailer would need. About three fourth's the size. The main advantage is that it is lower to the ground, so I can work on it easier.
The main advantage to a plan like this is that I believe I can execute it on my own. Another option is to have number one help me out. But he is a little indisposed at this time, and also may not be available in the future. So, I may need a new plan by the time I am ready to build.
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
If I keep it, and move it out there, then I must have a roof for it. A roof big enough would be massive and a bit of a problem to build. On the other hand, if I build something new out there, I can have a plan that would be easier to implement a roof for it that would keep the sun off it.
The sun is just too darn hot in summer, so it must not be allowed to hit the sides of the building. The roof can be insulated heavily to prevent too much heat from getting inside.
The new building would be a variation of what I already built once out there--- a Quonset structure. The difference is that it would have a double roof, and one of those roofs will be a concrete canvas--- if I can get it, and if it is not too expensive.
The Quonset could be modular and not too tall. I can make it fit my size, so it would be just about tailor made for me. The current idea is to make it 26 feet by 7 feet wide. That is about the size of the trailer. A little smaller than the trailer, actually. It does not actually have that much smaller of a roof than the trailer would need. About three fourth's the size. The main advantage is that it is lower to the ground, so I can work on it easier.
The main advantage to a plan like this is that I believe I can execute it on my own. Another option is to have number one help me out. But he is a little indisposed at this time, and also may not be available in the future. So, I may need a new plan by the time I am ready to build.
Dirty Harry ( 1971 )
I saw this movie at the theater at the time. It shows how old I am. A lot of water under the bridge since that time.
Lately, I haven't been writing much. Where to go from here? It seems that I have covered everything on this blog at some point. Maybe I am just looking for something to do. I need something to write about. Why not this?
Yesterday, I watched this DVD with the commentary on. Several things struck me about it as I was watching and listening to the commentary. One thing is how much the liberals sound the same now as back then. The movie was considered to be "very controversial" at the time. I chuckle now at the thought. Why would it be controversial?
The liberals, you see, were "all broken up" by the rights of the accused. I am using some of Dirty Harry's words there. You see, when the District Attorney was chewing out Harry over his police work, Dirty Harry said how he was "all broken up" by this man's rights. Harry violated the man's rights, so they "had to set him free". As the commentary said, this was the key part of the film. The film makers were making a point.
The point is that a guilty man was set free because of some hyper-technicality of the law. So, what is more important- justice being served, or this man's rights? The liberals are "all broken up" about this man's rights, who they know is guilty of a series of heinous crimes. There was no doubt of the man's guilt. The District Attorney in the flick says that he "doesn't want him out on the streets anymore than you do". That means that the higher value being protected here, according to the liberals, is a guilty man's rights. This is the choice that was being made--protecting the guilty as opposed to protecting the innocent. Hiding behind the law doesn't change that fact.
It is somewhat amusing to have liberals screech at the rest of us who concern ourselves with doing what we consider to be right when they protect people who they know are guilty. For nothing has changed much. It still happens today.
Lately, I haven't been writing much. Where to go from here? It seems that I have covered everything on this blog at some point. Maybe I am just looking for something to do. I need something to write about. Why not this?
Yesterday, I watched this DVD with the commentary on. Several things struck me about it as I was watching and listening to the commentary. One thing is how much the liberals sound the same now as back then. The movie was considered to be "very controversial" at the time. I chuckle now at the thought. Why would it be controversial?
The liberals, you see, were "all broken up" by the rights of the accused. I am using some of Dirty Harry's words there. You see, when the District Attorney was chewing out Harry over his police work, Dirty Harry said how he was "all broken up" by this man's rights. Harry violated the man's rights, so they "had to set him free". As the commentary said, this was the key part of the film. The film makers were making a point.
The point is that a guilty man was set free because of some hyper-technicality of the law. So, what is more important- justice being served, or this man's rights? The liberals are "all broken up" about this man's rights, who they know is guilty of a series of heinous crimes. There was no doubt of the man's guilt. The District Attorney in the flick says that he "doesn't want him out on the streets anymore than you do". That means that the higher value being protected here, according to the liberals, is a guilty man's rights. This is the choice that was being made--protecting the guilty as opposed to protecting the innocent. Hiding behind the law doesn't change that fact.
It is somewhat amusing to have liberals screech at the rest of us who concern ourselves with doing what we consider to be right when they protect people who they know are guilty. For nothing has changed much. It still happens today.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Don Surber: The lesson the media refuses to learn
Don Surber: The lesson the media refuses to learn: To know where we stand, we must remember where we came from. The media howls at President Trump, and sneers at his supporters. But that is...
comment:
A good read. I liked the part that confirms what I had suspected about Comey. That is to say, he reopened the investigation just so that he could clear her all over again. Totally fake.
comment:
A good read. I liked the part that confirms what I had suspected about Comey. That is to say, he reopened the investigation just so that he could clear her all over again. Totally fake.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Mystery post
The names shall be withheld to protect the guilty. ( a bit of a joke , but probably not appreciated as such)
Okay, here it is: I do not agree with this, in particular with the hypothetical example of "Karl".
However, I do agree with this, and find it reasonable. So, what does it all mean, Basil?
Seriously, I think it could mean we are in heap big doodoo, kemosabe. But not for the reasons that you may be thinking. That is why it is so deep.
Update:
Apparently, it is not just one person's opinion. That do change things.
Okay, here it is: I do not agree with this, in particular with the hypothetical example of "Karl".
However, I do agree with this, and find it reasonable. So, what does it all mean, Basil?
Seriously, I think it could mean we are in heap big doodoo, kemosabe. But not for the reasons that you may be thinking. That is why it is so deep.
Update:
Apparently, it is not just one person's opinion. That do change things.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Weinstein
Sharyl Attkisson says this isn't the first story that got spiked.
It sort of reminds me of many things that bother me these days. One of those things is to have an entire paragraph wiped out by this stupid computer. Computers were supposed to get better and better. Right.
Okay, back to being on point. People should know what the truth is even if the news gets spiked. So, what gives? I am thinking that the truth doesn't matter to people like you would think that it should. The old saying that "the truth will win out at the end" seems a bit naïve to me these days.
Sorry to be so cynical. I didn't use to be like that.
It sort of reminds me of many things that bother me these days. One of those things is to have an entire paragraph wiped out by this stupid computer. Computers were supposed to get better and better. Right.
Okay, back to being on point. People should know what the truth is even if the news gets spiked. So, what gives? I am thinking that the truth doesn't matter to people like you would think that it should. The old saying that "the truth will win out at the end" seems a bit naïve to me these days.
Sorry to be so cynical. I didn't use to be like that.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Who is Fusion GPS?
Originally posted 7.14.17, updated
10.22.17
Yep, keep up the old pressure. Like anybody gives a damn.
Sorry, but I cannot get excited about this stuff like a lot of you "conservatives" do. You seem to miss the point that the left could care less about the truth. Lots of people voted for Hillary even though they knew what she was. Same for Obama. Telling the truth about them doesn't faze them a bit.
Still there may be hope for the nation if Trump could be elected. Yet, here we are trying to explain the obvious to people who don't care. Are there enough people who care?
That's why I don't get excited about this. When people are put in front of firing squads, I might be impressed with their seriousness.
the original post follows:
I figured that all you need to know about them was that the Dems hired them. But a Republican hired them first.
Be it known that I do not automatically side with the GOP. In fact, the way the GOP candidates handled themselves in the campaign vis-à-vis Trump, had a lot to do with my negative impression of them these days.
Here's some quick facts about them.
There could be a lot here to be uncovered, but Fusion GPS' co-founder won't voluntarily testify before Congress.
They did some international work. That could explain a few things--globalism?
10.22.17
Yep, keep up the old pressure. Like anybody gives a damn.
Sorry, but I cannot get excited about this stuff like a lot of you "conservatives" do. You seem to miss the point that the left could care less about the truth. Lots of people voted for Hillary even though they knew what she was. Same for Obama. Telling the truth about them doesn't faze them a bit.
Still there may be hope for the nation if Trump could be elected. Yet, here we are trying to explain the obvious to people who don't care. Are there enough people who care?
That's why I don't get excited about this. When people are put in front of firing squads, I might be impressed with their seriousness.
the original post follows:
I figured that all you need to know about them was that the Dems hired them. But a Republican hired them first.
Be it known that I do not automatically side with the GOP. In fact, the way the GOP candidates handled themselves in the campaign vis-à-vis Trump, had a lot to do with my negative impression of them these days.
Here's some quick facts about them.
There could be a lot here to be uncovered, but Fusion GPS' co-founder won't voluntarily testify before Congress.
They did some international work. That could explain a few things--globalism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)