Blackberry insisted on a 3-row thumboard on the face of the device. I want a 5-row slider, like Samsung’s Relay.

Yeah, I hope Clinton/Harris was snark.

Clinton/Harris 2028

(/s)

AFAIK, the affected senators vacate their seats. A quorum is 50% + 1 of occupied seats. When an asteroid falls on 30 GOP senators, a quorum is 36 and a supermajority is 47, not 51 an 67.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission

I have legitimately never seen this meme.

I’ve seen dozens of posts and articles commenting on it, but I have never actually seen this meme in the wild.

It’s theoretically possible that an asteroid could hit a gathering of GOP senators shortly before the impeachment vote, skewing the demographics of the Senate enough to convict.

once

Uh huh.

What he wants is the focus on “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in the 14th amendment. He isn’t after birthright citizenship. He wants formal recognition that certain people are not owed constitutional protections.

Immediately, he wants “immigrants” to be in the same category as “enemy combatants”, whose rights and privileges are defined by international treaty, rather than recognized by the constitution.

This particular manner of death is one in a trillion. The odds that these three were going to die in a car together was quite a bit closer to parity.

Fuck we’re still have more than 3 years left of this shitty ass government.

I doubt it. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I highly doubt he’s going to complete his term. My guess is 25th Amendment, shortly after the midterms.

Jon Stewart, 2028.

The problem with Reagan and Trump isn’t that they were actors. The problem is that they were complete pieces of shit long before they were elected.

Actor-presidents have demonstrated a natural propensity for revolutionary disruption of entrenched attitudes. Reagan completely fucked over economic policy; Trump is completely fucking over the fundamental concept of democracy.

Imagine that same degree of revolutionary disruption moving us toward egalitarianism rather than corpo-fascism.

Lawmakers should be pilloried.

At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.

This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.

Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.

Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this

You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.

You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.

Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.

And CO2 is a fucking gas

Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.

But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking

I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.

You can bury solid biofuel,

Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.

Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.

Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.

Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.

Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.

What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?

My old PC locks up every 4 to 48 hours. It would make a terrible NAS.

Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo

Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.

Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.

You’re right about biofuel… Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible.

Hydrocarbons.

Chains of hydrogen and carbon.

Your comment demonstrates you’re not fully understanding the chemistry of the combustion. If you remove the “water” I am talking about, you wouldn’t have a hydrocarbon. You would have only carbon.

The “water” I am talking about is the “hydro” part of the “hydrocarbon”. That “hydro” does not become CO2 when it burns. That “hydro” becomes H2O.

When burning lighter hydrocarbons, the majority of the exhaust in the stack is actually water vapor rather than CO2. Putting that hydrogen into the ground, unburnt, provides no additional benefit over putting just the CO2 into the ground. It merely fills up the reservoir faster, and requires even more energy for the same amount of carbon sequestration. Burning that biomass, it is (theoretically) possible for the energy recovered (after powering sequestration operations) to be a net positive.

Sequestering the unburned biofuel without recovering that energy, the operation must be a net negative.