Free Republic

If you go to the trouble of generating hydrogen, why not generate ammonia? NH3
Ammonia has about one third of the energy density of hydrocarbons, which is extremely good.

Or why not Methan?
Sabatier won a Nobel prize in chemistry to transform hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methane using a catalyst.

Both are way easier to handle and to transport than hydrogen.

Put up some windmills or solar cells close to water, come with a truck every few weeks to pickup the ammonia/methan.
No grid needed, no need to retrofit infrastructure to hydrogen.

Of course, another conversion step reduces effency, but you save elsewhere.

We are running out of reserves right now.

Have you visited http://theoildrum.com ?

If they have pictures, why are we not seeing those pictures on TV?

Good question.

And they give http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt7.htm as source, which is american.

That site claims that it was reported on American Free Press, which, you might guess it, is based in America, too.

Anyway, even if it was only reported in Indymedia UK would that change a damn thing?

I would love to have as much free time as you seem to have

I tried to find additional sources about that.

But I didnt find a lot. Infowar links to Indymedia and Indymedia gives this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_121404A.shtml and this url: http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt7.htm

Newswithviews links to http://www.americanfreepress.net/ as the original source. I couldnt find anything on American Free Press however.

Can this be verified?

Imagine someone trying to pass a law "protecting" minors from unpopular political views.

Where is the problem there? Adults still can view anything they like and follow any political ideal they want. They could also intredouce their children to it.

As long as the parents can overule the rating system their is no danger. Children can't buy beer but if you want to buy beer and let your children drink from it, well, why not.

What about threats against the President? Is that against the Constitution?

I dont know if thats against the Constitution but it sure is against the President. Since he, like everybody else has rights, he has the right to protect himself and to be protected against threats. Or what about a threat to an individual? Are you allowed to do that?

I think the question is misleading. It's not about being allowed. For how could I stop someone from making threads? I can't read minds. You are free to do whatever you want. But you have to face the consequences. If you choose to use your freedom to harm another you are facing jail time.

This is a bit simplish but,well, so am I.

Why can't the state of Washington forbid the selling of games to minor... People over 17 could purchase them...

I see no problem with it actually. As long as adults are not restricted it's fine by me. But what I don't like in this special case is what games should be banned:computer games in which the player kills or injures "a human form who is depicted as a public law enforcement officer."

That's too vague. The other side has a case here:"Would a game built around 'The Simpsons' or 'Looney Tunes' characters be 'realistic' enough to trigger the act?" he asked. "Do the Roman centurions of 'Age of Empires' ... qualify as 'public law enforcement officers'?"

It's also cynical. Shooting everyday persons in games is ok but not public law officers? No deal.

Why not use the same system for the movie industrie uses? Rate the games from PG-13 up to X or R rated. Aren't the games already labeled like this?

And if the parents are concerned why don't they lobby their positions?

To sum my position up. I do think the state may ban selling of R or X rated games to minors. Regardless if you have to shoot criminals or polce officers, it the violence that gets it on the index. Also, if parents buy the games for their kids, thats no problem even if R rated. But if the state can't or won't do this, it should be possible to get enough people on board to force sellers to agree not to sell R rated games to minors.

Anyway, thats it. Regards

Nazi Germany being a prime example... they used propaganda saying Jews were RATS... Jews are not human....

Nazi Germany had no free speech laws. Nobody could refute this viewpoint. There were no newspapers or radio shows giving different opinions.

If they same would happen today, everybody could disagree.

Violent or racist speech is no harm as long as everybody is free to disagree.

And video games, like anything that can be transmitted over a telephone line are "speech". Because it's entirely information which gets interpreted by the computer.

Isn't there a system on movies which rates them and prohibits minors form viewing them? Wouldn't that work with games also?

Speech and propaganda can have some major impact on society...

Only if there is just one version that gets repeated. Several propaganda shouters disagree with each other is no threat. Also, the constitution is for protecting the individual rights, not society's.

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."

Thanks for your links.

And I found this article from AP:

Mental Illnesses Bring Detention for Some Youths

Report finds many juveniles are `warehoused' in facilities

by Erica Werner
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of mentally ill youths are unnecessarily put in juvenile detention centers to await mental health treatment, a House committee reported Wednesday.

Centers usually are not equipped to treat mental illness, and in some cases the youths have not been charged with a crime, said the report by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee.

"The use of juvenile detention facilities to house youth waiting for community mental health services is widespread and a serious national problem," said the report, which found that two-thirds of juvenile detention facilities hold youths who are waiting for mental health treatment. "This misuse of detention centers as holding areas for mental health treatment is unfair to youth, undermines their health, disrupts the function of detention centers and is costly to society."

The report was prepared at the request of California Rep. Henry Waxman, the House Government Reform Committee's top Democrat, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

"Thousands of youth who are in need of community mental health services are stuck in jail until these services become available," Waxman said. "This is deplorable. Congress must ensure that our children have access to the mental health care that they need."

Collins scheduled a hearing on the issue Wednesday in which Waxman was testifying along with experts on mental health law, youth behavior and juvenile detention.

The report identified 698 juvenile detention facilities in the United States, defined as correctional facilities holding people age 21 and younger awaiting charges or trial or recently tried. Seventy-five percent of the facilities, or 524, responded to the survey, including facilities from every state but New Hampshire. The survey covered six months, Jan. 1, 2003, to June 30, 2003.

The report did not attempt to determine why so many youths who needed mental health treatment were being put in juvenile detention but said administrators blamed the lack of other treatment facilities.

One detention center administrator from Louisiana wrote, "We appear to be warehousing youths with mental illnesses due to lack of mental health services."

This has been debunked?

Url for that?

Or can you sum up the arguments?

Anything would be helpful.

Re: EO from April 2002
Executive Order 13263
President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health

I found it at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-11166-filed.pdf

But I'm unable to download the actual document. Server seems to be down. However EO 13263 has been revoked by EO 13316
Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-11166-filed.pdf

I can't download this either. Gonna try it again later.

I think there is already a screening program in place. From the report:

Figure 4.2. Model Program: Screening Program for Youth

Program

Columbia University TeenScreen® Program

Goal

To ensure that all youth are offered a mental health check-up before graduating from high school. TeenScreen® identifies and refers for treatment those who are at risk for suicide or suffer from an untreated mental illness.

Features

All youngsters in a school, with parental consent, are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk. At no charge, the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program provides consultation, screening materials, software, training, and technical assistance to qualifying schools and communities. In return, TeenScreen® partners are expected to screen at least 200 youth per year and ensure that a licensed mental health professional is on-site to give immediate counseling and referral services for youth at greatest risk. The Columbia TeenScreen® Program is a not-for-profit organization funded solely by foundations. When the program identifies youth needing treatment, their care is paid for depending on the family's health coverage.

Outcomes

The computer-based questionnaire used by TeenScreen® is a valid and reliable screening instrument.151 The vast majority of youth identified through the program as having already made a suicide attempt, or at risk for depression or suicidal thinking, are not in treatment.152 A follow-up study found that screening in high school identified more than 60% of students who, four to six years later, continued to have long-term, recurrent problems with depression and suicidal attempts.153

Biggest challenge

To bridge the gap between schools and local providers of mental health services. Another challenge is to ensure, in times of fiscal austerity, that schools devote a health professional to screening and referral.

How other organizations can adopt

The Columbia University TeenScreen® Program is pilot-testing a shorter questionnaire, which will be less costly and time-consuming for the school to administer. It is also trying to adapt the program to primary care settings.

Website

www.teenscreen.org

Spot on.

I agree with you. Goal 4 of this "New Freedom" Project is the most troubling part for me, too.
I'm following this story for quite some time now. I thought it was overblown at first. I hope it won't get implanted.

Thanks for your info on the EO, didn't know that. And could you explain what you mean with "Goals 2000"? I'm afraid I don't know what your are referring to.

BTW, you've got a good Nickname. The Mises.org site is one of my favorites.

You don't think the article is accurate?

I see. Sorry, seems like I misunderstood you.

I included the adress to the report in my comment.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/toc.html

If you belive the article at BMJ is biased and unfair, you can still read the original report. I would like to hear why you think it's unfair.

Final Report is here: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/toc.html

Stories like this are causing them to put more and more effort into developing whatever clandestine, encrypted networks it takes to completely screw the RIAA.

Spot on.

The RIAA Succeeds Where the Cypherpunks Failed

File-sharing Goes Social

Crypto plan to anonymise P2P, thwart RIAA

Given the advancments in cryptographie and anonymous peer 2 peer networks, it seems very likely that the next generation kazaa will be untraceable. At least any member of this service will have a plausible denial.

Or Congress could just ban every peer2peer network. Congress Moves to Criminalize P2P