placeholder

Huff 'n' puff geothermal fracking: Earth batteries at 200% efficiency Sage Geosystems has pioneered a new form of cheap energy storage that uses the Earth as a giant bellows, pumping water into underground fractures, then letting it squirt back up at 70% efficiency – or 200% efficiency if you also harvest heat energy. The "huff & puff" method, as it's known, is adapted here from a similar technique that's used in oil production, where a fluid – often steam – is injected into a shale oil deposit and left there for several hours to heat the oil, reducing its viscosity and making it easier to pump out. Sage, however, uses dense drilling mud, forced at high pressure into rock deep underground at disused oil wells, to push slim fractures apart, then pumps water in, again at high pressure, to keep the fractures "inflated." This is done using excess renewable energy collected during daylight hours, and then a valve is closed to lock the water in. When it's time to recover the energy, it's as simple as opening the valve; the pressure from the earth all around the fracture squeezes it back together and the water is forced back up the pipes, where it can be run through a turbine to harvest electricity. Indeed, the same electric motor and pump that forced it down there in the first place become the turbine and generator that get the energy back out when the system runs in reverse. https://newatlas.com/energy/sage-geosystems-huff-puff/

Actually, what you claim is the opposite of the truth. It's justices who follow the rulings of the right Supreme Court who think that. It's clear you haven't read the entire article which cites the precedent set by a judge appointed by Reagan. In his comment Judge Smith used the criteria newly established by conservative members of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of a law From the article: Judge Jerry Smith ruled: "At no point in the 18th or 19th Century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another. Other cases involving the same prohibition against drug users possessing firearms - 18 USC 922 - have gone in favour of defendants after judges questioned whether the charges were constitutionally valid."

No. But, for one thing, that video excluded a follow-up explanatory sentence.

So, now you're claiming that the guy who offered a massive amnesty to undocumented aliens has valid credibility on this issue. After you claimed that it was more about the sentiment rather than the person who said it?

Once again from you, an empty comment without any reasoning or evidence to support it.

Really? And what do you offer as proof of that? During the previous Congress, she got Biden's bill through the House largely unscathed. Can you cite any evidence that supports a precipitous decline in her abilities over the last year?

Actually, a lot more petulant babies than just those 8. All the Republicans who preferred to shut down the government deserve to be primaried.

Definitely a case of overreach. The EU is clearly trying to impose its tyrannical rule on the Ukrainians. Membership in the EU is extremely unpopular in Ukraine. At least in the Ukraine located in Oppositeworld.

And health harming abreactions to vaccines are very rare. Does this justify banning them?

Another empty insult.

Once again making mindreading comments.

The sentiment is unremarkable and commonplace. The only thing I can see that makes it stand out is that Ronald Reagan said it.

Not to mention that it was taken out of context. Here's the entire relevant quote: "(Addressing an audience member.) You got to say hi to me. (Laughter.) We go back a long way. She was 12; I was 30. But anyway — (laughter) — this woman helped me get an awful lot done. Anyway. (Applause.)" https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/23/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-democratic-national-committee-event/

I guess it's simply out of the question that he was joking?

Yes everyone lies. But not anyone does it close to the frequency of Donald Trump. And not just that. Many of Trump's lies are particularly nasty inslults.. Not a common practice among most people including politicians.

It's you who decided to invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, not me. Apparently, you believed he was some kind of authority on the issue. Otherwise, why invoke his words?

First off, you're distorting the fact that surgical procedures are very rare. Overwhelmingly, it's medication that's offered. And, as has been posted in this thread. the rates of suicide among transgender youth are much lower when they are allowed access to treatment. Are you against the use of medication for minors? Or do you prefer the higher suicide rate where it's not allowed?

And another conspiracy theory about science. Why am I not surprised?

I have no clear idea what you are referring to? Are you blaming transgenderism for the rise in suicide rates in the USA?

It's a good thing that cultures based on the big 3 religions that got their start in the Middle East, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, haven't historically taken a repressive attitude towards homesexuality and transgenderiism. And you can throw Hinduism, Confucianism, and Communism into the that mix as well. Whereas in intolerant cultures like Thailand's...oh, wait a minute... Sorry, I was reporting from Opposite World. As for reality on this planet...

"I don't know if you're referring to work being done to try to prove there is a "transgender brain" due to unusual conditions in utero, but my understanding is they haven't got very far yet." But there is some evidence to support the hypothesis that brain structure is a significant factor. Despite that you offer such statements as: "Transgenderism" requires complete rejection of physical biological reality over a sustained period of time, which certainly qualifies as a mental health disorder."

Trump reposted this X (formerly Twitter) post on Truth Social https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/trump-shares-court-sketch-of-him-sitting-next-to-jesus

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers. But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty -- a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 So, I guess you'd have no problem with another amnesty?

False, It's about indictment, not convictions. That said, the House could ignore the rules. "Each party adopts its own set of rules at the start of each Congressional session. The GOP’s conference rule, House Rule 26(a), and the Democratic party’s caucus rule, Rule 4, each have the same rules about holding a leadership position while under indictment. They both say a member who has been indicted for a felony that could carry a sentence of two or more years imprisonment needs to vacate their position." https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/verify/donald-trump/what-house-rules-say-trump-serving-speaker-and-why-they-might-not-matter/536-91f5295b-abb7-4d9a-8084-1e11170437cb That said, the House could ignore the rules

Thanks for completely disregarding the issue of evidence.