Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #4034 on Content
Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Send mail to dmagen
Invite dmagen to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 267 Content: Pure Win → Level 268 Content: Pure Win
Comment Level Progress:
Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 271 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about dmagen
something to think about
is this ok?
Real life anime girls
hmm why not
science is awesome
dumb ways to die
cats and zero gravity
start from 0:22
I know what I want for christmas
Hanako or Lilly?
wait for it
I'm a big fan of engineering
that gif knows me man
Germany is a mess
Look at me Merkel
Just move along
Calls for US...
Random Shit on My...
Nazism vs Communism
CNN crazy wrong
A new dimension
latest user's comments
- 2 of them are the same person
They Want Deku Nuts
the hood games
- 1) sure, but if in any sense you wish to suggest that the &quo…
Anon is jew
Anon is jew
Pic1) In 1946, the land was indeed British. It was called the British Mandate of Palestine. There were also some Jewish towns and villages. Those are the white areas on the map.
Pic2) In 1947, Palestinians had not been able to form an actual government due to many years of colonial oppression. The Arab League spoke on their behalf, rejected the plan and started preparing far war. While the Jewish Agency embraced the plan, several Zionist groups also rejected it, since they wanted all of the land. As British forces withdrew, the situation deteriorated into civil war, which is not surprising since on both side there were armed groups who rejected any kind of partition.
Pic3) In 1967 there was still no sign of any Palestinian government. Palestinians had some pretty shitty allies who seemed more interested in destroying the state of Israel than in founding a state of Palestine.
Pic4) While there is some autonomy for Palestinians in the green areas, Israel reserves the right to intervene at any time if deemed necessary for security reasons.
Also, if you compare your 2000 pic4 with my 2010 pic4 you will notice the Palestinian areas are still shrinking due to land-grabbing colonists, expanding security zones and roads and checkpoints build in Palestinian areas to allow colonists to travel unimpeded between their settlements and from their settlements to Jewish-controlled Israel. This is exactly the point I wanted to make with this picture, so thank you for emphasising it.
1) sure, but if in any sense you wish to suggest that the "British Mandate of Palestine" is named after a country or a tribe of some sort, you are mistaken. the name "Palestine" is the name given to that geographic region by Herodotus, a Greek historian.
2) sure, there were groups in the jewish side that opposed the partition plan, but the overwhelming majority aggreed to it.
by "years of colonial oppression" you mean by the british right?
what makes you think the jews were treated any differently?
your statement, even though it is true, depicts a completely different picture of reality than what really transpired.
not only did the jews suffer from constant arab terror and british colonial oppression, but while the arabs that were living in israel had the backing of the Arab League, the jews were to themselves.
also, this is why in ww2 for example the jews offered their support to the british, in hope that after the war was over we would have more favorable treatment by the british goverment, a hope which was soon diminished.
the arabs there choose a different side...
3) the palestinians as a whole havne't fully accepted their own claim of different nationality, they saw themselves more as arabs than as "palestinians". there was practically zero effort for the arabs in the west bank and gaza to seperate themselves from jordan and egypt because they viewed themselves as jordanians and egyptians.
the fact that jordan and israel were hostile to israel only further help to explain why the israeli "occupation" of these areas is vital, as those areas give israel a gerographic advantage in combat.
a) israel gave whole of gaza to the arabs for free, with nothing to gain in the hope that this will show them that we are willing to make peace. not only does your picture seem to neglact it, you also seem to not know that in return to this gesture the palestinians decided to elect a terrorist totalitarian regime in the area, which it's sole goal is the destruction of my country.
so giving areas back does not equal peace apparently.
b) ehud olmert (a corrupt leftist politician but the former prime minister of israel), offered abbas in 2008 an almost complete withdrawl from the west bank with "territorial swaps" to make up for the land that we take from the west bank. guess what happened?
they preteneded to go through the entire negotiations but when they were almost completely done abbas just stopped showing up.
he simply ignored them.
you seem to misunderstand, it's not that
"Palestinians had some pretty shitty allies who seemed more interested in destroying the state of Israel than in founding a state of Palestine"
"Palestinians are more interested in destroying the state of Israel than in founding a state of Palestine "
- did you see what the media tried to do to trump in the last el…
Anon is jew
Yeah, I love how no one talks about how you can get killed for being an atheist in Palestine, especially if you are openly against religion (islam).
I feel you, I'm pressured to hate isreal because jews and all but really as long as you guys stay out of Europe and keep killing Muslims I don't see a problem
Take it easy there bonorandgory.
- 2012 but i got a lot of upvotes once does that make me …
- well since this manga is atleast 2 years prior to the original…
They grow up so fast
The image ain't exactly canon, so...
- Fןirst of all this guy has some serious insecurity issues, …
Trump likes it:We hate it
The dude's 'stralian, all of his tech debunking videos he takes pot-shots at the people pushing whatever asinine idea he has set out to bury.
Ah yes, the ol' "well it may be too expensive on paper now, but with enough industrialized economy of scale it can be done cheaply, I pretty promise with a cherry on top." Same argument was used to justify the F-22, F-35, the airborne laser project, various high-tech munitions, etc, etc, etc. US tax payers already deal with that bs from the defense industry enough as it is.
You're not wrong, per se, but the economy of scale rule really isn't equally effective in all industries, for some it is like consumer electronics and agriculture for example. A project that would require an insane amount of raw material on its own can only benefit so much on economy of scale until production is saturated. All that material could be used to fix the US's already ailing infrastructure or build new hydroelectric damns.
100 million gained over ten years is still a net loss when the cost of installation and ongoing maintenance is on the order of billions (almost). Also, it was a generous, best-case estimate of power generation based on the sliver of wall closest to the equator that would get the most annual sunlight. Besides, panels that auto-tilt for max efficiency (the ones described in the video) are, by design, mechanical and all things mechanical die after enough use, needing replacement. If a panel can't pay for itself by the time it fails, that's an utter loss.
There's an inherent loss of energy when converting DC to AC and that's just a fact of life. More efficient inverters are also much more expensive, however the larger capacity you can build an inverter, the more efficiently it can operate
like economy of scale, but for energy conversion
. Solar farms are designed to minimize the distance from any one panel to the main inverter and maximize the number of panels running to that inverter to use the land effectively. The more current an inverter can convert the more efficiently it can be built to do so. A farm with fewer, larger inverters that service many panels is more efficient than a farm with more, but smaller inverters. This is why solar farms tend to be circular or square in shape. All or most of the panels feed to a central high-power inverter that sends current off to the grid.
Lining the wall with panels means you need to install many more inverters per total number of panels than a traditional solar farm because the distribution of the panels would be stretched thin along a long strip instead of a small, densely packed area.
More inverters means more cost and less efficiency.
There are good ways to implement solar, and there are bad ways. If the current administration really cared about solar, the money used to tack solar onto this wall would be much better spent subsidizing residential and commercial solar projects that already strive to maximize efficiency to get the most return on investment.
The solar wall idea was an ill-advised, poorly researched attempt to throw a bone to the left, but they're not falling for it and you shouldn't either.
Fild Dago Zitup Fudeagl
- I guess that most people downvoted you for the same reason tha…
Show Comments (90)