Cleveland protests current recent officer acquittals...

   So I encounter a recent protest video that is basically a protest concerning the police handling of a protest which namely ended in the arrest of 71 people...

Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlJFiUOeUc

I've seen comments suggesting that it is not the right of people to assemble on the basis of 'disturbing the peace' of a given city, municipally speaking, I would assume where noise ordinances or something should apply in so far as 'disturbing the peace'...although I am not certain that the police in making their arrests had defined peaceful protesters as having violated any such law.  Other than apparently they were in violation of 'being a nuisance'.  Apparently, however, with any active assembly when it comes to fascist bigots on the other hand 'freedom of speech' is defended, and especially in being nuisances so much that 'shout downs' should be required by funeral goers, or that sadly enough another organized assembly for instance, clogs traffic so much that organized 'bigots' have a hard time getting to their protest site, but on the other hand, they do have a constitutional right, but on the other hand, peaceful protesters of an officers acquittal do not have such right...it would be nice if 'bigots' were arrested for disorderly nuisance, but it just so happens that is considered 'unconstitutional' as defined by a recent, not a way past, Supreme Court ruling.  Then, now I am puzzled why 'bigots' can be defended in one context, and others not defended?  I guess I'd like to have something of a distinction provided here...maybe its necessary to bury soldiers in the middle of cities where apparently public 'nuisance' laws should apply so greatly?

I don't know it sounds an awful lot like there is potentially a double standard with respect to constitutional rights, the right of free speech assembly?  I mean usually the protesters of an officers acquittal might have assembled in the actively organized sense for the one time event of a given acquittal announcement, but it seems hardly a full time 'occupation' movement, or exactly fitting to the description of 'nuisance' in my opinion.  

Legal argumentation from a constitutional standpoint that I've heard, in terms of modern interpretation, have pertained to, for instance, the nature of one's constitutional right with respect to one's ability to assembly and the space or forum being defined in allowing such.  Thus in terms of constitutional right it is a bigger deal when a city provides little space for 'free speech' assembly as opposed to where the allotment of space is plentiful and the argument say were made for right over a square of inch of turf that were disallowed.  That is, given the opportunity to assemble every where else with the same protest but choosing to do so where free speech might be restricted in the context of public access might be a less convincing case to be had in so far as arguing one's violation of free speech.  That being said, where a city has made little to no ample space for protesting may, on the other hand, fall clearly in the subset of violating freedom of speech here, or in other words, I am not so certain that it would be entirely permissible that cities entirely restrict in any given urban sphere public space those of the right to assemble in free speech by so called 'nuisance' or 'disturbance of the peace' ordinances.  Where law enforcement clearly uses 'public nuisance' laws merely as an aid to squelch assembly and protest, as opposed to indicating to such crowd where other publicly permissible space should exist on the other hand an abuse in my opinion, and could likely be in violation of constitutional rights.  It also a bigger deal when engagement between law enforcement and crowds are given neither to tactics of dispersal, but cornering and trapping crowds into a place where options of dispersal are neither given, I'd imagine, and where intent to arrest is a given?  By the way, arrest, seizure of property (printing presses back in that day) and/or violence is probably the biggest deal, I would think, to violations of Freedom of Speech compared to anything in terms of policing, and is probably where constitutional law was most intent in purpose to combat against in terms of definition because it is the most impacting in terms of use of power.

   In any event to a comment suggesting that 'noise', 'disturbance of peace' laws emphatically apply in so far as use of public space whenever and where, the answer is NO.  This is not correct.   A look up on basic legal advice on this matter, for instance, does indicate there is a legal possibility that any speech may be defended under First Amendment rights if ever a 'disturbance of the peace' charge is used against you.  I am guessing the same could be applied for 'nuisance' potentially here.

http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/control.html

Also provides some supplement information distinguishing the types of speech afforded the highest level of protections versus 'content-neutral' speech.  Also mentions things which can control the degree of latitude provided in so far as public assembly, namely, things like threats of violence.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/neil-degrasse-tysons-answer-to-innovation-stagnation-a-space-race-to-mars-20150525-gh9gys.html

Neil de Grasse Tyson suggests rekindling old Cold War-esque visions?  Respectfully in one context for the popular science speaker Neil, a little logic is in order here.  We may actually be coming out of a mini Cold War not going over hauling and rekindling a major one here.  Secondly it would appear that big government spending is beginning to wind down for anti terrorism efforts, which could be the equivalent of a cold war fight for previous decades.  Then I have seen recent suggestions that cuts in military spending have put the U.S. supposedly slated to loose air superiority.  I am not certain I exactly believe this, but as to cuts in military spending, yes, it seems likely, and much of this could be in the area of DARPA appropriations and other like kind programs.  We aren't clearly at war with the Russians and even if anti Westernism is a given at times potentially in the East, it would appear far more nuanced in language and neither so clearly bellicose.  These goofy 'space races' if you will in my opinion shouldn't be the drivers of technological innovation, and anyways, Nasa has hinted a desire for pioneering exploration on a smaller level, in the way that I have heard others including myself directly suggest.  Why not go nano?  Why not save humanity all that extra money...anyways the Indian government apparently has found a way at slashing budgets and they haven't sacrificed human lives (as far as we know) sending robots to do the exploratory work which honestly ounce for ounce in terms of cost is far cheaper and more apt to answer generally a lot more questions than one human setting foot on Martian soil would answer setting a goofy American flag there.    Secondly, I think far more questions are likely better to be answered not through socially and politically engineered competitive ventures, where some have ventured so far as to say that there were hoaxes perpetrated by Governments with clear incentive of bolstering their image, relative to cooperative ventures that maybe a have a little less incentive in lying and more incentive in being honest to people about the role of the mission and exactly what its meant to serve in so far as goals.  The bigger problem I see with respect to social divisions engineered less cooperatively, is that less brain power synergy is allocated in the collective sense to tackling problems.  Divided use of resources can hinder progress.

   Honestly it is for the better really.  The space shuttle was a big showy piece of mass designed to shuttle people back to the Earth for the romance of ideas coupled to military industrial purposes that left much of its return to Earth cargo space unused and unwieldy at times and especially costly.  Unused cargo space with space flight then as it is now at a premium should have long since axed such a program and amazingly it took some time to get this program decommissioned.  All because the Shuttle supposed served to ideological romantic fantasies between purposing compromise that likely should have grounded it from the start.  Did government or money provoke innovation?  Or at least I might suggest that the writings of Contact suggest rightly what at times ails public sectors investments.  Better to be done with governments that hand wring project interests in a myriad of ways in warping and twisting something into a behemoth and a costly one at that.  Of course, Too many cooks at times spoil the stew.

I am sort of chuckling I wasn't paying attention to the Google doodle Sally Ride tribute to the first woman in space, or apparently so much the vessel used in getting her there.  I had to stink on the vessel with some fair criticism.

NPR show's moralists for 'privacy' versus 'secrecy'

   Local NPR station does the favor of providing a tabloid author's sentiments in covering the Rob Ford story.  :D

   The author(s) of such a story remind people therein why privacy matters using such example, or in other words, that 'we need a private space to do bad things.'  :D

I am not so certain what 'bad' exactly means...if its masturbation that isn't exactly bad, or forbid that we should have legislation criminalizing such behavior in this country.

The memorial day talk segment goes onto characterize 'secrecy' as bad...really?!
This definition wouldn't be provided if 'secrecy' meant communications encryption for the sake of protecting innocent dissident lives fleeing from a U.S. defined war torn dictatorship?  'Secrecy'  I might imagine might be applied to the grandmother shielding from public view a 'secret sauce' recipe list?   Secrecy could apply with respect to those having made a living selling a formulation for a product that weren't wholly known, or generally while the industrial world abounds in industrial trade and production secrets, if it were coveted in the individual sense, it might be evil.

Secrecy is the evil as to why mystery and the meaning of life aren't immediately provided to us.
Secrecy is the evil as to why others hadn't dare spoken what they were truly thinking, or at least hadn't dare convey to us that we might actually be right in our thoughts.

Privacy on the other hand is uplifted since it implies that we provide an exemplary way and conduct about our lives.  As though we coexist in the light which supposedly makes us transparent about the world, but generally choose not to do so even if it is far from true that we might have so much desire in making ourselves transparent to the human confessional of church state.  Nearing closer to omission, I have recalled another segment under the TED talks banner having mentioned the castigation of the lesser and lowly for having committed so much sin.  Castigation leading  to exiles in the flock, all the while sin were committed in the more egregious manner by church leader.  It is ironic isn't it?  Such a definition of 'secrecy' given for a personal context, and never given more often than not castigation of institution?

Secrecy is often the 'veil' in concealment to one's activities when one also has done no wrong, and others are lured by one's use of secrecy.  After all those arguing might use the political logic that wrong doing therefore must have been committed if 'secrecy' weren't evidence enough.  After years of this narrative, documents are released public, and all for naught nothing of wrong doing is given...albeit wasting taxpayer time and money in the process of attempting to uncover wrong doing  because 'secrecy' were employed compelling others to see that wrong doing must be occurring, yet it is along the defensible line given by any government in providing anything that need be defended for the sake of national security.

I have said little of secrecy up till now, nor should I hope have confused terminology or having made false moral precedence of such language.

I wonder who hires these talk show people?

But thanks to synthetic light shown its people, transparency might have revealed any contempt for a social body that would make less human, the humanity of one individual or group of individuals?  At least to usher in one social revolution and having tossed old mores aside given through the roof hypocrisy?

Moralists make use of 'I have nothing to hide' and having all the while being exemplary to the eyes of Cathedral, and there is an omission of thought or that one might not have thought that were any expectancy in like kind.  The truth is that there would never be anything in the fullest given in like kind here, and why should there ever be anything of the fullest given?  That is, we are to prove that we are worthy, not the other way around.  It remind me so much of a sermon that one might expect...and Cathedral couldn't be more infallible.  Is it so hard to accept iconoclasm of the State?!

I've heard another speak of the concerns in so many words of secular 'idolatry'.  That is, in terms of a meaning that I have understood, a belief and faith in a country as it were wholly 'religious' in meaning.  'Religious' in the context that its symbols are without reproach, and that its connection at times to values and principles couldn't be more at odds.  What use are ideas and political philosophy if at times there is little connection given in reality?  That is where faith is left with respect to the belief in a given institution because of the traditions of its existence, because it is nonetheless expected.   The less childish narrative given to us, is one that the world couldn't be more chaotically at odds, and that the only right choice in life were one given to that of 'order', that secular right having descended from Hobbes, or the necessary sacrifice given for individual liberty were that existential necessity of state precedence in limiting the rights of man.  You are to read Shakespeare and be settled with Elizabethan social antiquities as applicable to today's reality.  Were you convinced that you continued to need sacrifice your rights so heavily in aiding the state here?  Were you convinced that Cathedral would collapse at a moments amid all political and social turbulence and disarray otherwise?  I know I see dangers in the quiet streets lurking all about me.  That a dangerous social revolution were gaining foothold, and that the State should secure itself so much more in the face of these dangers.  It is true that the sacrifices made by the State have meant shielding power and wealth, as one might expect in the litany of repetitions, in so far as criminal wrong doing in so far as financial sectors of our economy, and they have in turn at times bestowed a shown idolatrous patriotism.  It is true that they have been profiteers of war, and so much sacrifice for the sake of individual liberty not be necessity but in having the power alone in deciding while less right might be given to all others in questioning.

It is the last hurrah of the state mouthpiece I know, a tabloid's self memoir on their feelings about their 'art'.  They had job security here, maybe for some time to come, or maybe the next day as the other tenuous as ever.

Bernie Sanders could be reproachful here, but maybe not, in the general context of dialogue, a sad society should want as much to sweep under the rug the equivalent of a forgotten war.

Where to go from here?

I am not certain actually what happens in the future.  I doubt things remain exactly the same.  For instance, I think Hollywood itself could be impacted by the changes coming June 1rst.  :D

This could mean, for instance, a change in castings, exactly who gets hired or fired, or the types of movies promoted in recent decades...less overt propagandist war films to be exact, or even other types of films that could be merely contrived in the manner of a smear campaign of one sort or the other, not that these promoted films or media entertainment might have been entirely successful for all the money spent in advertising.  Hmm, career endings I am not certain exactly who?

To wait and see.

In the meantime a memorable film worth noting

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073858/
    

A Potential Silent Ending to a More Significant Time Era

    I am thinking personally of the past impact, over the course of more than a decade, concerning the ending of the Patriot Act and what this has meant.   On the one hand, if you asked any average American what they knew about the Patriot Act and its provisioning of surveillance, they might not be so knowledgeable, and I would admit here even knowing very little of the likely obscurities written into the law providing so much secrecy in so far as the handling of massive spying and surveillance.  On the other hand, I've felt inclined to draw parallels between governmental spying in previous decades, and the at times over social polarities drawn where lines of division between Journalistic press in so far as reporting could amount to more obvious social distinction.  For instance, Hoover style lies and smear campaigns should seem more obvious to people in such a day in conjuring up social polarities.  If it hadn't been for these types of distinctions maybe, the civil rights movement might not have been catalyzed as strongly as it were alongside other social political justice campaigns that came to a head, for instance, in the sixties.  On the other hand, the seeming avoidance in practice and similarity in modern times point to, in my opinion, another sophistication, government manipulation of the press while simultaneously having eroded journalistic press freedoms, for example.  Obviously and where a government won its longevity in the continuance of a program having lost popular support weren't because it had made so much the case in bolstering successes in obvious ways.  It hadn't done much of this, at least it kept information pertaining to actions of programs provisioned from such act hidden away from the American public.  Even if national security related agencies were in fact declassifying information to tout the bolstering of anti terrorism, the clear role if any with respect to the much broader surveillance programs enabled were not supplied, and its amazing that operations could continue largely unquestioned and unabated as it had for as long as it had even likely one should imagine as the most damning parts of secret operations were being revealed and reported on.
    I think in hindsight most Americans in this and potentially future generations will fail to realized the social significance of just what went on in such time era that should seem at times a social netherworld of a twilight zone.  It weren't that we as Americans were hoodwinked by Paris Hilton, New Jersey Housewives, or merely that we might have been cherry picked for some legal entrapment sting that put us in prison for an illegal Jenna Jameson scheme, all in the name of counter terrorism.  It is that we allowed ourselves to be so complicit in the process, in tolerance and continuance of the social distinctions made for the 'rights' and 'wrongs'.  The scope of the patriot act weren't just about counter terrorism, for instance, or when having defined 'suspicion', this could have been as likely in such a time era given to old grandmother looking up the wrong crochet pattern at the wrong time, or personally it seems there could be less 'freedom' given to the dissent of opinions on the matter of opinions.  That is, where social tolerances might have waned so much that anything warranting 'suspicion' were given by the alms of civil social political disagreements.  Here the FBI were secretly given protocols in the reclassification under a new investigation body heading, that is, not merely that evidence with respect to a 'preliminary' versus 'active' investigation but also given to a more nebulous third classification (see also http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-warrantless-spying-is-doubted-in-declassified-reports.html ).  As it turns out, as in the case of CIA interrogation tactics complained about by CIA agents, for instance, interrogating potential 'terrorist' suspects, the information often yielded to the FBI agent were little more than telephone information without any further investigating supplements...as it turns out with 'enemy combatant' detainee interrogation programs, low level CIA officials complained about being in a similar position where little information might have often been provided with respect to such detainee's background, and that much of that might supposedly be revealed through such interrogations.  As it turns out the FBI were given with this third classification of evidence, only vague whereabouts of information concerning what exactly they might be looking for when sifting data coming from say a given telephone number, for example.  The problem here were that a presumption of guilt were supplied without so much reason, and clearly what FBI agents might have been looking for when sifting data from a telephone number was their best guess, or where the failure of dragnet surveillance likely were that likely there might never be any reason given to the phone number that generally went unquestioned in terms of reception for surveillance.  Thus someone's spouse could be found out having an affair, or their children sneaking out in the middle of the night to the parent's unaware could be as likely suspicious as anything that a government had a hand in desiring to know.  There wouldn't under such classification be any particular reason for surveillance other than what might be found and with respect to when surveillance might reasonably exist, anyone's best guess.  Although it may be less clear that any past or previous administration, used in the clearest ways information to smear and slander individuals targeted programs culminating with these attempts and having gathered such information under the auspices of national security.
    The NSA takes the blame, but likely the implication of the Patriot Act's expiration is broader than that, and potentially one should hope it leads to sane undoing of all that were massive breaching of ordinary privacy world wide.

Personal reflections, the lesser known, and conjecture

    I think back reflecting over the times, that security breaches weren't merely another voyeur on the system to parrot what it is that I had said through cryptic social networking interference.  I imagine this likely weren't just another voyeur, or at least where the hand of intrusion might have malicious started an intrusion much deeper than that.  Here somehow, it seems hard for me, for instance, to decouple such a time era marked by cyber bullying where it seems secret conspiratorial social organization between civilians and non civilians should be aligned in some privacy breaching in a nefarious way.   This weren't merely programs or applications incidentally compromised by someone in Europe or Russia for that matter, or more likely such an individual were more likely from the U.S. and maybe exploitation of security here were given as likely from governmental funding that could be linked in some way to the Patriot Act itself.  It were true in the past, for instance, that goonish groups of individuals directed and organized (at the behest of leadership in government) in a way to insinuate themselves in public settings there to disrupt and cause chaos to public demonstrations of one sort or another.  In today's time era, this behavior (although seldom reported about) has shifted as I have imagined it.  If a governmental agency should provide an securities exploitation that makes for giving access by others, it seems all that the others would need were the compliment application interface to further engage in abuse of privacy.  Here the scope of what the Patriot Act facilitated, I believe, went far beyond things like massive dragnet surveillance, but even had so much corporate cooperation to leave security vulnerabilities intact for instance, and arguably more so.  It weren't just that those doing the spying could come across as sick psychopathic and belligerent man children at times operating like electronic poltergeists on one's system, or even that there should clear given distinction between them and say East German Stasi.  If and when this should seem more apparent those doing the spying might have operated worse, because this had involved and made use of American citizenry in doing the spying on other citizens.  If this were true, not only lacking protocol but likely the effect of this were the unleashing of massive abuses in so far as power, tame words, cyber bullying are used here which limit the scope and capacity between goon actors and the shield being provided here for the proxy.  It seems at least in theory these ideas might be bolstered given at times local law enforcement reticence in tackling the matter of cyber bullying, illegal theft and illegal account/domain access which under other circumstance would not be tolerated at all.  That is, breaking and entering clearly labeled and prosecuted under criminal law as anyone else also kidnapping and holding individuals hostage, but with respect to electronic crimes, permission?  Why?

   In retrospect, I can honestly say that I hope whatever social phenomenon that supposedly seem to have arisen during such late time era is coming to a close.  That it, is the last days of personal intrusions to the scope and extent personally experienced are coming to a close, and this potentially means looking less over the shoulder.  That I should less likely encounter the unusually hostile employee at a local business establishment.  That I should less likely feel having been tailed and followed when having traveled briefly on a given vacation outside the country, or inside my own country tailed and clearly made to feel having been watched by another patron in the bar, whom rudely might have persistently and deliberately engaged in maintaining clear eye contact, or having encountered the classic cloak and dagger repose of the long striding six foot seven man with long dark trench coat tailing you for seemingly little reason, except that somewhere along the line, you did something out of the ordinary post 911 having drawn the suspicion in the first place.   Maybe it were being too American, and having the desire to move out of your home town on a whim without having known really anyone to the city that you relocated too, over a decade ago?   Maybe it were because it were also living in a more popular coastal American city?   Maybe it were that you once played in a Heavy Metal band?  Maybe it were that someone you knew had interests in jewelry design?  Maybe it were that you also had anti war convictions that someone along the lines spurred furthered interests?  It is true I weren't into amassing weapons of any sort and still could care less for guns, and then even if I were a non violent type somehow feeling as though one might have been an emblematic figurehead of sorts.  Maybe most others hadn't noticed so much or pretended not to notice what could be made noticeable.  Any possible personal conversation on this were likely, I should imagine given to reticence, or as likely as comically as this should ironically sound, amid the right wing paranoia chatter, one should hear in so many words someone trying to insist in some manner that 'ideas like that are not only dangerous ones but mean something of a danger of one's mental capacity towards oneself and others.'  Others might have pretended to neither have witnessed what you might have witnessed, or pretended in the sense of saying things like 'why would someone bother with all the expense of doing exactly that?'   Is it harder to respond to this?  Is it hard to say that technology has made spying a much cheaper endeavor than it ever has been?  Is it hard to say that goonish government thugs spied on everyday average American's in the past for little reason at times?  Is it hard to say that spy ware applications can be developed and can be used and that this might not cost a lot in doing so for those engaged in the behavior?  You are told, of course, 'just a peon, like everyone else in so many words...' or that alone should provide little incentive...unfortunately this logic doesn't always hold its weight.  The reasons have been stated.  Its hard to see controversy in this when in previous decades, congress authorized more massive spying for the sake of security.  Its not unreasonable that this logical outcome would result when an event so rare should happen did happen, and a then president warned people that it takes 'just one incident' in reference to a terrorist event...yes and so the world could be potentially ended by a meteorite and less money is spent there, but it is possible, yes that people could actually be paid not only to 'invent' their roles justifying money, but also having 'invented' the role by which massive spying were necessary if the money were there to reinforce the justification by it.  In that twilight zone of a time era, social complicity abounding should be given to in so many words, it weren't right having a different view of things.  As much given to the aim of pretending, bleeding heart liberalism might have balked at times immediately post 911 at the suggestions of operating a 'shadow' government or the contrivances of a post cold war makeshift cheapo bomb shelter suggestions:  duct tape and clear plastic tarps.  Most it seems might have fallen short and silent in going beyond that.  A Moore film encapsulated the absurdities of literally made use of ground operatives infiltrating grandma activist organizations surely, but it hadn't exactly ended there in that immediate post 911 few years thereafter aftermath.  The troubling aspects about all this were that the impression might have been given that things would end under Obama, but Obama's recent attorney general appointee would offer the Neo con/Ne liberal defense of a new revised act, or in other words, the Obama administration could be in so many words a surrogate for continuance in policy making, notwithstanding that he waffled on the Guantanamo prison camps, its not hard to see why.  What Obama has failed to appreciate is that at times, he has seemed to be pretty much a very similar continuance of Bush in many respects to governing this nation, and that he might have amply supplied and having bought more time for all the proponents that should have his administration sounding like the Ford administration at the tail end of Vietnam.  Of course, a little some a little too late, and sounding pretty half ass ed really for dealing with the inevitable which were likely a congressional check in coming.

What likely I hope is learned of this surveillance program in such a time era is how much of a 'circus' it really were, and how much un democratic this country became in the process of supposedly defending itself for what could have been more finely approached in so far as domestic security revisions.  America in such times sold itself down the river in so far as democracy for knee jerk political reactionaries, and especially for those looking to exploit and take of advantage of tax payers in the process, but it were more than that.  I think lives may have been genuinely ruined and lost because of this act and not for the better of the country.  The Patriot Act I think ruined lives not for better security.  I think this should be important in noting. 

Geo Engineering Weather Modification

Here are some considerations:

The common mechanism for rain transport comes by way of our Sun, evaporation of water, and water having re condensed in our upper atmosphere to form rain droplets...
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

While this is the general mechanism for our given rain water cycle, this becomes much more complex in consideration to the huge number of variables that should effect where rain may likely fall versus those area which should unlikely not see as much rainfall.  For instance, it may be that living in proximity to a large oceanic body of water and being coastal does not always guarantee that rain will fall owing to any number of other factors effecting water vapor transport, subsequent condensation and rain fall in such location.  This likely can be given predictable likely seasonal variations at times, especially given the predominance of atmospheric conditions predominating.

A brief consideration of climate change and the impacts of glaciation and all ramification of an Earth headed the pathway of the snowball.  When glaciation is on the rise, of course, more water, not less tends to be in the Earth's atmosphere relative to warmer times.  Not that rain doesn't fall during inter glacial minimums, but one would expect a much drier and colder Earth in general.  On the other hand, when our oceans are warmer and have subsequently more heat energy added into the mix, one might expect overall that atmospheric concentrations of water vapor to be higher here relative to inter glacial minimums.  Thus while some area might be impacted also by climate change in the way of less rain fall others might be impacted by more rainfall not less.

Obviously if you wanted to geo engineer rainfall.  You might find ways of ensuring that energy transport mechanisms are in place to do what needs to be done to ensure that atmospheric concentrations of water vapor are higher, not less.  But here is the interesting rub...water evaporation (owing to thermodynamics) tends to cool a given surface while the heat energy used in forming such water vapor gives way to water vapor rising from the Earth's surface into its atmosphere, and then putting more water vapor into the atmosphere tends to also lead not only to more rain, but gives way to a heat exchange cycle.  Once rain condenses upon returning back to the earth's surface leads yet to more cooling because of water's high specific heat capacity (that is, the amount of energy necessary to make water boil).   This is why the differences between deserts and the tropics amount to vastly different micro climates because desert environments to hold a lot less water, and thus have less thermal insulation ensuring less variability between say daytime highs and night time lows.  On the other hand, the most sub tropical wet regions not only receive the most amount of average sunlight energy throughout the year, but are also likely to have much higher latent moisture found distributed throughout such region.  This moisture both acts as an energy insulator, and tends to buffer a region from much higher temperatures that might result, for example, in the same latitude but being generally much drier.   Also forming clouds themselves, tend also to lead to less input energy, for instance, where cloud formations on average are more often and where water evaporation transport is greater.  For instance, where there are more clouds found over our oceans may certainly impact the degree of water evaporation since there is, in theory, less sunlight energy being absorbed by a major body of water such as an ocean in a given region.  Thus if there are year that one might characteristically describe as having much higher densities of cloud formation, one might expect that the effect could be a cooling one in so far as potential global climate and temperature change.  Then to add complications to this, ocean surface temperatures should likely effect evaporation transport, or as water molecules that are in generally more kinetically excited across the board are likely to be subject to evaporation transport.  Warmer oceans aid this, but at times there may oscillations in the energy exchange cycles of our oceans, that is, where body masses of water accumulate in more northern or southerly regions relative to say an originating source from which it came that likely lead to the potential of a greater chance of precipitation over such region and elsewhere.  It is also interesting to note that seasonally speaking desert environments tend to have less latent relationships between seasonal solar maximums versus non desert environments.  This is no quinky dink!  Obviously desert environments take less input energy to warm up relative to non desert environments that tend to be more water latent and hence requiring more input sunlight energy to hit a maximum.  Thus likely for thermal seasonal maximums, one might expect in much wetter regions to come later relative to a given solar seasonal maximum.

On the other hand, where climate were teetering between being warmer versus colder, there might be things aiding in the residual way to increase the likelihood of a wetter atmosphere.  Obviously water while shielding our planet from temperature extremes, also is a heat trapping compound, but not only water, other compounds such as CO2 may do the same trick when given to high enough concentrations.  The warmer the atmosphere means less interdependence upon the sun in provisioning necessary energy needed for water evaporation transport.  Or simply put, while one could put a mirror array up in the sky to focus say sunlight energy in further stimulating energy input to a given region (this might be a big undertaking by the way), for instance, directly.  On the other hand, if you wanted to stimulate a wetter earth in general, you'd need simply to raise global temperatures worldwide.  Heat trapping gases and compounds seem an excellent way to go to geo engineering things this way!  Now if you were wondering why places like SoCal or California in general might drier than one might expect (more recent extreme drought not withstanding)...the Pacific Ocean after all is near by, on the other hand relative to the Atlantic Ocean which for our North American continent side has different off shore flow currents.  For instance, the Atlantic on our side of the pond tends to run from south to north, where more Northerly areas of the Atlantic receive more energy not less from a given water body.  This has the effect, on the Atlantic side, of not only making more Northerly extremes, in terms of climate, moderate in so far as temperatures, but also aids in the increased likelihood of precipitation, not only on the Amercias side but also in Europe.  On the other hand, the Pacific waters on the North American side run from North to South, or much cooler waters relatively speaking, for those having been to both coasts can testify.  These cooler waters not only make on shore living a lot cooler during what might be potential summer extremes (especially right on the coast), but this tends to inhibit rainfall.  It is why the Western Coastal regions of the United States are generally drier and cooler relative the Atlantic side during a given summer season (and generally year round...excepting some unique locations), not to mention that on the Atlantic coastal side that there is a large continental body mass also pushing atmospheric heat energy into these regions with predominate westerly to easterly air flow.

Fortunately for us, the NSA need not handle the task of handling our planet's climate change alone!  We are likely well up to handling this task for ourselves each and everyday we step into our cars, fill our tanks, and subsequently filling our upper atmosphere with the necessary ingredients for more rain!  At least in some regions!   Fortunately water and water vapor alike shield our planet, for instance from getting to hot and extreme, but when it does get hot or cold, it seems it can take some to either cool things off, or warm things back up.  Climate records, for instance, show these sorts of trends.

It must be safe on IO

Actually I considered Miller's Planet...or whatever this supposed planet were conjectured moving with such hyper velocity that relativity mattered.   It seems where angular momentum matter, and one weren't flung from the planet, albeit, it seems where tidal forces were so great that much of the time might look like one's time around the Bay of Fundy, until the big giant massive wave dropped a thousand meters of water for an off load.  Here I am thinking gravitational forces a bit too large are actually problematic in the way of geologic activity, or in other words, it could be really on Miller's planet, that volcanism were too much a problem year after year.  Its not only that you try to raise people that were screwed in terms of future life ...they get off the planet finally only to discover the universe aged enough so that nearby stars literally popped out of existence, or at least other planets somewhere, and really that the probability for life elsewhere in such galaxy had grown really dim.   Really IO might not seem that bad...Jupiter for tidal forces, and the moon,  one big giant Yellowstone theme park, but not bad by comparison.

Where else would you go anyways if you had a choice?  I know most having some knowledge might have answers, but I find the question interesting here.  Yes, I might be more apt to say somewhere, but I am not sure where, certainly not here, but if here maybe a mile down the road, a number of right turns, or as it is claimed by statisticians, car wrecks seem to be most probable by way of the left hand and not the right hand turn (conversely so in Great Britain).  It is supposedly why this rule means FedEx drivers are trained to route find neglecting certain turns and thus reducing the number of potential accidents.  In this case, if you were completely free even to go any where in the universe where might you go?  If given the opportunity, would you go?  Would you stay?  

I assure you this idea wouldn't be sacrificial, not in the sense that you'd serve any expense in loss of luxury for travel, or that in such travel, if you could imagine such this would like traveling while feeling as though not having traveled so far.  You'd have all the same accommodations, the same city, the same place even, it wouldn't be the same, not as in really the same, but it would seem much the same, maybe, only safer as one could imagine.  Only you might look up into the window of the universe, and see that things were not certainly the same, but this might be so only if you trained yourself, or were trained well enough to sense the changing pattern in the position and alignment of the stars as you were traversing through such space well on your way to where ever it is that you were headed.   Assuredly, such a place would not be an echo, or entirely unresponsive to your thoughts, or neither too responsive, or too much of anything unless it weren't representative enough in so far as your thoughts.  Only it seems within reason, something is missed here if it weren't otherwise so.  For instance, biology to live in a steel contraption in terms of conscious life, especially given to artificial wind...visual queues in film suggest that Astronauts put up cut outs of paper grass nearest the air duct to simulate wind!

I hadn't lost the opportunity in stating this feeling that another sacred idea arose in mind.  Yes I am to wonder whether you or I or anyone actually makes it in such a journey.  At least the idea that one might die abroad such a vessel that were traveling beyond the span of individual human lifetimes and that apparently a simulated life were in keeping to the parameters of neither extending life in as much allowing life to seem as it should in the continual order of life abroad.  Of course, the terms and conditions of travel, hadn't precluded the possibility of terminating travel altogether, or at least where it were possible, you were whisked away back to home safe and sound, where simulators all along had measured all activity where you once resided, and the continuity of your life having been re inserted back into such place weren't neglected.  You had the hard to forgiving simulators which put certain relationships on the rocks that were doomed from the outset but irretrievably right in so far as assessment.  So right that this should seem unbearable, but it is true that this should better than existing in a belief that were a lie.  At least where it were there were no possibility in reconciling or amending something that were likely as steadfastly destined in so far as outcomes.  Someone else got lonely...and where were simulators to create the non existential state of a person so that one should feel less lonely?  

Life is never so frivolous or easy...here returning back to the guarantors and the terms of travel...yes considering time dilation only moving time so that one's absence that should seem forever like a life time were only a few milliseconds in length.  There is never an easy way out of this.  Could you imagine a few milliseconds that had turned into a marriage, a number of kids, growing old, and then having expected to resume another life that one had forgotten about (in their time) a few milliseconds before?  You wake up, and, oh Jesus, you are back in that old city, still at that job where you had forgotten all about what it was that you did on a daily basis that were likely so forgettable.  You had to say goodbye even when it were that the old life were suddenly thrust right back into your lap.   You had to say good bye because in a few milliseconds all that had changed with a forever lifetime laid at your doorstep.   Your wife is crying, she doesn't understand a word of what you are saying.  A friend keeps calling you that you hadn't exactly liked but didn't annoy you so much that you outright blocked from calling you, but now you had readied all of this.  You packed up your things and said 'C'est la vie!'  You told her, and she still had a hard time understanding that you had aged fifty years in a few milliseconds, even if you're hair hadn't turned grey.  It weren't responsible honestly to erase your memory, it weren't responsible to try and reinsert you seamlessly back into a past while having you retain a memory of another present and future that hadn't existed or had existed rendering absence in mind of a past.  There were no way of getting around these terms and conditions.  Once having left on some voyage, the likelihood that departures could be final farewells.  You'd retain memories, you wouldn't be deceived, you wouldn't be lied too... 

You considered what it is and why it were that you were traveling.  

Yes it seems to mean something going else where.   

A previous life would begin to fade from memory as you departed, even in those days of yearning when you longed in relating all experiences to people that were no longer there, and in that time, solitude.   At least where, you could least be bothered by vacuous space or its seemingly colder infinity.  You coexisted as likely living as could be anywhere else that were assured, at least there would be such a spot for meditation reserved, so you meditate until having fallen asleep, and likely neither having awoken for some seventy hours since it were as likely, nothing there to disturb your sleep as you might have instructed, nothing were there to calibrate your circadian clock.  Night lasted forever, and beyond forever.  On such a special day, however, when you kept to forbidding courage in outlasting another unfitting outburst of yawn threatening one back into another slumber, you arrived on IO.  Yes a request of all places to go here relative anywhere else in the universe.  The trip itself did actually take approximately a week of travel.  

   

Big technological revolution when energy storage is addressed

   We take for granted that energy is produced day in day out, but the problem of distribution of energy into a given grid is big task, and therein another problem which is that the storage of energy could be neglected in so far as the ability of any one person were concerned, outside of computing devices or any technology which generally used electricity to a lesser capacity relative to much other living circumstances.  On the other hand new technological inventions are proving potentially beneficial in terms of storing surplus energy where it could be especially useful, or in other words, harvesting stored energy, for instance, when demand cycles in the electric grid are higher means potential cost savings for using surplus stored energy when grabbing such energy at times of lower demand rate (when the cost per kwh, for instance were cheaper).  One particular use of storing such energy comes by way of freezing water, for instance, when the cost of electricity is typified by well predicted periodic demand (and hence cost) fluctuations (e.g, consider in the summer  when electric demand rates are higher mid day relative post mid night especially where the use of cooling systems tend to be in maximum use).  One thermal cooling exchange system actually generates ice from water at night when costs are lower in producing, and then uses this stored 'energy' in the day time in provisioning coolant energy.  One might add this is especially beneficial not only to utilities themselves in augmenting energy use especially in reducing grid stress loads when it were more common place that surplus cheaper energy were stored for re use at a later time, hence reducing peak time use loads.
    The more modern energy problem isn't that stored energy can't be found somewhere resident in nature.  After all, the famous energy mass equation tells us there is a tremendous amount of potential energy found in matter in general, and then consider other forms found in hydro carbons (e.g., fossil fuels), but much of this is given as a thermally released kinetic energy when it is to be used.  Thus, when it comes to the harvest and use of energy, predominantly technology relies upon the releasing the thermal forms of this energy and then kinetically transforming this battery 'stored' energy into electrical energy, for instance, as in a turbine driven by pressure state changes which in turn is coupled to a electro magnetic coil which in turn produces electricity, and this is how much of the world's harvested energy is presently generated (at least I emphasis primarily although trends are starting to change).  The bigger problem in using say fossil fuel hydro carbons, however, is that the rate of consumption is neither in keeping to the rate of replenishment (only a hundred years into the hurdle of one technological revolution) leads us with much greater rapidity diminishing the supply side of stored solar energy that were once given plant/vegetation matter that were long since distilled into the recesses of our earth.  One would remind this were old fashioned solar technology having produced such stored energy, or if we forget, our fossil fuels were solar energy created products (either more directly or indirectly).   Having illustrated commonly stored and used forms of energy, it seems that a more direct conversion and storage of electrical energy tends to be less commonly found, and I'd add to this problem the inherent issues in using hydro carbons in producing electricity.  One, thermal efficiency conversion to kinetic energy while efficient aren't maximally efficient (meaning there is typified loss of energy in such process) usually this is given by loss of thermal energy before having translated into the kinetic energy driving, for instance, the turbine.  Albeit improvements in recent decades have increased efficiency here by way of thermal recapture systems incorporated into such power generation systems, or if one considers the battery here.  All the inefficiencies given by way of diffuse light energy producing the hydro carbon would typically lead to yet more added inefficiency in the direct production of electricity.  Also consider, for example between the car engine and specifically designed to produce electricity power generators, and one would note differences between the two.  Namely, the car engine is generally maximized around producing kinetic energy, while the power generator (for electricity) is maximized around producing electricity.  At least if you hooked up a power invert er to that car engine you might produce enough energy to power a few light bulbs but nothing more since much of that energy is intended for translated into kinetically driving the car mechanically as opposed to powering light bulbs.  Hence it does matter, how systems are designed in, for instance, harnessing thermal heat energy and translating this to kinetic energy which is then in turn translated into electrical energy.
    Ironically while I've read some state that electrical batteries are a waste of production effort, given one cost, mass and size.  On the other hand, when one cuts out all the middle mechanics used in producing electricity, direct solar to electrical energy conversion is exceedingly efficient relative to fossil fuel energy in so far relative to all the waste accumulated in the later process.  Its just that we hadn't considered all the externalized loss in so far as setting the price of harvested crude oil, for example.  Considering then that solar technology is steadily improving in so far as efficiency (picture below shows a timeline of this) .

Added to this, cost production have also trended in the way of being cheaper

Worth also noting here that Commercially available solar cells (as of 2006) reached system efficiencies between 5 and 19%  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency)

And that yet the technology is yet below theoretical maximums for existing materials, it seems that photo voltaics still have yet much expansion, and this assuming that neither alternative lower cost materials aren't found elsewhere in the near future.

The cost per kwh of solar having dropped significantly in recent decades (see also http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0) even potentially below the cost of traditional utilities in some markets also indicates stronger competitive leveraging  for solar in energy markets here.  If likely progress is given for solar technology, its not hard in seeing that future technology in harvesting energy of this type isn't even more so a given.

    Where it seems the downside of being able to benefit and use solar, on the other hand, at the moment has relied upon having ample enough and profitable enough space in harvesting such energy, and then I might add in lieu of the other scope of this problem.  If one were producing energy (that weren't going back into a utilities electrical grid that weren't constantly maximizing the distribution of electricity for us), there'd be waste energy, and even given any potential grid distributive maximum, I would offer that one technology mentioned at the outset, namely, the thermal coolant battery speaks of something even problematic given by electrical generation today.  Neither is production so perfect that well known periodic demand cycles would make storing energy actually beneficial at off peak times.  This is to say that our economic models of energy distribution speak of potential inefficiencies in power distribution, and that actually over abundance of energy versus under abundance of energy product results in economic cost differentials found here, or in other words, it seems that even our traditional utilities could benefit in the way of conserving and storing power here.
   This other aim of mine in this essay of mine is that in harvesting energy and finding better long term storage means for such electricity, we'd likely find more homes potentially in the way of investing towards an independent energies future.  One because maximum efficiency is necessarily periodic in nature, at least governed by received solar energy at maximum optimal power generating times of the year versus less optimal times, but also indicated by weather conditions and anything else here.  The other portion of this problem is that 'off the grid' living necessarily means that mostly all such excess energy is wasted.  As in the Electric Vehicle parity problem which relates density of stored energy, considering that a gallon of gasoline stores approximately 33.7 kwh s of energy relative to a larger mass volume electric battery storing around 14.4 kwh of energy its easier to see that gasoline as stored energy has advantages here in the energy storage solutions problem, and it is incidentally one reason why electric vehicles have been severely disadvantaged for a long time (see also EV parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery. ) and still continues to be disadvantaged.  Then considering that a market price battery equivalent of gasoline only costs $2.34 per gallon where I live at present, and that while being completely expendable on the other hand is extremely cheap.  The other mass energy storage alternative comes at a much higher cost.   Tesla's interest in slating such a product is still in the thousands of dollars range and still provides around a 10 kwh amount of storage capacity for well over the mass equivalent of gasoline that stores (such gas storing over three times the amount of energy found in such home battery).  Obviously the big revolution in time comes by improving the energy storage parity problem found here, or in other words, if we can find ways to make electrical energy storage cheaper here, while reducing mass and materials, we'd have all the more incentive to use less the traditional energy storage that we use today (namely, fossil fuels).  Secondly, if, for instance, electrical energy could be better not only harvested but stored, means greater likely independence for any one individual to manage living in 'off grid' circumstances.  I imagine in some future someone being able to use electrical power harvested from peak previous seasons during off peak seasonal time and this directly stored in the form of electricity with no power generation conversions.  

Creating something from nothing (fiction)

   This might have come from quota, or political vendetta.

   Again at the end of an old surveillance program, or at least when a program were under threat, it seems what might best result were a mad dash to create something  that stuck that on the other hand should seem all the more blatantly obvious and not well played out at that.