It's some Supreme Court interpretation of free speech plus legislation. I remember Al Franken talking about this a bit in the context of a law requiring disclosure that he supported but was not successful.
Looks like the dynamic hasn't changed much since he talked about it.
My grandfather told me shortly after Kitty Hawk, posters appeared in Manhattan claiming "Soon! New York to Paris in 15 hours by air!" with glamorous people walking toward a Concorde-like airplane.
If you are going to believe the BS header video, you might as well believe this BS story.
>My grandfather told me shortly after Kitty Hawk, posters appeared in Manhattan claiming "Soon! New York to Paris in 15 hours by air!" with glamorous people walking toward a Concorde-like airplane.
To be fair, the posters were absolutely correct. It was soon after Kitty Hawk that it became possible and even commonplace to fly on commercial passenger aircraft from NY to Paris in 15 hours or less. Of course, this depends on exactly how you define "soon"...
While we're on the "wartime economy" topic - is your country currently at war? Is any EU country currently formally at war? Is the US? How would that justify a "war time economy decision"?!?
You can't just throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard just because Russia is messing in their backyard (okay - that is an understatement, but you get the point)...
No we don't need to throw democracy and regulations overboard, but we do need policies that reflect the urgency of the situation. Europe needs be entirely off of Russian gas for the foreseeable future. And unfortunately in the short run this means bringing some coal plants that were slated for decommission back online just to get through the winter.
In the slightly longer term, the rest of the world really needs to get off of fossil fuels and be cutting carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. This is critical and urgent, but not at the cost of the rule of law or democracy.
What we got is a society fully dependent on cheap electricity, that must further increase energy usage in order to prevent greater catastrophe, and which is on the verge of economic depression.
We can't throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard, but we can't continue with statue quo. Without energy we don't have working cities, agriculture stops producing food, heating and then public health starts to break down. The agricultural sector was one of the first areas that got hit when energy prices jumped.
Those things are close enough to be wartime-like, and could easily turn into actually wartime.
Yes, but most of things built during wartime are quick expedients, not long term planned things.
For example, in both WW1 and WW2 a lot of capital ship constructions were canceled in favor of cheap quick to built ships (like cheap destroyers or submarines).
The liberty ships are another example, these things were kind of obsolete at launch and not really geared toward lasting that long (5 years engineered life span).
Lastly, we are not exactly in a wartime situation. Some emergency decisions need to be made (temporary LNG terminals for example), and also Europe needs to have an hard look at its energy policies, but that's a long term and for more complex set of decisions.
A long term commitment to nuclear energy is not something that could and even should be taken in the heat of the moment.
> do you think the gas taps will just be turned back on?
Well, kind of, whatever the outcome, Russia will have depleted much of its military strength and will need to reequip its army. That costs money, so they will be more or less forced (or even willing in case of a coup against Putin) to sell gas to the EU.
The real question is more what the EU will do. Most likely, the EU (or each country individually) will really want to diversify their energy sources and maybe be more self-reliant to not be subject to one actor like it is right now.
Nuclear may be one of the responses, but it's far from the only one.
On a side note, Russia is providing ~25% of the EU's uranium right now (in fairness, this dependency is easier to circumvent compared to the gas one).
Or Kennedy Approach on the C64:
"United three two six, say heading and altitude" "This is United three two six on one eight zero at four thousand feet"...even though I knew damn well what his heading an altitude was.
Some years ago a guy called Weps made a free remake for Windows of Kennedy Approach (identical to the original, with some optional improvements). It’s still fun.
Don't get me wrong, I gave up on streaming services a long time ago and started pirating again because streaming services started being incovenient. Buying things is the most incovenient choice because the industry in general give consumers only two choices: A- cheap streaming, B- expensive physical media.
Or is this just another SBF lie?