astonmartin708 said:

How long did the first Wright Brother’s flight last? How long after that before they could carry significant cargo? 😉

Click to expand...

12s

lawpoke87 said:

Looks like it’s flown for 8 minutes. Hopefully it turns out to be feasible. I see operational date projected to be sometime in 2027.

Click to expand...

How long did the first Wright Brother’s flight last? How long after that before they could carry significant cargo? 😉

astonmartin708 said:

Eviation Alice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’m not saying this is the end-all-be-all of this technology. But it got off the ground…

Click to expand...

Looks like it’s flown for 8 minutes. Hopefully it turns out to be feasible. I see operational date projected to be sometime in 2027.

lawpoke87 said:

I failed English 101 in my post. I meant to say “larger planes”. Do you have a link to passenger electric planes which are being flown. I would like to read about how far the technology has come if in fact we’re able to produce viable passenger planes ran on electricity (not solar).

Click to expand...

I’m not saying this is the end-all-be-all of this technology. But it got off the ground…

I would also say that there are many, many innovative ways that electricity and storage can be used to propel humans into and through the air. We should not minimize it as a possibility just because of some of its limitations anymore than we should have minimized Jet fuel for its potential safety hazards as a flammable substance when combustion engine flight was first being developed.

If the fundamentals are strong, you can innovate. Maybe we use a catapult system to get these things going and use some ground based power to alleviate the off-grounding energy needs.

astonmartin708 said:

This guy has never heard of RC planes or drones I suppose.

This isn’t even true. All Electric passenger style planes (think Cessna to Learjet) have already been developed and flown.

You’re referring to Airliners which do have a problem.

Again, the political position is just a front in order to sell the public on developing an technology and infrastructure that my donors control instead of someone else’s

Click to expand...

I failed English 101 in my post. I meant to say “larger planes”. Do you have a link to passenger electric planes which are being flown. I would like to read about how far the technology has come if in fact we’re able to produce viable passenger planes ran on electricity (not solar).

astonmartin708 said:

In an effort to be fair and balanced, I do think that the S.C’s decision today regarding immunity was the reasonable and correct one.

Click to expand...

Seems to codify what the DOJs has done for over a hundred years. I do wish they would have narrowed or further explained what would qualify as an “official act”. Barrett addressed the question a bit in her concurrence. Seems fairly reasonable. I personally would favor a narrow interpretation due to my ongoing desire to limit the power of the Executive branch.

lawpoke87 said:

Electric planes of any size simply aren’t currently feasible and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The whole weight and getting off the ground thing. It’s not complicated. Solar is a little more feasible as long as your generating electricity as you fly thus eliminating the need to large heavy batteries to store the energy. Not sure why you’re talking about electric planes when technology isn’t close to making such a thing work.

Click to expand...

This guy has never heard of RC planes or drones I suppose.

This isn’t even true. All Electric passenger style planes (think Cessna to Learjet) have already been developed and flown.

You’re referring to Airliners which do have a problem.

Again, the political position is just a front in order to sell the public on developing an technology and infrastructure that my donors control instead of someone else’s

In an effort to be fair and balanced, I do think that the S.C’s decision today regarding immunity was the reasonable and correct one.

Well, rumor is Mexico is firing their manager after their disastrous Copa. Klopp is at the top of everyone's list. I'm sure Klopp might be seeing if Germany flames out of Euros too soon and might look for a new manager. This is doubtful as, IMO, Germany has outplayed their collective talent. Don't get me wrong, they've got good players but not a group that makes you sit up and take notice. However the current manager is getting stuff out of Havertz where Tuchel failed to do so at Chelsea. He is getting performances out of role players like Gundogan. I think it will be very difficult to justify firing their manager after Euros with the way they've performed so far, and in such a dominating fashion. That leaves Klopp a pick of destinations.

The one thing the US has that Mexico does not right now is world class talent and depth. I watched Mexico play yesterday and they are just not any good...at least the US has world class talent right now and is being held back by their manager. Mexico doesn't have that same quality right now and there is no one in the pipeline to replace the mediocrity they're running out there. Must be killing Mexican fans knowing they've got co-hosting duties in 2 years and they are going to struggle to make the knockout round.

Just one of many articles on line..

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

aTUfan said:

Not a government issue; Churches and charities should do this.

Click to expand...

No.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

TU65alum said:

Best would be a big payday and a win.

Click to expand...

Come oooon, fall practices!

aTUfan said:

is it better to get a big payday and lose at a big time d1 school, or beat a d2 team at home

Click to expand...

Best would be a big payday and a win.

astonmartin708 said:

I think with the segment of the homeless population you're talking about (non-drug addicted, non-mentally ill) you also have to deal with the fact that many of those people have past lives.... meaning they probably have debts they've run from and horrible credit, also they may have alimony / child support debts that they may not have an easy time discharging in bankruptcy court. Getting them a job might simply not be enough. I think some of these people really could use a life counselor that can help them navigate what needs to be done to get them back in the fold of society..

Some might need debt reduction services, some might need job training. Many will need mental health services or expensive drug rehabilitation services. Others might need help dealing with PTSD related symptoms caused by America's military conflicts and a piss-poor VA system. I think very few of them need to be preached to, which is what we always seem to try first. Kicking them around in the country or imposing punitive civil / criminal fees probably won't work.

Click to expand...

Seattle’s mayor conducted a study last year to find out some of the reasons people in his city were homeless. The study showed 60% of them were drug addicts. I thought that number was awful high but those were the results. We did see a lot of drug use on the streets while there. The downtown Target had practically everything other than food under lock and key.

LA and San Diego are still the worst two cities I’ve been too as far as the homeless. I’ve never been to Portland. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers. Especially since the reasons for homelessness are so diverse. Not sure I completely buy the debt reason at least in California due to the limited amount a judgment creditor can take as it relates to low income earners.

lawpoke87 said:

I assume nothing. That segment of the homeless population are the ones we can most easily help. Those with mental illness or other similar issues are a much more difficult task. Especially if they don’t want help.

Click to expand...

I think with the segment of the homeless population you're talking about (non-drug addicted, non-mentally ill) you also have to deal with the fact that many of those people have past lives.... meaning they probably have debts they've run from and horrible credit, also they may have alimony / child support debts that they may not have an easy time discharging in bankruptcy court. Getting them a job might simply not be enough. I think some of these people really could use a life counselor that can help them navigate what needs to be done to get them back in the fold of society..

Some might need debt reduction services, some might need job training. Many will need mental health services or expensive drug rehabilitation services. Others might need help dealing with PTSD related symptoms caused by America's military conflicts and a piss-poor VA system. I think very few of them need to be preached to, which is what we always seem to try first. Kicking them around in the country or imposing punitive civil / criminal fees probably won't work.

lawpoke87 said:

I would be fine with a carrot if the same works. I just spent a week in Seattle due to soccer. The homeless problem downtown is significant. Adding to the issue is over half the homeless there are drug addicts. Trash, sanitation issues and drug use dominate these encampments. Not sure what the answer is but it is next to impossible to operate a business next to an encampment. Living next to one would also be a challenge. Not sure what the answer is other than the importance of a city having a say in where these encampments are located.

Click to expand...

I think the most valid argument is public sanitation and safety. You want to make sure water quality is maintained and human waste and other toxic waste is taken care of properly. You also want to make sure people can navigate cities without the risk of encountering noxious drugs or used paraphernalia.

I was in Seattle last summer at right around this time after having not been there for a few years, and my observation was that, while the homeless problem was still a thing, it wasn't as bad as it had been around 2015-16 and I felt like the downtown actually had more stores than I expected in thriving operation, thought the high-end ones tended to have security.

Portland on the other hand (just visited a few months ago) was a total writeoff. I visit SLC quite often and it's another place really taken over by homelessness. On the other hand, in Des Moines or Tulsa where there is no effective public transit, you see much fewer homeless, probably because it's just harder move around the city.

What I've noticed most is that places with the best public transit where rules, fees, and standards are not well enforced have the worst homeless problems because it makes the homeless more mobile, and also ruins public transit for normal folks. I think that's one of the things I would crack down on first. Just because I don't want the homeless to be forcibly removed in all cases, doesn't mean I think they should get free public transit where they tend to cause a lot of problems. I think NYC improved quite a bit when they started to get the subway under control.

Gmoney4WW said:

Seems like their isn't a stick which has any effect, or which we are willing to wield. The carrot is likely the only effective method here. That will cost the cities money, but it's the only effective method.

I remember several years ago they started employing spikes and other barriers like that, in areas they didn't want them sleeping. I don't think that was effective, cost effective, or pretty. The only immediate thing they can do is force them to relocate with police officers, tasers, tear gas, etc. But that is a constant battle. They need a carrot at the place where they relocate.

Click to expand...

I would be fine with a carrot if the same works. I just spent a week in Seattle due to soccer. The homeless problem downtown is significant. Adding to the issue is over half the homeless there are drug addicts. Trash, sanitation issues and drug use dominate these encampments. Not sure what the answer is but it is next to impossible to operate a business next to an encampment. Living next to one would also be a challenge. Not sure what the answer is other than the importance of a city having a say in where these encampments are located.

lawpoke87 said:

I have no problem with people with no money existing somewhere. I have a problem with cities having no say where they place their encampments. You don’t have a right to throw up tents anywhere you please. Cities have a vested interest in keeping homeless encampments out of certain areas and should be able to do the same. There is nothing in my ten years on this board which should give anyone the idea that I don’t sympathize with the poor. I’ve always been an advocate of job training programs and other measures to help lift the poor out of their inner city hell holes.

Gmoney….I have no idea about enforcement. I do know there has to be a mechanism to prevent the homeless from throwing up encampments in certain areas. Not sure what that looks like but I do believe it’s necessary.

Click to expand...

Seems like their isn't a stick which has any effect, or which we are willing to wield. The carrot is likely the only effective method here. That will cost the cities money, but it's the only effective method.

I remember several years ago they started employing spikes and other barriers like that, in areas they didn't want them sleeping. I don't think that was effective, cost effective, or pretty. The only immediate thing they can do is force them to relocate with police officers, tasers, tear gas, etc. But that is a constant battle. They need a carrot at the place where they relocate.

astonmartin708 said:

You assume that homelessness is a result of not having a job / enough training for a job. I would be willing to bet that it’s much more complex than just employment.

Click to expand...

I assume nothing. That segment of the homeless population are the ones we can most easily help. Those with mental illness or other similar issues are a much more difficult task. Especially if they don’t want help.

lawpoke87 said:

I have no problem with people with no money existing somewhere. I have a problem with cities having no say where they place their encampments. You don’t have a right to throw up tents anywhere you please. Cities have a vested interest in keeping homeless encampments out of certain areas and should be able to do the same. There is nothing in my ten years on this board which should give anyone the idea that I don’t sympathize with the poor. I’ve always been an advocate of job training programs and other measures to help lift the poor out of their inner city hell holes.

Gmoney….I have no idea about enforcement. I do know there has to be a mechanism to prevent the homeless from throwing up encampments in certain areas. Not sure what that looks like but I do believe it’s necessary.

Click to expand...

You assume that homelessness is a result of not having a job / enough training for a job. I would be willing to bet that it’s much more complex than just employment.

astonmartin708 said:

I agree on executive overreach in most cases. This one is not it. And if you have a problem with people who have no money trying to exist somewhere you don’t want, you have a problem with capitalism, not with civil precedent.

The fix for homelessness is not to burden people who are already destitute, nor to turn them into wage slaves, nor to push them onto your neighbors.

The dichotomy and blatant hypocrisy of the conservative wing of this country astounds me. On the one hand you have people trying to communicate Jesus’ teachings in schools on the other you have those same people defending policies that subjugate the meek and poor.

I must have missed the part in Sunday school where Christ drove a bulldozer through the leper colony and handed out tickets to appear in front of the Pharisees for being a public nuisance.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with people with no money existing somewhere. I have a problem with cities having no say where they place their encampments. You don’t have a right to throw up tents anywhere you please. Cities have a vested interest in keeping homeless encampments out of certain areas and should be able to do the same. There is nothing in my ten years on this board which should give anyone the idea that I don’t sympathize with the poor. I’ve always been an advocate of job training programs and other measures to help lift the poor out of their inner city hell holes.

Gmoney….I have no idea about enforcement. I do know there has to be a mechanism to prevent the homeless from throwing up encampments in certain areas. Not sure what that looks like but I do believe it’s necessary.

lawpoke87 said:

A). We pretty much agree on this except without some sort of penalty the effort of move homeless would be problematic as they will simply return to the areas they chose.

B). Disagree of Chevron. The power grab we’ve seen in the Executive branch over the last 20 years needs to be reversed. One person defacto legislating is bad policy. This decision is a start.

Click to expand...

I agree on executive overreach in most cases. This one is not it. And if you have a problem with people who have no money trying to exist somewhere you don’t want, you have a problem with capitalism, not with civil precedent.

The fix for homelessness is not to burden people who are already destitute, nor to turn them into wage slaves, nor to push them onto your neighbors.

The dichotomy and blatant hypocrisy of the conservative wing of this country astounds me. On the one hand you have people trying to communicate Jesus’ teachings in schools on the other you have those same people defending policies that subjugate the meek and poor.

I must have missed the part in Sunday school where Christ drove a bulldozer through the leper colony and handed out tickets to appear in front of the Pharisees for being a public nuisance.