• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by metalslug

  1. ..and lefty fantasies do not imply that he did do something. Believing that a mere 2000 civilian yahoos in mob formation constitutes a viable coup attempt against a force as significant as the US... is like trying to make a legal argument that a spitwad strike constitutes 'attempted murder'. Good luck with that in any court of learned legal judgement. You really should leave this one to the professionals.
  2. You have repeatedly demonstrated a need for such explanations being fed to you. This is why I'll rather defer to the DOJ's judgement over yours.
  3. Facebook identifies 58 different genders for their community, 26 of which are variations of trans-something. Other similarly 'woke' platforms acknowledged just a few more or a few less. Would you assert that there's a scientific basis for all for these? Somebody somewhere is having a shitload of funsies.
  4. Fair enough. She had given testimony on more than one event and you had not specified which. I retract my reply to your comment. The 'multi-quote' is not a 'game', it's a forum feature. You can edit my quoted reply down to the relevant lines that you wish to reply to or you're of course welcome to withhold replies. None of us here owe each other.
  5. But that's not what happened. Besides that fact; Were you not even reading the post? ; "...prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements." Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up. FYI Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't even there and the agents who were there dispute it. They might as well ask you to testify to the event as I'm sure you also 'heard about it' somewhere. Hence why the DOJ has not charged him. It's also evident why yourself, bill & Joe are not contracted to the DOJ for your legal expertise.
  6. Edited correction; I had incorrectly included the words 'start to' in my previous post above. In fairness to bill's reply; some people have indeed started to care already. I'm with you there, I've already stated on this forum that I support modern nuclear. It's not about people, it's about money. Both prevention and preparation will require huge budgets. What we disagree on is the timeline that determines the relative priorities of each.
  7. Everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water, metaphorically speaking. In the shorter term it makes more sense to prepare for changes locally than to expect to prevent changes globally.
  8. The answer is literally in the very post you're replying to. 'future' and 'now' are not the same thing.
  9. If we're using metaphors, here's mine; Do you think it's worthwhile for countries with smaller emissions to spends many billions on a bigger bilge pump while other countries are punching much larger holes in the hull and saving their own billions in the process? There's a potential military war looming in the Pacific within a few years and countries like Australia seem more interested in throwing billions at 1.3% emissions concerns than preparing themselves for events of a much more grave and immediate nature.
  10. No, but inevitably they will pursuit of reducing global emissions as it would amount to brazen hypocrisy if they didn't. Between this and an expected reduction in domestic consumption (much of it through legislation), the oil companies will not invest new capital until the future of their business looks brighter. So while fuel demand will remain high for a while, capacity will not, and the resulting pricing will have the consumers considering that at the polls. That party essentially betrayed their base by trying to 'out-left' the left and pandering to COP26, the very opposite position of what won them the election barely three years before. The Aussie left has now sold the electorate the lie that reducing Australia's 1.3% of global emissions will (a) not cost them anything extra and (b) will reduce flooding and bushfires. It remains to be seen how long they remain duped by that. Conservatives don't deny their 1.3% at all, they just deny the cost-benefit of eliminating it as China alone emits more emissions in just 16 days than Australia does in a whole year and will be increasing that output within just a few years.
  11. Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world? though that will reduce a perceived global problem? Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine. No future bans on petroleum vehicles? Good to know. .....who have in part been sold a lie that it won't cost them anything extra and who might balk when they realize the actual financial impact and express that disfavour at the polls.
  12. That's probably because the DOJ actually understands legal definitions. Insurrection; yes. Sedition; yes. ...but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. Even a 'Trump told them to do it' argument would be a tough sell as no direct authority exists by a president over a civilian that compels them to the action. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. On that day Trump already had legal control of all those forces and did not use them to usurp control at the Capitol and did not countermand Pence's call for the National Guard. DOJ knows this even if Speaker's Corner does not.
  13. Ah, the NPR ; "we'll beat your right-wing talking points with our left-wing talking points..." The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem". You might agree that 'not making up their minds' is an accepted lefty standard. I suppose it's some consolation that he didn't defer to "So what". I had said all that was relevant there, although I should perhaps feel flattered that you're more interested in my projects than the OP of that thread.
  14. Well, make up your mind. You've said in earlier posts that the US has record exports of refined products and that there's no supply problem. So where is the refinery capacity restriction that you speak of? The most recent significant reduction was caused by hurricane damage, although I'm sure you'll be blaming that on climate change caused by the refinery itself. Those crafty petroleum magnates.
  15. Not so fast there, or you'll trip over the goalpost that you're moving (for some odd reason). My post that you were replying to concerned oil only, not total products. Since 2021 the US has been importing more oil than it exports, per and Biden suspended oil & gas leasing, not refining capability. To have to import oil, that could be drilled locally, and then refine that to export it again, is not entirely optimum for pricing. To be fair, the US is not the only country with curious energy practices. Domestic users of LNG in Australia are paying a high price (globally compared) and even substantially higher per unit than the international customers that they export to, in a country that sits on a lot of LNG.
  16. You're sure about that? You might want to re-check the numbers since 2021. To the OP; I maintain the term 'gouging' is this context is a little unfair when companies are merely trading at global market prices and I'm not convinced that governments are blameless in impacting supply (and hence price).
  17. If you buy a house for a million dollars and then sell it for 30% or 50% more the following year, does that make you a gouger ? It's current market value. If consumers really want the oil price to come down then they could try using less of it. Of course it also wouldn't hurt the price if the US (or any capable country) were drilling for more of it.
  18. May I assume from the quotes above that yourself and kallend have opposing views on the constitution ?
  19. As abhorrent as going 'forward' to calling people racist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic in lieu of having a logically valid position. Inappropriate slurs on both sides are wrong.
  20. Yes, two AI algorithms, about 25 years go as part of a hobby, albeit rudimentary and neither focused on grammar. I believe grammar AI is easier from the opinions of experts in that field whose opinions I respect, some of whom I've interacted with during my career in a related field. If you truly believe that then I suspect you're duped by Hollywood fiction. Although, I concede AI will come for your job. My espresso machine has already indicated an interest.
  21. Based on your posts, you believe they're generated from Hollywood movie scripts. Your 'Matrix' and 'Terminator' world awaits...
  22. Were you looking for the sarcasm font for this? That's not much different from the argument that moving to renewable energy will destroy a million jobs. AI is software. Software requires hardware. Hardware requires electrical power, maintenance, supporting infrastructure and a shitload of mined minerals for fabrication and maintenance. To say that machines will be supported largely by other machines is an unrealistic circular argument. I expect it will be primarily economics and politics that prevents 'dominant' AI from happening. Incidentally, to the OP; good grammar is at the easier end of AI, even some of the autocorrect apps I use (which are not large chunks of code) are really good at grammar. I've yet to hear of anything really special that's not exclusively based on raw mathematic power, much like an all-conquering chess computer is analogous to a forklift winning a weight-lifting competition. Creativity and improvisation are still valid arguments. AI only has the illusion of creativity; as many here will know even computerised 'random number' generation is not truly random and that's amongst the very simplest examples of spontaneous thought comparison.
  23. In the present case I rather suspect supply needs to get way ahead of demand, else it's a bit like launching a new mobile phone network that only covers a dozen towns and then expecting to pull customers away from AT&T. I think we call it competition.
  24. Morrison's statement was no less dishonest or deluded than opposing sentiments implying that motoring with EVs will not be less convenient than gas/diesel. A more honest middle-ground statement would be along the lines of; "EV's might ruin your weekend but if all Aussies swapped their vehicles for EVs it will reduce total global emissions by a whopping 0.3% and you might even enjoy the sanctimony of that, so suck it up." I won't be as bold as to claim that EV's have no advantages although it's certainly still subjective opinion for each motorist and some of this is covered in the OP article. The most obvious issue of course is the intended legislation to ban petrol/diesel vehicles. If the new government can't gaslight people with a proposition then they'll just beat them over the head with it and that will get interesting when compared to this Other than public designated recharge stations, the expectation is that EV owners would charge their vehicles overnight at their home; perhaps in their garage, carport or driveway. What percentage (US and globally) of vehicle owners actually have a garage, carport or driveway approximate to where they park? In many cases vehicle owners are obliged to park in public or communal areas overnight, sometimes a considerable distance from their door and/or any possible charge point. Is there a recourse for these motorists? A recharge station at every public and communal parking bay? A lot more recharge stations will need to become available to entice voluntary EV customers.
  25. An old white man is currently your president, as is the likelihood of your next one if Joe actually finishes his current term. Maybe it's time for this candidate ? Changing times indeed...