Ten oz

As it pertains to Steel the U.S. is behind China, E.U., Japan, and India in production and is 11th for exports of Steel. At the same time the U.S. is the worlds top importer of Steel. While tariff might boost production of Steel in the U.S. it will surely drive up the cost of Steel. As a side effect builders will look to other building materials that is more cost effective. For Aluminum the U.S .is #9 in production but the worlds top importer. Also individual large corporations contribute to the GDP of many different countries. Volkswagen is a German company but has tens of thousands of employees in the U.S., Toyota is a Japanese company but employs tens of thousands of people in the U.S., and etc. U.S. companies from Apple to Walmart rely of other countries for manufacturing and services. Trade wars only make it more difficult for global industry. While 100% true the U.S. has never shown a willingness to put in the labor required to do that. Slavery and indentured servitude have long traditions in the U.S. for that reason. Even today undocumented immigrants are widely used in U.S. labor markets like agriculture and construction. Undocumented immigrants are quasi indentured servants. In order for the U.S. to close its doors and pull the drawbridge ten of millions of people would have to work in more physically demanding and labor intensive jobs than their accustomed to, willing to, and in many cases capable of. Trump and millions of others romanticize labor intensive jobs like coal mining but actually desire comfortable white collar work for themselves and families. It is why the U.S. is the number one importer of goods. We like having others do the hard work.

Right, too bad subsidies are real things and everyone isn't getting a dollar back. In a fantasy world where everyone got the dollar back in total parity to what they paid and infrastructure/ services continued equally than it wouldn't be a subsidies. Sort of like how if I could live forever than I would never die. Add in fictional factors and what's unreal suddenly becomes real.

From the OP of the thread you reference: "I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes." Your thread was about how you personnel feel about subsidizes and for some reason was in engineering. The thread doesn't seek to analyse the cost per watt of energy produced, environmental impacts, or future potential of different energy sources. Rather it is just a complaint about subsidizes. There is nothing scientific about it.

If you and I both make $10 an hour, both use the same govt provided infrastructure, both pay $5 in taxes, yet you are getting a $1 back and I don't my tax money is being used to subsidize the refund you receive. Yes, you are being subsidized. That is the answer to your question. It simply isn't the answer you want or you fail to understand how taxation works.

An armed teacher was in custody Wednesday afternoon after state and federal police in northwest Georgia responded to reports of shots fired at a high school. No students at Dalton High School were hurt or remained in danger after they were evacuated as the crisis unfolded, Dalton police tweeted. The teacher initially barricaded himself in an empty classroom at about 11:30 a.m. ET as confused students tried to get in, Dalton police spokesman Bruce Frazier said at a news conference. There were then reports that a gun was fired. The teacher surrendered after 30 to 45 minutes, reported NBC affiliate WXIA. Frazier confirmed that at least one shot was fired after a principal used a key to try and get into the barricaded classroom. It was unclear what led the teacher to lock himself inside the classroom, Frazier said, but that he claimed he did not want to involve students. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/georgia-dalton-high-school-teacher-gunfire/index.html

The OP doesn't contain a question. It is a series of statements which complain about energy subsidies and seeks to redefine what a subsidy is.what question does this thread ask specifically? Your $10 question isn't accurate if applied to any industry. Ignoring that and attempting to look at the question in total isolation there isn't enough information to answer it. How much any company is taxed compared to another matters in all capitalistic economies where competition is a factor. Providing tax incentives to some puts a thumb on the scale. So in your $10 question what is the minimum rate being paid by all and what is the rebate for all?

Here is a test: You earn $10 and I tax you $2 but tax everyone else $4. Meanwhile the cost I pay on infrastructure you use is $11. Are you subsidized? The definition of subsidized aside all R&D costs money. Adjusted for inflation the Manhattan Project had a cost of $22 billion. So your question, if we take you definition of subsidy, is whether or not sustainable clean energy is worth R&D spending. My answer to that question is YES.

What stats can you provide to show that it's handy? Stats show the gun is more likely to kill the owner or be stolen than anything else. In theory police have that training and yet police are still attacked and police still shoot and kill unarmed people. It isn't a matter of training. Arming Teachers is just a bad idea. There is a statistical correlation between more guns and more gun violence.

I make and drink craft beer. I know beer is unhealthy. I knowingly engaged in something that isn't good for me. We all do things that are unhealthy or increase the risk of bad things. I am not attempting to reprimand you or Arete. I am not implying either of you are doing something unusual. Rather I just want to change the language surrounding issue. When it comes other habits people have that are statistically shown to be counter productive people tend not to be nearly as defensive. Guns occupy that unique space where statements of facts about them annoys people. Like factual statements about evolution annoys those who believe in creation. Owning a gun does increase ones risk if being killed by a gun. That is a fact and not a personal attack on you. It doesn't criticize you personally. For example smoking is bad and I don't think people should smoke. Obama smoked for years. In my opinion Obama was an excellent President. I am not saying you or Arete are bad people or anything close to that. Just as smoking didn't make Obama bad. I feel the insistence on a delineations between safe gun ownership vs non safe gun ownership is one of the reasons this issues always just stales out. Everyone thinks they are the safe gun owners. The risks apply to all. As this applies to schools I think schools are a good place to change the language on guns. Educating people that guns increase danger rather than reduce it is a good lesson in my opinion. People are also bad at assessing risk. Buying a gun to protect oneself for a random home invasion is like buying scuba gear to protect yourself from a drowning accident. The scuba gear needs to be on you and ready to use to have a chance of helping.

Statistically owning a gun increases ones odds of dying from a gun. So the idea of a gun being a useful home defense tool is a bit of a fallacy. Owning a gun does not increase ones safety.

"Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco." https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide Everyone that is exposed to second hand smoke (all of us have been at sometime) doesn't get cancer. Not everyone who smokes gets cancers. However we all understand that smoke or being exposed to it via second hand smoke increases one chance of getting cancer. Owning a gun increase the chance someone will commit suicide or victim of a homicide. The notion that a gun can just be compared to a tool like a chainsaw is silly. Owning a chainsaw doesn't increase the likelihood of suicide or murder. over 30,000 people a year don't die at the hands of chainsaws and over 70,000 people a year aren't injured at the hands of chainsaws. The notion of safe gun ownership is a fallacy. Statistically owning a gun, regardless of how safe one is with it, increases risk. Depending on ones situation perhaps it is worth the risk. Either way it is not comparable to a basic tool like a chainsaw. That is a good point. You are right. The state isn't involved with asking parents about smoking and a lot of people would file law suits. While I feels those lawsuits might be useful for raising awareness and driving national discussion I have no way of proving they would be. They could just end up costing schools time and resources. What about something more akin to sex education. If schools had a gun violence/self harm day and sent permission slips home to parents? That would still nudge people to consider the issue and raise awareness while providing parents the opportunity to select to do it in their own manner. It won't happen to me syndrome.

I think in many cases asking people questions they don't want to answer is an effective way to impact their behavior. School shootings aside 13,000 kids are hurt every year by guns. It very well may upset some parents to be asked and some may definitely be concerned about a stigma being attached. However there would also be the positive effect of getting it on their (parents)radar that there potentially might be a problem with their kids having access to guns. It might seem like a no brainer that ever parent would already know that but some parents don't know better than to hit their kids or smoke in close proximity to their kids. The pressure of having society watching has done a lot to impact parental behavior. Even the parents the proudly proclaim they give their kids whippings know better than to give the whippings in public (most the time). Likewise many parents object to sex education for their kids. Some even pull their kids out of school on the day the lesson is taught. Those parents are still force to confront the issue with their kids though. Force to give their own version of the birds and the bees. If sex education was just removed many of those bird and the bees conversations would never happen. So even if parents lie and get offended it is worth it if it influences more parents buying locks and gun safes. If it leads to more kids asking their parents about locks and guns safe and why they do and or don't have them. If a parent didn't want their child to go play at the house of a cigarette smoker I don't think many people in 2018 would find that strange of unreasonable. Yet unless the child was going to be playing in the run with a the smoker the health risk in very small. That stigma, on smokers, is why some many won't smoke indoors. Many smokers even won't smoke anywhere in site of the kids, even outside their own homes. Pressuring gun owners a bit to be lock their guns up and practice much gun safety as possible is a win for everyone. Less kids would be hurt and less guns would be stolen and resold on the black market. We shouldn't be so worried about offending gun owners we cannot can even ask them questions they can voluntarily answer however they see fit. Just as the permission letter home from the school regarding sex education sparks the conversation at home whether the parent signs the letter or so to would questions about guns. At least that is my opinion. Some parents would response angrily and others by double and triple thinking about whether or not their guns are secure enough. As mentioned above talking to the parents and students about guns in their homes serves more purposes than to identify a potential mass shooter. It would raise awareness and educate people to the reality that is isn't merely an issue of violent video games or poorly prescribed medication. A much higher percentage of students use to have a smoker in the household. Cigarettes were banned. It is still legal to buy, own, and smoke all the cigarettes you want. One of the things that changed the tide of cigarettes is the way we talked about cigarettes and acknowledged their risks.

Can you elaborate on how a "false positive" would negatively impact anything? I am saying teacher should be aware of which students have access to guns and not implying any action against those students. It is an awareness things. I don't understand your point about false positives. The screening would be teachers and administrators asking the students and parents during normal parent teacher conferences and whatnot which already happen. I am against having armed personnel on campuses. I agree 100%. We have and have had other threads addressing gun control broadly. Whatever does or doesn't happen with the national gun control debate in the short term school shootings will continue. So I started this thread to ask what schools can be doing at their level. I think we all already agree that on the federal level we need a multitude of changes (Universal background checks, assualt weapons ban, automatic modification kit bans, and etc).

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.WpQImGrwbIU There are other interested stats on the link. The ones that stood out to me as being useful to this discussion are that 1 out of 3 kids live in a home with guns and that over 13,000 kids are injured by guns each year. The over whelming majority of kids know where the guns in there homes are kept despite their parents belief to the contrary (related to a point John Cuthber made). Additionally the rate of mass shootings is increasing. It is a growing problem. With about 30% of total students living in a home with a gun that means only about 15% of male students live in a home with a gun considering only about half of all students are male. That is a much lower number needles in a haystack of guns than CharonY and iNow have implied. Of that 15% not every student has access to the gun, worse case is 80%. So the number of male students at a school with access to a gun at home is around only 1 out 9 or 10 students. That is not such an overwhelming portion of students that it is not worth teachers or administrators bothering with who they are. Just on two risk factors alone (accessible gun in the home & gender) the number is down to nearly 1 in 10 students. For Colleges the numbers would be even lower considering females make up a larger percentage of students. with 13,000 kids injured per year and a growing mass shooting rate at some point I believe we (society) should start to identify risk factors . Worst case scenario of teachers asking students and parents about guns in homes is that more parents lock of their guns and the number of students with access to guns greatly diminishes. 1.7 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns - 1 out of 3 homes with kids have guns. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured. More than 75 percent of first and second graders know where their parents keep their firearms and 36 percent admitted handling the weapons, contradicting their parents’ reports. More than 80 percent of guns used by youth in suicide attempts were kept in the home of the victim, a relative, or a friend. In a November 2017 review of mass shootings in the U.S., 95 mass shootings have occurred since 1982, from which approximately 76 semi-automatic handguns and 85 assault weapons and weapons with high magazine capacity were recovered. Gun owners in a household (predominantly men) are more likely to report that their gun is stored unlocked and loaded, compared to the non-owners (predominantly women) in those households. This argues for better education of household members regarding safe storage in homes with children. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that from 1982 to 2011, mass shootings occurred every 200 days on average. Since late 2011, they found, mass shootings have occurred at triple that rate—every 64 days on average.

The Bay of Fundy has the highest on average tidal range in the world so it is an ideal location. Second highest is Bristol Channel in the U.K. . So the U.K. would also be a well suited location. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/faq2.html

The Moon's gravitational attraction of is responsible for tide. The amount of force required to move oceans is incredible relative to our (humans) our energy producing ability. At present there are attempts to harvest wave energy but none appear scalable to level which could be used to power large portions of industry of cities. That said the energy potential seems self evident. To my knowledge Nova Scotia is one of the leaders on this front. However most systems I am aware of focus on using swells to move magnetics https://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy/top-10-things-tidal-energy Are there other ways to harness the Moon's Gravitational attraction beyond using the tide to move magnetics? Could a friction be used to produce heat for example?

The Moon's gravitational attraction of is responsible for tide. The amount of force required to move oceans is incredible relative to our (humans) our energy producing ability. At present there are attempts to harvest wave energy but none appear scalable to level which could be used to power large portions of industry of cities. That said the energy potential seems self evident. To my knowledge Nova Scotia is one of the leaders on this front. However most systems I am aware of focus on using swells to move magnetics https://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy/top-10-things-tidal-energy Are there other ways to harness the Moon's Gravitational attraction beyond using the tide to move magnetics? Could a friction be used to produce heat for example?

+1, this is something lacking greatly in U.S. society for some time and only made worse in our current political environment. From threatening to totally destroy North Korea to telling Police Officers not to be too nice we (U.S.) are lead by those who think violence is a good solution. It isn't just Trump either. We have been watching people like George Zimmerman walk free or even treated like heros from before Trump. In the early days of the Iraq war "Shock and Awe" was used by the Bush administration to describe our military strategy. In the U.S. we have a big stick obsession. Millions in the U.S. think that not only is a good guy with a gun shooting a bad guy with a gun a reasonable solution but it's the preferred solution. We need to teach kids violence doesn't solve problems but aren't going to be able to long as us adults absolutely believe it violence totally does.

In the case of the Florida shooting there was already an armed guard on campus and they failed to stop the attack. Rather than acknowledging that as proof having guns on campus isn't the answer many are demagoguing the security guard for failing to act. Trump saying the security guard didn't "love" the students but teachers do. No one knows how they will respond to a horrific crisis. I feel a little sorry for the security guard. He didn't create the situation. He is just a normal person dropped into a extremely abnormal situation. A situation moat of those who are criticizing him have never been in. Rather than trashing the guy publicly it should be a useful example of why a good guy with a good is a fallacy. A reason to find other solutions.

Other risk factors would take out large portions of the 20-40% of households with guns. For starters we are talking specifically about school shootings. All the school shootings I am aware of the shooter was recently associated with the school. So households with guns but without children in school or recently in school won't factor in. All school shooters are male. That cuts another big slice out of the number. I will have to research the numbers when I have time but the number of households with a gun and a male school age person in the home is possibly or perhaps uneven likely less than 10% of the population. So the prevalence of guns is being over stated a bit. Other factors like mental health and access to the gun would shrink the percentage even lower. Again, I will need to research the numbers. I probably won't have time to do that till Sunday. In the OP I asked for ideas. I provided one of my own elsewhere in the thread but what I proposed is not the thread's topic. It wasn't a proposal much as it was a thought I posted. I would like others to address the OP's second question which asks what Schools can do. What I suggested is but 1 of many possible suggestions.

Being a male is another risk factor with regards to school shootings. I am not of aware of any carried out by females.

I don't understand what down side of a "false positive" would be? I have not recommended that based on risk factors administrators call the FBI, suspend a student, alert campus security, or etc. I am describing a process where teachers and administrators use the information to speak to the student and parents. If there is a false positive I don't see any harm. I apologize in advance for story time. I lived in Boise ID a while back (over a decade ago). I work at a financial office building owned by a bank. I was responsible for preparing background checks and providing the safety briefs to new hires. Part of the building contained a call center and turn over was high. We were always hiring to stay staffed. The whole building and parking lot was owned by the Bank. It was private property. One of the rules I had to brief was that guns were not allowed on property and that included the parking lot. It was one of numerous rules but the most difficult one to brief. I'd estimate that a third of the men (never had a women do it) would challenge the rule claiming it violated their rights. A few people even turned the job down and just walk away. I had numerous meetings with HR and HQ's Safety and Security Director about how combative the briefs would become. I tried using didn't language it didn't help. We tired having other people give the briefs it didn't helped. At one point we tired just not briefing it at all. Someone floated the idea that long as we people signed it in writing that from a liability stand point we were good. So I would just present them a folder full of stuff to sign and the gun policy would be mixed in. That actually work in terms of eliminating arguments. People would just fly through the paperwork without really reading it and sign everything. Eventually an employ was caught with a loaded firearm on their person in the building. When reprimanded they claimed they were never told they couldn't have a gun. Then we went back to the verbal briefs and combative exchanges. My take away from that experience was the pro gun advocates control to nature of the discussion. Despite the fact that no guns on property was policy and one of the conditions of employment for those being hired I was the one afraid of doing offending. I was the one having meetings, adjusting my language, and doing everything I could think of to appease those who were offended by the policy. It was a policy put in place for safety reasons be rendered minimally enforceable by the combative nature of a small minority. We could barely brief no guns were allowed on property never mind attempting regular training; that was off the table. I learned that we cannot simultaneously both avoid offending pro gun advocates and find solutions to gun violence. It simply cannot be done at this time. Pro gun advocates are offend by all gun control and limiting gun violence suggestions. It gives them power over the issue. Just as religion and politics aren't good to talk about at work neither are guns. Not talking about it leads to doing nothing about it. Guns kill as many people per year as cars yet we simply don't talk gun safety openly as we can car safety because passions run too hot. When I was in school before a long weekend it was normal for a teacher or coach to give a quick speech about driving safe. not drink, using condoms, saying no to drugs and etc. Never a word about guns though because the issues to sensitive. We need to get to a point where guns can be discussed openly. Wear a teach can include the work gun along side condom, car, seatbelt, drugs, etc when telling kids to be safe. At a parent conference meeting if a teacher told my parents that I had been behaving recklessly at school and that they knew I recently started driving and hoped I wasn't driving recklessly too my parents wouldn't have been offended. We need to get to a point with guns. If a teacher false positively assumes a student is sexually active and spends a couple minutes one day telling them the safety value of condoms, so what, there is no downside. ***where I grew up in California condoms were available to students by request and recommended to be used. I understand not all schools allow staff to discuss such matters. I think his stance is off topic. The OP neither demonizes Republicans or mocks the suggestion of the President.

I thought risk factor would be understood as one of something plural. I should have been more clear. One example I used was kids coming to school with bruises. Most teachers and administrators know to sit the kid down and ask about them. Likewise assuming you have ever taken any suicide training one thing recommended is to just ask people if they plan to kill themselves. It is not 100% effective (nearly nothing is) but often those considering suicide will provide useful feedback if just asked. What I am proposing is something akin to that. People (student administrators, teachers, coaches, etc) internalize various things as risk factors and be mindful to ask the questions and probe the warning signs without fear of being politically polarizing. Ask a student if there is a gun in the home, ask the parents if there is a gun home, ask about medication, and etc. Tiptoeing around guns for fear of offending people is making the type of dialog normally used to identify hazards in society impossible. Could a student lie, of course. When my doctor asks about my diet or how much booze I drink nothing stops me from lying. It isn't an absolute thing; risk factors. I am not saying school should ban kids who live in a home with a gun. Likewise my Doctor would not put me on high blood pressure medication just because I tell them I have a family history of blood pressure. What I am suggesting is more passive than that.

"President Donald Trump wants to put guns directly in the hands of teachers to keep kids safe in school. Many people are wary of the idea, but Texas already allows teachers to be armed if they go through training to become school marshals. No one will disclose exactly how many educators bring guns to Texas schools — the state has deemed that information confidential for their safety. But the Dallas lawmaker who introduced the legislation authorizing school marshals says about 100 people — mostly in smaller, rural districts — have gone through the training, though some might not have completed steps to earn certification." https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/02/22/trump-wants-arm-teachers-texas-already-allows-sort For anyone who thinks/thought the suggestion of Armed Teachers wasn't serious or that this thread was designed to be satirical. It is a real thing.

This thread asks 2 questions: would arming teachers help and what are things campus can do. That is the topic! Thus far you have focused your post on complaining about the way you feel conservatives are being posted about. Start your own thread for that. In the OP I did not reference Republicans, Conservatives, Right-Wingers, or etc .