But by all means, blame the OS because you're lazy...there are two whole other OS's to choose from depending on whether you're lazy and rich or lazy and poor, knock yourself out.
Blaming systemd for everything is the "Thanks Obama" meme for Linux users.
GNOME 3, while awful, has been the least of my problems with 'modern' Linux. Weird problems with systemd often prevent my Linux system from booting far enough to even get to a login prompt.
So, what is the analysis and solution? I ask because whenever I have a problem, I go online and get an answer. And I haven't had any problems with systemd, and seen very few online, except for people blaming systemd for everything including the heartbreak of psoriasis.
It's one of those things, if I'm having a problem and others aren't, it is probably my problem, not that something something doesn't work.
I'm amazed and upset that Jeep has no electric option. Electric cars have a torque wall - not a curve - and it's a high one too, with infinitely software adjustable delivery of that monumental power... which seems to be the ideal powerplant for a serious offroader. My Tesla has 760 horsepower and gets better mileage than any sports car I've ever owned, and seats seven. If Jeep had anything remotely similar I'd have one in the garage already, and the Tesla truck-looking thing is definitely not a Jeep. It's an untapped market that many enthusiasts don't know they really really want.
I agree. Its odd, because Jeep isn't afraid to put other new technology in their vehicles. CVT's wicked ass traction control. It's not like they rely on huge old school engines. and 1960's tech. Let's hope soon.
Since women are at least equally if not more competent than men, this should be a real incentive to only hire men if no woman is available for the job. Why when all other things are completely equal would you hire a person that is going to decrease your profit, when you have to pay more for the exact same output?
I too, derive much pleasure and a sense that life is worthwhile when I push a button.
Because when you live in a place where you need a security system, the only fun thing to do is make your security system "smart." I want your life. Mine's feels dull now.
Ok, do you guys have something against home automation, or are you simply missing the point? I said nothing about "worthwhile" - what I said is EASIER and MORE fun.
The problem of course, is that we have already been treated to IoT Botnets, and we not only haven't addressed the inherent insecurity of these things, we're rushing headlong to install more of them.
I for one, have never found the LulZ in DDoS and botnets.
Or do you really think it's easier to run around the house making sure all the lights are off and doors locked before you leave than it is to just push one button and KNOW all the lights are off and doors are locked?
I've been in computers since before the PC, and the internet since the early 90's. You can rest assured that even if I had a 1 button do everything app, I would damn well go around to check everything afterwards. If you wouldn't, you don't understand the internet.
If I can use the internet to turn off, or lock or unlock anything then someone else can too. Same goes for you.
And yes, it *is* fun to be able to just push a button and watch my house go in TV watching mode, or lock itself up for the night, or whatever - I never said it was the *ONLY* fun thing.
Or maybe you were just trying to be funny, in which case, sorry, you failed. Try again next time!:-)
Well, you must be really easily entertained. This following statement isn't designed to be funny. Your App home is a disaster waiting to happen. If people want to drive off a cliff, I'm happy to warn people, but if they ignore my warning, I'm okay to watch them drive off the cliff as long as I'm not in the car. It's how I cope with being a Cassandra.
Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.
The existing companies have teh money to purchase our politicians. The baksheesh is so ingrained, they don't even deny it now.
Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.
Indeed. We are in the "Then they fight you" stage, which is the one right before "Then you win."
My dream is a joint Tesla - Jeep collaboration to produce a trail rated EV. I would buy it tomorrow.
Searching for Jessica Kirkpatrick in Google returns a few articles about her where the highlight is.... that she is in fact a woman. Her own public social media is nothing but a torrent of women's rights and equal pay stories and articles. So we have a clearly opinionated data scientist working with a set of "proprietary data" gathered by a private recruiting organization which focuses on diversity. Was there some other conclusion that anybody expected other then "MUH WAGE GAP IS REAL?"
Since women are at least equally if not more competent than men, this should be a real incentive to only hire men if no woman is available for the job. Why when all other things are completely equal would you hire a person that is going to decrease your profit, when you have to pay more for the exact same output?
Since industry always wants to pay as little as possible to all of it's employees, wouldn't this mean that if this wage gap is real, women would get preferential hiring? Why would a company go out of it's way to hire the most expensive and presumably no more talented gender?
I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.
Not that I agree with this particular law.
And in the end it doesn't matter. Traditional dealerships can fight this all they want, but I'll own a Tesla some day, and if I have to fly to a place I need to buy one, then I'll do just that, and road trip it back home. So will others.
My point in the whole thing is that people are so accepting of hypocrisy. the same people who complain about "activist judges", no doubt applaud this measure at the same time as beating their chests about the "free market" and capitalism as a religion seem to be remarkably reticent to competition that threatens their stasis and their god, money.
That's something you only consider doing in the first place when the ocean is the least-inconvenient place to get the water supply from. Given that assumption, can you guess what the most convenient body of water to discharge the wastewater into might be?
That's right, the ocean!
I admit, there are places that have water supplies other than the ocean. But in that case, they have water supplies other than the ocean and the problem of what to do with the excess salt is moot because you're not desalinizing to begin with!
Hold on a second. Your story has changed - a lot If I recall, and cutting and pasting seems to verify that. You wrote:
"People drink the water, piss it back out, and flush it down the drain. The drain goes to the sewer. The sewer goes to the wastewater treatment plant. So re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with!
I don't recall myself or anyone else in this subthread saying that the saline sludge shouldn't go back in the ocean. Given the puny amount we can remove, it isn't going to make much of a difference as long as we don't create local hypersaline spots. That isn't difficult. And I myself will state pretty strongly that your concept which you possibly seem to have abandoned quickly, that of "re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with! isn't going to work. Other people want that treated fresh water.
You don't know how Cali works it might appear. This place lives and dies on fresh water, and has been taking all that the West can give it, and wants more. Taking fresh, even if not potable treated waste water and dumping waste brine in it to pump it into the ocean is not going to go over well at all there. In fact, here's what is happening now, Cali is using a lot of wastewater to irrigate, and plans using more. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...
One of the most interesting things this moron can imagine is that the smart people seem to think that desalinization is some sort of miracle cure, that will solve California's water issues.
It won't.
In 2010, California used 38 billion gallons per day of water from all sources. 67 percent of the total water used, and 74 percent of all non saline water use went to irrigation. RIght away, that tells us that there isn't going to be any use for desalination other than spot uses, and providing providing potable only water. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wate...
So California's farmers are going to want that treated sewage water, just like they do now, and the amount of desalination taking place is going to be spot located, and returned to the ocean in some other manner, not in the badly needed, treated fresh wastewater.
How hard is it to set your thermostat or flip on a light switch?
Impossible if you aren't standing right next to them.
A miracle we've survived this long! 8^)
On the other hand it's pretty nice to be able to turn up the thermostat from the airport after you've landed the plane or even do it from the other side of the house without having to get out of bed.
While I am very sympathetic to these first world problems, exactly what is the unacceptable inconvenience of walking to the thremostat when you get hme and turning on the heat. I'm not getting it. Do most people faint or die or something if the temp isn't 70?
It isn't that I don't want people to have the ability to open and shut their window blinds, or if they reglarly have hot flashes and want the temperature to be 1.75 degrees less right after dinner, its just a little hard to figure out how their lives are being made so much better. By the way, with my new ultra efficient gas furnace I can approach that level of control.
I realize we can't spent all the extra time and $$ on "connecting" all of our otherwise mundane devices, but seriously, why is this needed?
For the same reason we have so many other devices and bits of technology in our home. Why do you "need" a smartphone when you have a perfectly good desktop PC? Same reason. Convenience, comfort, and in some cases fun.
I don't buy that argument. I have a smartphone in addition to a bunch of PC's because I use the many features in it, such as a phone, the driving guidance, texting, and research when I need to. I can't figure out the added life value of some exact temperature control while I'm laying on the couch.
Maybe a IoT sensor that senses i I've been on the couch to long and tells me to "get offf the couch and do something, ya lazy douch!"
I'll admit, having a system that can tell when i'm leaving work in order to turn the water heater back on that's been off since the morning,
Why bother? Any water heater made in the last decade is so insulated that it shouldn't be running the burner or heating element at all unless you're gone for days at a time.
Bingo! Any passive regulation in a case like this is so much better than some dumbass App. As an example In the first hot tub I bought, there was an energy saving feature where you would turn off the heater at say midnight, then turn it back on at say 1 in the afternoon so that you would enjoy a nice soak in the evening. Of course, if you wanted a soak in mid afternoon you were SOL. My latest one is insulated well enough that you just leave it on all the time. And I'm paying a lot less in 2017 dollars than I was in 1997 dollars. After a breaker tripped during an electrical storm this past winter, I discovered it a day and a half later, and the normally 104 degree tub temp had only cooled to 99 degrees. Not bad for a 32 hour interruption in an outside tub in a Northeast winter.
This was my point. Water on the Earth circulates in a closed system, with none of it being "used up" or permanently sequestered.
However, if you think that pushing saltwater into freshwater streams is even remotely a good idea, you might look up what saltwater does to freshwater flora and fauna.
The return paths are not paved with salt, but freshwater. Either through evaporative processes like water to cloud to rain, or via streams, virtually all that are freshwater.
This entire thread has been idiotic, because everybody's missing the most important factor:
The desalinized water doesn't leave the system; it gets used and returned.
People drink the water, piss it back out, and flush it down the drain. The drain goes to the sewer. The sewer goes to the wastewater treatment plant. So re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with!
Well, since you called me an idiot, there is a problem with your great wisdom.
Imagine a fellow so much smarter than others that he suggests injecting saline brine into freshwater streams. Apparently in genius world, all sewage treatment plants are along the coast.
Who knew? Thanks for elightiening us, I better check to see if those sewage plants near me are actually CIA listening stations or something. The allegedly treated effluent they are allegedly dump into the alleged freshwater streams and can be allegedly observed by my alleged eyeballs is apparently a dream.
tl:dr version. Don't call people idiots and propose a solution that is magnitudes more idiotic.
With all the ocean shipping, wouldn't it be possible to pay the ships to take a few containers and drop it at a controlled rate overboard as they travel? This prevents any particular location from being overly concentrated and allows ocean currents to further distribute it worldwide.
Possibly. I was thinking of a barge loaded with the salt, which will be kind of a wet griny state, and with a slow conveyer, plop it back into the water. No reason a container ship couldn't tow it. Also, there are some places like offshore Greenland that are having a large influx of freshwater, so it might re-salinate the ocean around there.
Although, the East Coast of North America isn't likely to need the desalinization plants. We tend toward too much water.
So by spreading the return of the salt to the ocean over an area that avoids local hypersalinization, we'll not have much effect on the salinity of the oceans.
Right. But who would build a desalinization plant in a location that would be susceptible to local hypersalinization? The plant efficiency would drop and fresh water production would eventually cease. Plants will be built in places with sufficient ocean currents to dilute their brine output and carry it away.
My reply was in the context of the people having the disagreement. Of course, you don't want to dump in the same area you extract from.
"The biggest problem isn't removing the salt, it is what to do with all the excess salt that remains. If you dump it back into the ocean, it wipes out all sea life in a large radius. It is pretty devastating."
This is classic enviro bullshit.
And your response is typical reaction to an uninfomed person, making their statement magically said by all people concerned about the environment
You just claimed that if we suck in some seawater, separate the water from the minerals, and then return the minerals to the ocean again, that they magically turn toxic against the same species that have been spending their lives in it? Human desalination cannot change the amount of water or salt in the environment. "Excess salt" does not exist.
Okay lads, let's sit down and talk like adults, because you are both wrong.
One of the first things we have to look at is the amount of salt that might be returned to the ocean. So we have a desalinization plant. Until the plant is taking a significant amount of water out, extracting the salt, and returning the salt to the ocean, it is hardly going to be a blip in the percentage of salt. So that environut you're railing at is generally wrong. Because there is one hellava lot of water in the ocean.
note: because of local conditions, you would want to have a distributed return of the salt. You do not want to just dump it on the shoreline.
But before you go patting yourself on the back, it is possible to get so much salt that it affects what if anything can live in the water. Mono Lake is one example. It has become so salty that no fish live in it. Brine shrimp and algae are it. The salinity level has varied - topping out at alomst 100 framps per liter in the early 80s. We've stopped diverting so much water, and the salinity level is lowering now, the target is 70 grams per liter. The reason we'r eallowing the lake to replenish is that it is an important migratory pathway for a lot of birds.
The Great Salt Lake in Utah, which is the remnant of Lake Bonneville is another hypersaline body of water, and ecologically similar to Lake Mono.
The Dead Sea is another hypersaline area, and it's named dead sea for a reason. Not much can live there. A few types of bacteria. So you are completely wrong - It is highly possible to have excess salt.
So by spreading the return of the salt to the ocean over an area that avoids local hypersalinization, we'll not have much effect on the salinity of the oceans.
Actually we gave Mexico $74 Million US to go toward building a wall on their southern border. Mexico has a very big problem with illegal immigration, just like the US.
Slashdot Mirror
But by all means, blame the OS because you're lazy...there are two whole other OS's to choose from depending on whether you're lazy and rich or lazy and poor, knock yourself out.
Blaming systemd for everything is the "Thanks Obama" meme for Linux users.
GNOME 3, while awful, has been the least of my problems with 'modern' Linux. Weird problems with systemd often prevent my Linux system from booting far enough to even get to a login prompt.
So, what is the analysis and solution? I ask because whenever I have a problem, I go online and get an answer. And I haven't had any problems with systemd, and seen very few online, except for people blaming systemd for everything including the heartbreak of psoriasis.
It's one of those things, if I'm having a problem and others aren't, it is probably my problem, not that something something doesn't work.
I'm amazed and upset that Jeep has no electric option. Electric cars have a torque wall - not a curve - and it's a high one too, with infinitely software adjustable delivery of that monumental power... which seems to be the ideal powerplant for a serious offroader. My Tesla has 760 horsepower and gets better mileage than any sports car I've ever owned, and seats seven. If Jeep had anything remotely similar I'd have one in the garage already, and the Tesla truck-looking thing is definitely not a Jeep. It's an untapped market that many enthusiasts don't know they really really want.
I agree. Its odd, because Jeep isn't afraid to put other new technology in their vehicles. CVT's wicked ass traction control. It's not like they rely on huge old school engines. and 1960's tech. Let's hope soon.
Since women are at least equally if not more competent than men, this should be a real incentive to only hire men if no woman is available for the job. Why when all other things are completely equal would you hire a person that is going to decrease your profit, when you have to pay more for the exact same output?
Please cite your source.
Ask one.
So anecdotally, yeah. Women earn less per hour but get hired more easily it seems.
Making less money than a person who can't get hired is an interesting way for women to say they are getting paid less though.
I too, derive much pleasure and a sense that life is worthwhile when I push a button.
Because when you live in a place where you need a security system, the only fun thing to do is make your security system "smart." I want your life. Mine's feels dull now.
Ok, do you guys have something against home automation, or are you simply missing the point? I said nothing about "worthwhile" - what I said is EASIER and MORE fun.
The problem of course, is that we have already been treated to IoT Botnets, and we not only haven't addressed the inherent insecurity of these things, we're rushing headlong to install more of them.
I for one, have never found the LulZ in DDoS and botnets.
Or do you really think it's easier to run around the house making sure all the lights are off and doors locked before you leave than it is to just push one button and KNOW all the lights are off and doors are locked?
I've been in computers since before the PC, and the internet since the early 90's. You can rest assured that even if I had a 1 button do everything app, I would damn well go around to check everything afterwards. If you wouldn't, you don't understand the internet.
If I can use the internet to turn off, or lock or unlock anything then someone else can too. Same goes for you.
And yes, it *is* fun to be able to just push a button and watch my house go in TV watching mode, or lock itself up for the night, or whatever - I never said it was the *ONLY* fun thing.
Or maybe you were just trying to be funny, in which case, sorry, you failed. Try again next time! :-)
Well, you must be really easily entertained. This following statement isn't designed to be funny. Your App home is a disaster waiting to happen. If people want to drive off a cliff, I'm happy to warn people, but if they ignore my warning, I'm okay to watch them drive off the cliff as long as I'm not in the car. It's how I cope with being a Cassandra.
Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.
The existing companies have teh money to purchase our politicians. The baksheesh is so ingrained, they don't even deny it now.
Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.
Indeed. We are in the "Then they fight you" stage, which is the one right before "Then you win."
My dream is a joint Tesla - Jeep collaboration to produce a trail rated EV. I would buy it tomorrow.
There is a really easy answer. I hire all men but on the EO report I write that half are identified as women. 13% identify as black and 12% hispanic.
This keeps the Rachel Dolezal types happy and we move on to more important issues, like getting shit done.
And she has absolutely no right to assume their gender. Sounds like you found the loophole!
Searching for Jessica Kirkpatrick in Google returns a few articles about her where the highlight is.... that she is in fact a woman. Her own public social media is nothing but a torrent of women's rights and equal pay stories and articles. So we have a clearly opinionated data scientist working with a set of "proprietary data" gathered by a private recruiting organization which focuses on diversity. Was there some other conclusion that anybody expected other then "MUH WAGE GAP IS REAL?"
Since women are at least equally if not more competent than men, this should be a real incentive to only hire men if no woman is available for the job. Why when all other things are completely equal would you hire a person that is going to decrease your profit, when you have to pay more for the exact same output?
Since industry always wants to pay as little as possible to all of it's employees, wouldn't this mean that if this wage gap is real, women would get preferential hiring? Why would a company go out of it's way to hire the most expensive and presumably no more talented gender?
I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.
Not that I agree with this particular law.
And in the end it doesn't matter. Traditional dealerships can fight this all they want, but I'll own a Tesla some day, and if I have to fly to a place I need to buy one, then I'll do just that, and road trip it back home. So will others.
My point in the whole thing is that people are so accepting of hypocrisy. the same people who complain about "activist judges", no doubt applaud this measure at the same time as beating their chests about the "free market" and capitalism as a religion seem to be remarkably reticent to competition that threatens their stasis and their god, money.
That's something you only consider doing in the first place when the ocean is the least-inconvenient place to get the water supply from. Given that assumption, can you guess what the most convenient body of water to discharge the wastewater into might be?
That's right, the ocean!
I admit, there are places that have water supplies other than the ocean. But in that case, they have water supplies other than the ocean and the problem of what to do with the excess salt is moot because you're not desalinizing to begin with!
Hold on a second. Your story has changed - a lot If I recall, and cutting and pasting seems to verify that. You wrote :
"People drink the water, piss it back out, and flush it down the drain. The drain goes to the sewer. The sewer goes to the wastewater treatment plant. So re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with!
I don't recall myself or anyone else in this subthread saying that the saline sludge shouldn't go back in the ocean. Given the puny amount we can remove, it isn't going to make much of a difference as long as we don't create local hypersaline spots. That isn't difficult. And I myself will state pretty strongly that your concept which you possibly seem to have abandoned quickly, that of "re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with! isn't going to work. Other people want that treated fresh water.
You don't know how Cali works it might appear. This place lives and dies on fresh water, and has been taking all that the West can give it, and wants more. Taking fresh, even if not potable treated waste water and dumping waste brine in it to pump it into the ocean is not going to go over well at all there. In fact, here's what is happening now, Cali is using a lot of wastewater to irrigate, and plans using more. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...
One of the most interesting things this moron can imagine is that the smart people seem to think that desalinization is some sort of miracle cure, that will solve California's water issues.
It won't.
In 2010, California used 38 billion gallons per day of water from all sources. 67 percent of the total water used, and 74 percent of all non saline water use went to irrigation. RIght away, that tells us that there isn't going to be any use for desalination other than spot uses, and providing providing potable only water. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wate...
So California's farmers are going to want that treated sewage water, just like they do now, and the amount of desalination taking place is going to be spot located, and returned to the ocean in some other manner, not in the badly needed, treated fresh wastewater.
The point of home automation, when done right at least, is that it makes life easier/more fun.
I too, derive much pleasure and a sense that life is worthwhile when I push a button.
How hard is it to set your thermostat or flip on a light switch?
Impossible if you aren't standing right next to them.
A miracle we've survived this long! 8^)
On the other hand it's pretty nice to be able to turn up the thermostat from the airport after you've landed the plane or even do it from the other side of the house without having to get out of bed.
While I am very sympathetic to these first world problems, exactly what is the unacceptable inconvenience of walking to the thremostat when you get hme and turning on the heat. I'm not getting it. Do most people faint or die or something if the temp isn't 70?
It isn't that I don't want people to have the ability to open and shut their window blinds, or if they reglarly have hot flashes and want the temperature to be 1.75 degrees less right after dinner, its just a little hard to figure out how their lives are being made so much better. By the way, with my new ultra efficient gas furnace I can approach that level of control.
I realize we can't spent all the extra time and $$ on "connecting" all of our otherwise mundane devices, but seriously, why is this needed?
For the same reason we have so many other devices and bits of technology in our home. Why do you "need" a smartphone when you have a perfectly good desktop PC? Same reason. Convenience, comfort, and in some cases fun.
I don't buy that argument. I have a smartphone in addition to a bunch of PC's because I use the many features in it, such as a phone, the driving guidance, texting, and research when I need to. I can't figure out the added life value of some exact temperature control while I'm laying on the couch.
Maybe a IoT sensor that senses i I've been on the couch to long and tells me to "get offf the couch and do something, ya lazy douch!"
I'll admit, having a system that can tell when i'm leaving work in order to turn the water heater back on that's been off since the morning,
Why bother? Any water heater made in the last decade is so insulated that it shouldn't be running the burner or heating element at all unless you're gone for days at a time.
Bingo! Any passive regulation in a case like this is so much better than some dumbass App. As an example In the first hot tub I bought, there was an energy saving feature where you would turn off the heater at say midnight, then turn it back on at say 1 in the afternoon so that you would enjoy a nice soak in the evening. Of course, if you wanted a soak in mid afternoon you were SOL. My latest one is insulated well enough that you just leave it on all the time. And I'm paying a lot less in 2017 dollars than I was in 1997 dollars. After a breaker tripped during an electrical storm this past winter, I discovered it a day and a half later, and the normally 104 degree tub temp had only cooled to 99 degrees. Not bad for a 32 hour interruption in an outside tub in a Northeast winter.
Thank God that the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.
This was my point. Water on the Earth circulates in a closed system, with none of it being "used up" or permanently sequestered.
However, if you think that pushing saltwater into freshwater streams is even remotely a good idea, you might look up what saltwater does to freshwater flora and fauna.
The return paths are not paved with salt, but freshwater. Either through evaporative processes like water to cloud to rain, or via streams, virtually all that are freshwater.
This entire thread has been idiotic, because everybody's missing the most important factor:
The desalinized water doesn't leave the system; it gets used and returned.
People drink the water, piss it back out, and flush it down the drain. The drain goes to the sewer. The sewer goes to the wastewater treatment plant. So re-salinize the wastewater after treating it and you can dump it back into the ocean at the same salinity you started with!
Well, since you called me an idiot, there is a problem with your great wisdom.
Imagine a fellow so much smarter than others that he suggests injecting saline brine into freshwater streams. Apparently in genius world, all sewage treatment plants are along the coast.
Who knew? Thanks for elightiening us, I better check to see if those sewage plants near me are actually CIA listening stations or something. The allegedly treated effluent they are allegedly dump into the alleged freshwater streams and can be allegedly observed by my alleged eyeballs is apparently a dream.
tl:dr version. Don't call people idiots and propose a solution that is magnitudes more idiotic.
With all the ocean shipping, wouldn't it be possible to pay the ships to take a few containers and drop it at a controlled rate overboard as they travel? This prevents any particular location from being overly concentrated and allows ocean currents to further distribute it worldwide.
Possibly. I was thinking of a barge loaded with the salt, which will be kind of a wet griny state, and with a slow conveyer, plop it back into the water. No reason a container ship couldn't tow it. Also, there are some places like offshore Greenland that are having a large influx of freshwater, so it might re-salinate the ocean around there.
Although, the East Coast of North America isn't likely to need the desalinization plants. We tend toward too much water.
Scientist: Do you know what this means?
Nick: There'd be an *awful* lot of salt.
And some gold too.
Cowboy Neal is salty too.
Seems like the basis for a song there.
So by spreading the return of the salt to the ocean over an area that avoids local hypersalinization, we'll not have much effect on the salinity of the oceans.
Right. But who would build a desalinization plant in a location that would be susceptible to local hypersalinization? The plant efficiency would drop and fresh water production would eventually cease. Plants will be built in places with sufficient ocean currents to dilute their brine output and carry it away.
My reply was in the context of the people having the disagreement. Of course, you don't want to dump in the same area you extract from.
"The biggest problem isn't removing the salt, it is what to do with all the excess salt that remains. If you dump it back into the ocean, it wipes out all sea life in a large radius. It is pretty devastating."
This is classic enviro bullshit.
And your response is typical reaction to an uninfomed person, making their statement magically said by all people concerned about the environment
You just claimed that if we suck in some seawater, separate the water from the minerals, and then return the minerals to the ocean again, that they magically turn toxic against the same species that have been spending their lives in it? Human desalination cannot change the amount of water or salt in the environment. "Excess salt" does not exist.
Okay lads, let's sit down and talk like adults, because you are both wrong.
One of the first things we have to look at is the amount of salt that might be returned to the ocean. So we have a desalinization plant. Until the plant is taking a significant amount of water out, extracting the salt, and returning the salt to the ocean, it is hardly going to be a blip in the percentage of salt. So that environut you're railing at is generally wrong. Because there is one hellava lot of water in the ocean.
note: because of local conditions, you would want to have a distributed return of the salt. You do not want to just dump it on the shoreline.
But before you go patting yourself on the back, it is possible to get so much salt that it affects what if anything can live in the water. Mono Lake is one example. It has become so salty that no fish live in it. Brine shrimp and algae are it. The salinity level has varied - topping out at alomst 100 framps per liter in the early 80s. We've stopped diverting so much water, and the salinity level is lowering now, the target is 70 grams per liter. The reason we'r eallowing the lake to replenish is that it is an important migratory pathway for a lot of birds. The Great Salt Lake in Utah, which is the remnant of Lake Bonneville is another hypersaline body of water, and ecologically similar to Lake Mono. The Dead Sea is another hypersaline area, and it's named dead sea for a reason. Not much can live there. A few types of bacteria. So you are completely wrong - It is highly possible to have excess salt.
So by spreading the return of the salt to the ocean over an area that avoids local hypersalinization, we'll not have much effect on the salinity of the oceans.
Scientist: Do you know what this means?
Nick: There'd be an *awful* lot of salt.
And some gold too.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/... Perhaps double duty as a wearable Faraday cage.
Actually we gave Mexico $74 Million US to go toward building a wall on their southern border. Mexico has a very big problem with illegal immigration, just like the US.
Have any photo cites of that wall?