[Fortune] Its planet-destroying laser is scary, but its energy bills are truly terrifying.
The British energy supplier Ovo has put some very well-spent hours into a comprehensive calculation of the operating costs of the Death Star, which will return to the spotlight in the December 16th movie Rogue One. They conclude that operating the planet-destroying starbase would cost 6.2 octillion British pounds, or $7.8 octillion, per day—that’s $7,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put this piece in perspective -- it's just advertising for the movie...
To put that absurdly large number in perspective, $7.8 octillion is more than 100 trillion times the $70 trillion annual global economic activity of Earth, or 30 trillion times the roughly $200 trillion in wealth on our little blue planet.
Ovo’s analysis, conducted in collaboration with physics blogger Stephen Skolnick and Dartmouth mathematics Professor Alexander Barnett, approaches the granularity of a good business model (if your business is blowing up planets to intimidate a rebellious populace). A few of the highlighted line-items include about $52 billion per day for lighting, and $200 million per round of laundry. More at the link
#10
Resist every effort to downsize
Whilst praying the damned thing don't capsize;
Maintain the facade
Till you've sold them abroad
And cash in on bulk sales to your allies.
[AmericanThinker] At first I dismissed the Democrats' subsidized street riots and vandalism, moronic election recount demands, and perfervid attacks on Trump and his supporters in the press as a demonstration of their juvenile, narcissistic refusal to accept defeat. Then I read the brilliant essay by Angelo Codevilla
It’s a bit long and I know your Sundays are busy but if you can’t read it all at once, I’ll summarize what I think are the most significant points in the hope that if the topic is of interest you’ll read it all. He traces the notion of political correctness from the 1930 Communist movement through Antonio Gramsci’s “cultural hegemony” configuration to the modern Democratic Party and finds in them a familiar strain: Much more at the link
[TheHill] As an Australian, I have often considered the United States as the leader of the international stage, however I believe there is something that Australia has done that puts it ahead of the United States - the control of firearms.
A matter of faith, is it? Outside facts won't sway you then, dear Writer.
Orlando, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino, the list of cities in which mass shootings take place goes on. America has been painted in red because of the mass shootings that take place here too often.
The access that individuals have to firearms allowing these mass shootings is part of the problem. When twenty bodies of school children lay lifeless across an elementary school, and fifty people in a nightclub who were dancing one second and shot dead the next, we have to ask ourselves when is enough, enough?
It was a single mass shooting that took the lives of thirty-five Australians to prompt the government to take action to ensure history would not repeat itself, and indeed it has not to this day, twenty years after the incident. To the everlasting problem of destroying civil liberties in Australia.
A subject our own Anon1 has discussed in these pages from time to time. Incidentally, the Australian press reported in October that in addition to four jihadi attacks perpetrated since September 2014, eleven were foiled before being executed. Wikipedia has an interesting list of terror attacks since 1854; the first jihadi attack was in 1915, by an Afghan/Indian supporter of the Ottoman sultan.
Am I saying that Australia is the safest and happiest place on earth after these reforms? I am saying Australia is the most deluded when it comes to firearms.
No.
I do, however, feel safe walking down the street at night alone. I can enter a crowded area without thinking of people shooting me down. I feel like I can enjoy my life and relax knowing that the access to a gun is very hard and restrictive in Australia. Nice. Now only the people who would do you harm with a firearm have access to firearms.
Feelz go back to faith again, but are not necessarily reflective of reality.
Coming to America, I drive down a road and see signs advertising, “Guns for Sale,” and it makes me uneasy.
More feelz, poor dear.
There is something about America that makes the ownership of guns ordinary, and mass shootings normalized. What more can America do? Does the American public even want to do anything? Mass shootings are rare per capita, believe it or not. Disarming everyone else who has a firearm does not make those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety safer.
Experience shows that mass murderers keep killing until stopped. The easiest way to stop a mass killer is with a gun, and the quickest way to do so is to have an armed citizenry intervening while the professionals are still underway.
It was not the background checks of Australian citizens, nor the age required to purchase a gun, nor a gun license that reduced gun violence in Australia. No, it was the seizure of over 640,000 weapons by the Australian government. Less than 20 percent of firearms total, and that is if you assume that every firearm turned in was a semiautomatic gun. I'm willing to bet the number of semiautomatics turned in is less than 10 percent, if that.
Taking weapons from citizens - could such a thing ever take place in America?
No.
I know, as an Australian, we say all too much just how much Americans love their guns, and I know we are not the only country who has this impression. Whilst certainly not all Americans feel this way, the idea that the American government could take away the weapons of American citizens would seem an outrage to many. America is an arsenal of democracy. It is the bastion and the last hope of liberty in the world. Forcing gun registration and seizure would destroy that permanently. After that, there could be no return. The idea that people would be safer after gun control is enacted would in fact make the whole world less safe, not just America. After gun control, there is nowhere to go, nowhere to take a stand. And honey, this isn't about how Americans "feel." This is about the existential threat to liberty that your preference, taking firearms away from people, would mean.
The reality is, a background check is not going to substitute for all of the guns that are already in America. In America today, the number of registered guns is roughly equivalent to the number of people living here, if not more. Background checks are an abomination to liberty.
In America today, how many more guns are owned illegally by gang members and other criminals? How many are owned illegally for protection by ordinary citizens living in cities where permits are impossible for ordinary citizens to get?
Walking down the streets of Richmond, I saw a man with a gun in its holster on the side of his shorts, and I know this scene is one that can be seen in many other states. To know there is a man walking around with the power to end my life, and those around me with a pull of a trigger is not safe. You are clearly uneasy about seeing a man walking down the street strapped. I have an idea: get a gun, and learn to use it properly and safely.
Did the gentleman in question suddenly pull out that gun and shoot our writer without provocation, or shoot anyone else -- with or without provocation? No? Then the writer's unease was unreasonable, merely bigotry; demonstrably she was perfectly safe.
But here is the irony in the situation, Americans feel the need to carry guns for self defense, but if there were no guns in the first place (or at least not in the vast amount that there are in the country today) people may not feel this way. I know in Australia we do not feel the need to bear arms for our protection. The people of America will not part from their guns so easily as the people in Australia were able to. First she says gun confiscation, but now, as the end of her missive, Australians parted from guns because they were "able to." Was no law passed, or was it somehow voluntary? Which is it? Was it voluntary or was it forced? You can't say at the top of this article that gun confiscation was not a choice and then hint later that it was. Which is it?
Until there is a change in society, and it has been decided that enough is enough, mass shootings will remain a bloody part of American life. Again, mass shootings in America are not common per capita.
It's not about shootings, O silly exchange student, but attempted mass killing. Only last week a Somali brought to America with his family only two years ago as a refugee attacked his classmates at Ohio State with a car and a kitchen knife. Had a policeman not arrived within a few minutes, it wouldn't have been only a few wounded, but a good many more both wounded and dead. Had any of the students been armed, stopping him might not have taken even that long.
Kaia Delaney is exchange student from the University of Queensland studying at the University of Richmond. She has produced multi-media news stories for 4ZZZ, a community radio station in Brisbane, Australia.
#1
As an Australian, I have often considered the United States as the leader of the international stage, however I believe there is something that Australia has done that puts it ahead of the United States - the control of firearms.
We left English control only because of guns. You didn't. You may speak something of a kindred language but you still lack a kindred birth of independence. Ours wasn't granted. It was taken by force. And its been understood since that beginning, that the gun in the hands of its citizens made it possible.
#2
The delusion starts with the idea it takes a gun to end a life.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/05/2016 0:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
But here is the irony in the situation, Americans feel the need to carry guns for self defense, but if there were no guns in the first place...
See Chicago--the laws that are already in place aren't enforced. Until the criminals are denied the guns they possess, leave the rest of us (law abiding citizens) the hell alone.
#4
As an Australian yes 640,000 firearms were destroyed but shooters purchased 400,000 new ones to replace them. it is known from import and manufacture there are 5 million firearms however only HALF of these are registered. Illegal handguns used by criminals are on the rise as criminal dont like the idea of complying with firearm laws
#6
The writer forgot to add that the areas with most stringent gun control have the highest gun murder and violence against helpless (unarmed) victims.
When hogs are disarmed... jambalaya!
The Jews? Well, there's still the messiah.
Inquire of the Maya,
A Hindoo pariah,
And tell 'em all "Hiya!" 'Bye, Kaia.
#10
There is something about America that makes the ownership of guns ordinary, and mass shootings normalized.
At first read, this piece could be dismissed as simply written by someone with ignorance of acknowledged US liberties. Many individuals have been conditioned to believe that "rights" are asked for and then granted by a benevolent monarch or goverment. However, the informal association fallacy above reveals this as just another attempt to peddle the usual anti-second ammendment trash from an outsider perspective. Do your business and move back to your safety zone sister.
[Breitbart] Retired Gen. David Petraeus said early Sunday that he did not cast a vote for or against President-elect Donald Trump because he does not vote, the Hill reports. Trump is considering the former CIA director for secretary of state.
"I don’t vote, so that’s an easy answer," Petraeus told ABC’s This Week. "And I also did not support him nor did I oppose him. Nor did I support or oppose any other candidate. I’ve truly tried to be apolitical, nonpolitical," he said Sunday.
He also said on the program that the president-elect was "quite pragmatic," commenting on his meeting in New York City last week with Trump for a potential cabinet position.
Trump is considering several other people for the State Department, including former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
#2
I was 'apolitical' while in service, never registering with either party but still voted in the general elections. Then discovered that I didn't want to associate with either of them anyways.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
[DAWN] THE victory of Masroor Haq Nawaz Jhangvi in last Thursday’s by-election is cause for considerable concern. A few observers disagree with this alarmism, and suggest the success of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat ...which is the false nose and plastic mustache of the murderous banned extremist group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistain, whatcha might call the political wing of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi... , the Muttahida Deeni Mahaz, or any of its related incarnations, is based on their responsiveness to local service delivery concerns. We are told they are able to deliver mundane public goods such as access to policing, justice, sanitation, and paved streets better than other local elites. Hence, the time-tested axiom of ’all politics is local’ explains why urban voters in Jhang have been consistently voting for Sunni bandidosgunnies since the mid-1980s.
While patronage politics may be part of the story, it fails to account for the entire picture, especially in instances where opposing candidates are also capable of delivering patronage.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
h/t Instapundit
[AmericanThinker] When the Soviet Union fell, all the little commies didn't wake up the next morning and say, "You know, those wacky Americans were right all along! Let's go do some freedom and liberty stuff!"
No, they woke up bitter and furious...spreading out among the intelligentsia of western Europe; Great Britain; and, to a lesser extent, the United States. They were welcomed by their fellow travelers: first and foremost, the misfit toys inhabiting the islands of academia ‐ who were already busily nurturing bitterness and envy among their charges with the care of a master gardener.
...Tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders while those we elected to defend us stood by holding the coats of our abusers, we elected a brawler of our own.
Those repudiated on November 8, 2016 have not yet fully realized that voters hadn't failed to understand what we saw when they revealed their inmost desires to us. Rather, we understood all too well, and we turned away, revolted by the sight.
When they fully comprehend the enormousness of their rejection, we had better be prepared, because these are people who would see the whole nation brought to ruin before permitting it to succeed despite them.
This election was a modern-day Fort Sumter ‐ the first shots of a long and brutal struggle to come.
[PJ] Two days after Cuban dictator Fidel Castro bit the dust, Black Lives Matter memorialized him, and the reasons for it are not pretty. Castro killed thousands of his own people, imprisoned many more, caused 1 million refugees to flee to the United States, and even canceled Christmas. But Black Lives Matter celebrated him -- because he provided a refuge for cop killers. Former Black Panther Party (BPP) member and cop killer in Cuban exile, Joanne Deborah Chesimard aka Assata Olugbala Shakur
"Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante," reads the declaration, published by the "Black Lives Matter" account on Medium.com. While the movement has no single leader, this Medium account attempts to speak for it, and it has 12.6 K followers. Moreover, the sentiments expressed in this article echo the Marxist demands of the Movement for Black Lives, which speaks for a broad coalition of groups in the movement.
The key lesson Black Lives Matter learned from Castro? "Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective," the article declared. "No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over."
Yes, Black Lives Matter said this of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people. If any "revolutionary" least exemplified the idea that "no single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution," it is Fidel Castro. Or rather, it would be, if Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot hadn't set records even Castro couldn't beat.
#1
If your observations lead you to conclude that there have been forces of anarchy and sedition active in this country for many years, you might be correct.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
'Apolitical' or windsock rule? I'll go with windsock.
[PJ] Two days after Cuban dictator Fidel Castro bit the dust, Black Lives Matter memorialized him, and the reasons for it are not pretty. Castro killed thousands of his own people, imprisoned many more, caused 1 million refugees to flee to the United States, and even canceled Christmas. But Black Lives Matter celebrated him -- because he provided a refuge for cop killers.
