Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
Now, my math may be rusty but 2-4mm/year over the next 84 years (to the year 2100) says 168mm to 336mm. Which is around 6.6 inches to 13 inches. Or - at the upper end - about one foot. So not sure where you get the "3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet". A bit of exaggeration, perhaps? For effect?
I wasn't using OP's math, of 2-4 mm per year, I was using from the article:
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea levels could rise by more than three feet by the end of this century. The United States Army Corps of Engineers projects that they could rise by as much as five feet; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts up to six and a half feet. According to Wanless, all these projections are probably low.
So I used 3 as the lowest number given.
Really, read the article in my post, Its very interesting. What is happening is real, this is happening in Miami right now, and not at 3 feet of sea level rise, not at even a 1 mm rise, at the present day ocean levels. From just the spring tide.
Here's some nice anti-science religious remarks pulled from each of their websites then if you actually question that characterization:
Sierra Club:
The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.
That is an opinion. Not one I happen to share, but an opinion nonetheless.
and a religion? More on that in a moment
GreenPeace:
Unless checked, warming from emissions may trigger the irreversible meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet in the coming decades...
No proven, and yes, Greeen peace is a bunch of assholes.
But tell me dear sir, tell me something you believe in and let me brand it as your religion. then allow me to take some extremists, and infer that you agree with them.
Can I stop at proudly heralding their illegal activities?
Running out of time but I can pull up WWF later if it's really necessary...
Perhaps you should just stop - period. Your references are not anti-science,they are their opinions, and you've defined religion so broadly that if a person believes in three healthy meals a day, or wearing underwear, it is somehow their religion. It ain't. It's almost as stupid as declaring atheism a religion.
note: If say, the Sierra Club was to be referring to nuclear power as something that didn't exist - that would be anti-science.
I've already pointed out two anti-environmental groups with citations that are specifically religious in nature, the Unification Churceh and the Wise Groups and American Freedom Coalition (some name, eh) and the Cornwall Alliance,who have a specific organized group that they and everyone else recognize as religious in nature, the Cornwall alliance being the Chrstian faith, and the American Coalition with Sun Myung Moon. Religion, pure and simple. The links are somewhere in another post here, look 'em up if doubt my veracity.
And that's the alpha and Omega of it, not picking out some groups you (and I) might disagree with, and declaring their thoughts unscientific and as a religion.
Around the world, environmentalism has become a radical movement. Something we call "The Green Dragon." And it is deadly, deadly to human prosperity, deadly to human life, deadly to human freedom and deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake about it, environmentalism is no longer your friend. It is your enemy. And the battle is not primarily political or material, it is spiritual.... As Christians, we must actively trust God and obey His word. So when it comes to environmental stewardship, we must reject the false world view, the faulty science and the counterfeit gospel that threatens to corrupt society and the church.
The Unification church and http://polluterwatch.com/anti-... the American Freedom Coalition, which also takes part in the Wise Use" anti environment group.
That's what I mean by Religion and religious groups, not some cockamamie slashdot re-definition of religion as having a thought.
Sadly, too many environmentalists are quite religious - you don't see the altar or the idol that they worship, but I assure you that they have a full catechism and dogma in place.
Tell me about it then. What is their mythbook? I'll read it.
As an environmentalist myself - and read that as one who knows that humans are a part of nature, exist within certain parameters in nature, and we exist because we have been lucky enough to not become extinct yet, I'm not certain that you aren't merely taking the kooks that inhabit any opinion, and broad brushing their kookiness to anyone you don't agree with.
All of the environmentalists I know are scientists and athiests to boot. The closest to religion any of us get is a sense of wonder at the universe. Mind boggling and stunning, but none of us drops to our knees and prays to something. Comparing us with crystal people and the kooks is like calling anyone who is registered Republican a snake handler, because snake handlers are usually Republican. I doubt William F Buckley Jr ever handled snakes as a religious rite.
As well, myself and everyone I know as an environmentalist are willing to be proven wrong, and accepting it. This is definitely not the province of most religions, some of which will do their best to send you to their version of hell if you deal in heresy.
They have decades to do something about it. However, that would probably involve admitting that the sea level is rising, which they seem very reluctant to accept. It will be interesting to see the results.
Maybe capture an asteroid and use it as the aggregate in the world's largest mudjacking project? Pump enough concrete inder the Miami Metropolitan area to raise it a few meters? Outlandish, and no doubt, but anyone have any better ideas?
And there's absolutely no way that this problem can be solved through engineering. New Orleans is already below sea level, and has been for quite some time. Yes, Katrina was bad for them - very - but most of that shit show was the fault of a completely mismanaged response at all levels of government - city, county, state, and federal.
New Orleans was a sort of perfect storm. One interesting fact is that the Mississippi River is seeking a different outlet, along the Atchafalaya River, as tectonic thinning makes the Atchafalaya a steeper, (read better) course. It has over time switched courses, around every 5K years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've tried to avoid this switching of the river's course by building the Old Rver control structure. It is na attempt to keep the Mississippi goingthe way we want it to. And this one almost failed in 1973, in which case we'd be taling about a new bayou located in New Orleans. http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
While it is understandable why we'd want to keep the Mississippi exiting like it has for years - there is a colossal amount of infrastructure in New Orleans, tectonics tells us we'll lose that battle, possibly in our lifetime.
As well, we've accelerated the loss of delta by the dredging we've done along the Mississippi. In th end though, we still have the thinning plate, so I have no ideas for a solution.
Changes will have to be made, for sure. But suggesting the abandonment of the 8th largest metro area in the US is beyond stupid when we literally have decades to do something about it.
What do you suggest? Since it is already flooding regularly, decades to do something in itself might be optimistic.
Where do you go? dredge an entire new city to build to the west? Fill in the Everglades? Here's a map of Florida and another with land 0-5 meters, and 5-10 meters. Having been spending time in the Everglades just last month, I can tell you that a helluva lot of the 0-5 meter area is on the low end.
And it isn't looking specifically at that total rise, but what can happen when the right storm hits at the right time, like Sandy a few years ago, the temporary conditions can wipe away a lot of real estate.
Me? I know how humans are. They don't have much aof a timeline, they have amazing amounts of inertia, and much of the time they'll simply put their heads in the sand, and refuse to believe. Then something comes along and wipes them out, and the blame game starts. So I'll go to Miami occasionally and enjoy it while it still exists, but I won't buy any real estate there.
Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!
Well, yeah. Sortakinda. Adjusting can mean everything from moving to drowning and there ya go.
Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
You had better not let the environmentalist religious wackjobs hear you saying that humans can just adapt. They'll burn you at the stake if you're not running around screaming "THE END IS NIGH!!"
Who are these people? The environmentalists I know aren't religious, and are more oriented towards mitigating the issue.
And the religious I know don't believe in global warming, sea level rise, or any of that "liberal claptrap" at all, and are actively seeking the end of the world.
And as I've had to explain to many people, adapting doesn't men that you and your family change. It means you and your family and 99 percent of everyone dies, and the rest are left to reproduce.
they also think it should be instantly 100% effective in 5 minutes. they seem to forget its taken decades for fossil fuels to get as efficient as they are now even though they are still horrible polluters.
I really enjoy old school engines. The technology of them at any rate. If you go to Youtube you can see a lot of the old hit and miss engines, Heavy oil engines, Kerosene/gasoline hybrids.
But as cool as they are, They are incredibly primitive, and a maintenance nightmare. Today, when we regularly putt 200 300 K miles on our engines without a thought., we might lose sight of the broken wrists and arms, the constant breakdowns, the weight and amount of labor just ot get them to run.
Not an automobile, but this is one of my favorites,an old Fairbanks Morse it's just fun to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And you know what? I'd bet my life that the horse and buggy people all had variations on what the fossil fuel fanatics say about alternative energy.
I'll leave with this - The polluted and death filled Horse drawn paradigm in the cities. Certainly more disgusting and grim than the automobile paradigm today, but some folks fought damn hard against th epetrofueld automobile.
http://uctc.net/access/30/Acce...
Where do you live? In most parts of the world you can't lose with solar now. You don't need to make assumptions about future energy prices or anything like that, and the panels only need to last a few years to pay for themselves in most places.
Time to chime in with one of my favorites. A big percentage of the anti-solar crowd seems to think that the second the warranty expires, a solar panel dies. Or at least those in here.
The only time disadvantage I can see is that an earlier install might lose out to newer technology over time, but that doesn't stop us from buying cars or computers.
All in all, I think the anti-solar crowd is arguing old hat.
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone a "dumb shit" when they are arguing over what the US govt is up to.
There have been plenty of articles posted in here about just how much the US subsidizes fossil fuel. A little searching might find the actual numbers which I've posted - I'm just not where I can do the research - again - right now.
As for unfair comparisons, proponents of solar have had to bear a lot of criticism regarding how the Chinese subsidized solar panel production, so middle east subsidized fossil fuel production is a fair comparison - unless we don't use any of it.
The point is, for all of the handwringing about the evilz of solar power subsidies - Why should they be different that every other power source, including nuclear? Especially nuclear.
At last, a trooley intellectual reply.
Troolly, iff al u heve is a coment on mine spewlining, you rnadzeho.
But seriously, Is that the best you can muster? What kind of imbecile actually responds to a direct challenge by whining like a small spoiled child about a spelling mistake, then adding stupid non-sequitars?
Do you need a Binky? Am I attempting to discuss an adult topic with a person who has no comprehension of anything that isn't told them by someone who pre-determines their views? Is that the absolute best you can do? Because it doesn't even work as third grade playground taunting. It was a challenge, because there were quite a few people killed at US embassies during the Bush administration. Perhaps in that impermeable fortess of your cognitive dissonance you forgot it was a challenge. Which makes your semi incoherent rant against my spelling all the more a good example of your utter stupidity, and the increasingly apparent fact that you simply do not give a rampant syphilitic fuck about those poor Americans who were killed in Benghazi, only as long as you can attempt to score some political points against your favorite hate target. a Democrat, and even worse, a Clinton.
Well spunky, I'll tell you what. All of the Americans and all of the innocents killed in all US Embassy attacks have my undivided attention, not just the ones in your rather unpatriotic view of dismissing them as long as they didn't happen during the "enemy's watch". And I mean that. What the hell kind of American goes apeshit nuts about Benghazi while not breathing a word about the 43 deaths that the previous administration is responsible for?
Then having the nerve to complain about a typo. Bitch, please.
It's still a challenge, but since you don't want to venture outside your bubble.......
Here's the numbers and the year. Attacker deaths not included.
2002 - 17
2003 - 2
2004 - 5
2006 - 4
2008 - 15
Total of 43 under the Bush administration.
2010 - 4
2012 - 4
2013 - 3
total of 11 (so far) under the O'Bama administration.
Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.
I understand he's paying the legal fees of the brownshirts who attack protesters.
As far as I can tell, Hillary is criticized for things that, when other people do them, get a response of "well, so what?" The continuing barrage of criticism of Hillary over things that are complete non-issues seems to be very good testimony that there isn't anything substantive to go after her for.
Not to mention, if you wasnt to see an eye opener, and to expose the amazing level of hypocrisy, just do some research on the number of embassy locatedAmericans killed under the Cheney administration.
Then again, these are peopel who were frothing at the mouth about the Kenyan terror baby's not being elegible to be president, while finding Dominionist Teddy Cruz a perfectly acceptble candidate.
They even gloated about the purpose of their attempted crucifixion. It wasn't that she actually did something wrong, they just wanted to reduce her popularity.
but it didn't quite work out as the Republican party wanted. Of course some of them do like Benito Jr.
I'm a software guy but my first job after turning 18 was Wildland Firefighting, and I've worked in a plywood mill. I know hard work, and I know easy work.
And here' sthe weird thing about me. I heard those jobs, and thought Cool! I'd like to know about them. But that's talk over a beer, and difficult on slashdot.
But people in rich countries with jobs who whine about their awful job and blahblahblah? No sympathy at all. They can quit and even if they lose their home they're not going to starve or anything.
True enough. I wonder though, these whiners, probably think a lot of things about their jobs that are so bad that in reality is just them being whiney. No job is all puppy dogs and unicorns. I doubt many people are actually in such a bad situation that quitting is necessary.
If they spend some time on the streets (I have) they might decide what is really important to them, or they might just keep whining about their own choices.
Ouch. - I've been very fortunate in that respect. That must give a person a whole new outlook to draw upon.
So many of these whiners can't come up with a job that they want to do other than, "one that pays good."
And there is a lesson in that, and possibly a major difference between people. I want a job that is interesting, and requires thought, and to be around good and interesting people. The money part is taken care of with luck and hard work.
Your apocryphal story might have a little more insight if his job caused him to have the stroke.
You mean, like if stress were a major contributor to cardiovascular disease?
You seem to assume that his job caused him stress. It's so very odd - I've worked with shakers and movers most of my professional life, and they were not stressed individuals. Most were pretty happy. In fact, more the opposite. The most stressed people were on the lower layers.
Very early on in my career, I thought much like many slashdotters do. The suits are all stressed out type A pricks. After meeting enough of them, I realized that is not even remotely true. I only had one, and he was actually a good guy who vented really easily, I fear that that the stressed out suit idea is a meme that has been made up by the rank and file to allow the rank and file to feel better about themselves.
And I think you're unable to see things from another perspective. We can all play the "I Think Game."
I've read enough of gwehir's posts to understand he is an angry individual, and likely possessed of more than a smattering of jealousy as well.
And when a person's argument is of the basic essence , that if a person is happy, he is deluded, magnificently exhibited in the comment gwehir made:
"The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves."
Perhaps he might look into who is actually deluded. I "managed" to have a full, and active life while working - and putting in extra time as needed. I was well paid for it, enough to retire really early. I would even guess in the extra 12 to 15 years some of my compadre's will put in, they will even surpass the total number of hours worked in their lifetime.
In fact, my problem is that I've *done* everything I've ever wanted to do. I've accomplished all my goals, I've been everywhere I wanted to go, and I've learned everything I needed to learn to accomplish those goals. These days, I mostly just keep learning and doing different things as a way to enjoy myself but I don't really need to.
My problem, if you want to call it that, is I am a total sponge as far as knowledge goes. Even as a small boy, I did amusing things such as read encyclopedias for fun. I fondly remember the Funk & Wagnall's we had my bedroom. My intense curiosity all by istelf can keep me busy. And despite the meme of the nerdy bookworm, I was not anti-social. All of that has served me well, and I have no intention of stopping.
At this point, I am teaching classes in communications, computers, and electronics. Acting as a technical liaison to emergency communications groups as well. And enjoying the living hell out of it all. Learning and doing are all a part of me, and that in turn, makes me happy - I don't need to do anything now, but still do. Delusion? In gwehir's world, I would be happier sitting on the couch and watching Judge Judy, because woing work and enjoying it makes me a happy stupid slave. Meh.
And when tools like gwehir project their own problems on me, it does get a little sad. But then I remember that we are all capable of change. But who should change? A person who has managed some measure of success, or someone who thinks that work is a vice?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
Now, my math may be rusty but 2-4mm/year over the next 84 years (to the year 2100) says 168mm to 336mm. Which is around 6.6 inches to 13 inches. Or - at the upper end - about one foot. So not sure where you get the "3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet". A bit of exaggeration, perhaps? For effect?
I wasn't using OP's math, of 2-4 mm per year, I was using from the article:
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea levels could rise by more than three feet by the end of this century. The United States Army Corps of Engineers projects that they could rise by as much as five feet; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts up to six and a half feet. According to Wanless, all these projections are probably low.
So I used 3 as the lowest number given.
Really, read the article in my post, Its very interesting. What is happening is real, this is happening in Miami right now, and not at 3 feet of sea level rise, not at even a 1 mm rise, at the present day ocean levels. From just the spring tide.
Thanx for the link, but please note again: the IPCC does not "declare" anything. I thought I made that clear?
But we are dealing with people who define opinions as religion, so it's like wreslting with a bag of weasels.
Here's some nice anti-science religious remarks pulled from each of their websites then if you actually question that characterization:
Sierra Club:
The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.
That is an opinion. Not one I happen to share, but an opinion nonetheless.
and a religion? More on that in a moment
GreenPeace: Unless checked, warming from emissions may trigger the irreversible meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet in the coming decades...
No proven, and yes, Greeen peace is a bunch of assholes.
But tell me dear sir, tell me something you believe in and let me brand it as your religion. then allow me to take some extremists, and infer that you agree with them.
Can I stop at proudly heralding their illegal activities?
Running out of time but I can pull up WWF later if it's really necessary...
Perhaps you should just stop - period. Your references are not anti-science,they are their opinions, and you've defined religion so broadly that if a person believes in three healthy meals a day, or wearing underwear, it is somehow their religion. It ain't. It's almost as stupid as declaring atheism a religion.
note: If say, the Sierra Club was to be referring to nuclear power as something that didn't exist - that would be anti-science.
I've already pointed out two anti-environmental groups with citations that are specifically religious in nature, the Unification Churceh and the Wise Groups and American Freedom Coalition (some name, eh) and the Cornwall Alliance ,who have a specific organized group that they and everyone else recognize as religious in nature, the Cornwall alliance being the Chrstian faith, and the American Coalition with Sun Myung Moon. Religion, pure and simple. The links are somewhere in another post here, look 'em up if doubt my veracity.
And that's the alpha and Omega of it, not picking out some groups you (and I) might disagree with, and declaring their thoughts unscientific and as a religion.
Greenpeace
What is Greepeace's religion?
Sierra Club
What is the Sierra Club's religion?
World Wildlife Fund
What is the World Wildlife fund's religion?
I could go on, but those are some pretty major, well known examples that you really shouldn't even need to have pointed out to you.
Here is some examples of actual religion based anti-environmental groups:
The Cornwall Alliance http://cornwallalliance.org/
Who say:
Around the world, environmentalism has become a radical movement. Something we call "The Green Dragon." And it is deadly, deadly to human prosperity, deadly to human life, deadly to human freedom and deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake about it, environmentalism is no longer your friend. It is your enemy. And the battle is not primarily political or material, it is spiritual. ... As Christians, we must actively trust God and obey His word. So when it comes to environmental stewardship, we must reject the false world view, the faulty science and the counterfeit gospel that threatens to corrupt society and the church.
The Unification church and http://polluterwatch.com/anti-... the American Freedom Coalition, which also takes part in the Wise Use" anti environment group.
That's what I mean by Religion and religious groups, not some cockamamie slashdot re-definition of religion as having a thought.
The environmentalists I know aren't religious...
Sadly, too many environmentalists are quite religious - you don't see the altar or the idol that they worship, but I assure you that they have a full catechism and dogma in place.
Tell me about it then. What is their mythbook? I'll read it.
As an environmentalist myself - and read that as one who knows that humans are a part of nature, exist within certain parameters in nature, and we exist because we have been lucky enough to not become extinct yet, I'm not certain that you aren't merely taking the kooks that inhabit any opinion, and broad brushing their kookiness to anyone you don't agree with.
All of the environmentalists I know are scientists and athiests to boot. The closest to religion any of us get is a sense of wonder at the universe. Mind boggling and stunning, but none of us drops to our knees and prays to something. Comparing us with crystal people and the kooks is like calling anyone who is registered Republican a snake handler, because snake handlers are usually Republican. I doubt William F Buckley Jr ever handled snakes as a religious rite.
As well, myself and everyone I know as an environmentalist are willing to be proven wrong, and accepting it. This is definitely not the province of most religions, some of which will do their best to send you to their version of hell if you deal in heresy.
They have decades to do something about it. However, that would probably involve admitting that the sea level is rising, which they seem very reluctant to accept. It will be interesting to see the results.
Maybe capture an asteroid and use it as the aggregate in the world's largest mudjacking project? Pump enough concrete inder the Miami Metropolitan area to raise it a few meters? Outlandish, and no doubt, but anyone have any better ideas?
And there's absolutely no way that this problem can be solved through engineering. New Orleans is already below sea level, and has been for quite some time. Yes, Katrina was bad for them - very - but most of that shit show was the fault of a completely mismanaged response at all levels of government - city, county, state, and federal.
New Orleans was a sort of perfect storm. One interesting fact is that the Mississippi River is seeking a different outlet, along the Atchafalaya River, as tectonic thinning makes the Atchafalaya a steeper, (read better) course. It has over time switched courses, around every 5K years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've tried to avoid this switching of the river's course by building the Old Rver control structure. It is na attempt to keep the Mississippi goingthe way we want it to. And this one almost failed in 1973, in which case we'd be taling about a new bayou located in New Orleans. http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
While it is understandable why we'd want to keep the Mississippi exiting like it has for years - there is a colossal amount of infrastructure in New Orleans, tectonics tells us we'll lose that battle, possibly in our lifetime.
As well, we've accelerated the loss of delta by the dredging we've done along the Mississippi. In th end though, we still have the thinning plate, so I have no ideas for a solution.
Changes will have to be made, for sure. But suggesting the abandonment of the 8th largest metro area in the US is beyond stupid when we literally have decades to do something about it.
What do you suggest? Since it is already flooding regularly, decades to do something in itself might be optimistic.
Where do you go? dredge an entire new city to build to the west? Fill in the Everglades? Here's a map of Florida and another with land 0-5 meters, and 5-10 meters. Having been spending time in the Everglades just last month, I can tell you that a helluva lot of the 0-5 meter area is on the low end.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
And it isn't looking specifically at that total rise, but what can happen when the right storm hits at the right time, like Sandy a few years ago, the temporary conditions can wipe away a lot of real estate.
Me? I know how humans are. They don't have much aof a timeline, they have amazing amounts of inertia, and much of the time they'll simply put their heads in the sand, and refuse to believe. Then something comes along and wipes them out, and the blame game starts. So I'll go to Miami occasionally and enjoy it while it still exists, but I won't buy any real estate there.
But what if P=NP?
You'd have a transistor?
I was told in 1974 by The Weekly Reader that by the year 2000 all of the beaches in North Carolina were gong to be gone.
I was told around the same time by Reverend Peter Popoff that the world was going to end before then.
Regardless, that makes no sense, because any new ocean level has to have an interface with the land.
That would be the beach.
Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!
Well, yeah. Sortakinda. Adjusting can mean everything from moving to drowning and there ya go.
Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.
Flooding is a regular even there now. http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
And the right weather event, at the right time - even in the near future - will just grease the skids for it.
Now of course, its pretty easy to say "Well - they shouldn't have built there!
Problem of course, is after Miami is gone, you'll be able to say the same thing about the new lowest lying land.
You had better not let the environmentalist religious wackjobs hear you saying that humans can just adapt. They'll burn you at the stake if you're not running around screaming "THE END IS NIGH!!"
Who are these people? The environmentalists I know aren't religious, and are more oriented towards mitigating the issue.
And the religious I know don't believe in global warming, sea level rise, or any of that "liberal claptrap" at all, and are actively seeking the end of the world.
And as I've had to explain to many people, adapting doesn't men that you and your family change. It means you and your family and 99 percent of everyone dies, and the rest are left to reproduce.
Less hookers, less trickle-down?
That's a hundred dollars extra.
they also think it should be instantly 100% effective in 5 minutes. they seem to forget its taken decades for fossil fuels to get as efficient as they are now even though they are still horrible polluters.
I really enjoy old school engines. The technology of them at any rate. If you go to Youtube you can see a lot of the old hit and miss engines, Heavy oil engines, Kerosene/gasoline hybrids.
But as cool as they are, They are incredibly primitive, and a maintenance nightmare. Today, when we regularly putt 200 300 K miles on our engines without a thought., we might lose sight of the broken wrists and arms, the constant breakdowns, the weight and amount of labor just ot get them to run.
Just for fun, here are a few: Enjoy!
A 1911 Chase touring car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look at this beauty - a 1912 Cadillac. Superb, but can you see today's folks putting up with that starting sequence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here's an 1885 Benz Motorwagon. Not certain if an original or a replica https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not an automobile, but this is one of my favorites,an old Fairbanks Morse it's just fun to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And you know what? I'd bet my life that the horse and buggy people all had variations on what the fossil fuel fanatics say about alternative energy.
I'll leave with this - The polluted and death filled Horse drawn paradigm in the cities. Certainly more disgusting and grim than the automobile paradigm today, but some folks fought damn hard against th epetrofueld automobile. http://uctc.net/access/30/Acce...
Where do you live? In most parts of the world you can't lose with solar now. You don't need to make assumptions about future energy prices or anything like that, and the panels only need to last a few years to pay for themselves in most places.
Time to chime in with one of my favorites. A big percentage of the anti-solar crowd seems to think that the second the warranty expires, a solar panel dies. Or at least those in here.
The only time disadvantage I can see is that an earlier install might lose out to newer technology over time, but that doesn't stop us from buying cars or computers.
All in all, I think the anti-solar crowd is arguing old hat.
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone a "dumb shit" when they are arguing over what the US govt is up to.
There have been plenty of articles posted in here about just how much the US subsidizes fossil fuel. A little searching might find the actual numbers which I've posted - I'm just not where I can do the research - again - right now. As for unfair comparisons, proponents of solar have had to bear a lot of criticism regarding how the Chinese subsidized solar panel production, so middle east subsidized fossil fuel production is a fair comparison - unless we don't use any of it.
The point is, for all of the handwringing about the evilz of solar power subsidies - Why should they be different that every other power source, including nuclear? Especially nuclear.
But seriously, Is that the best you can muster? What kind of imbecile actually responds to a direct challenge by whining like a small spoiled child about a spelling mistake, then adding stupid non-sequitars?
Do you need a Binky? Am I attempting to discuss an adult topic with a person who has no comprehension of anything that isn't told them by someone who pre-determines their views? Is that the absolute best you can do? Because it doesn't even work as third grade playground taunting. It was a challenge, because there were quite a few people killed at US embassies during the Bush administration. Perhaps in that impermeable fortess of your cognitive dissonance you forgot it was a challenge. Which makes your semi incoherent rant against my spelling all the more a good example of your utter stupidity, and the increasingly apparent fact that you simply do not give a rampant syphilitic fuck about those poor Americans who were killed in Benghazi, only as long as you can attempt to score some political points against your favorite hate target. a Democrat, and even worse, a Clinton.
Well spunky, I'll tell you what. All of the Americans and all of the innocents killed in all US Embassy attacks have my undivided attention, not just the ones in your rather unpatriotic view of dismissing them as long as they didn't happen during the "enemy's watch". And I mean that. What the hell kind of American goes apeshit nuts about Benghazi while not breathing a word about the 43 deaths that the previous administration is responsible for?
Then having the nerve to complain about a typo. Bitch, please. It's still a challenge, but since you don't want to venture outside your bubble.......
Here's the numbers and the year. Attacker deaths not included.
2002 - 17
2003 - 2
2004 - 5
2006 - 4
2008 - 15
Total of 43 under the Bush administration.
2010 - 4
2012 - 4
2013 - 3
total of 11 (so far) under the O'Bama administration.
Look 'em up, and prove me wrong.
Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.
I understand he's paying the legal fees of the brownshirts who attack protesters.
As far as I can tell, Hillary is criticized for things that, when other people do them, get a response of "well, so what?" The continuing barrage of criticism of Hillary over things that are complete non-issues seems to be very good testimony that there isn't anything substantive to go after her for.
Not to mention, if you wasnt to see an eye opener, and to expose the amazing level of hypocrisy, just do some research on the number of embassy locatedAmericans killed under the Cheney administration.
Then again, these are peopel who were frothing at the mouth about the Kenyan terror baby's not being elegible to be president, while finding Dominionist Teddy Cruz a perfectly acceptble candidate.
They even gloated about the purpose of their attempted crucifixion. It wasn't that she actually did something wrong, they just wanted to reduce her popularity.
but it didn't quite work out as the Republican party wanted. Of course some of them do like Benito Jr.
I'm a software guy but my first job after turning 18 was Wildland Firefighting, and I've worked in a plywood mill. I know hard work, and I know easy work.
And here' sthe weird thing about me. I heard those jobs, and thought Cool! I'd like to know about them. But that's talk over a beer, and difficult on slashdot.
But people in rich countries with jobs who whine about their awful job and blahblahblah? No sympathy at all. They can quit and even if they lose their home they're not going to starve or anything.
True enough. I wonder though, these whiners, probably think a lot of things about their jobs that are so bad that in reality is just them being whiney. No job is all puppy dogs and unicorns. I doubt many people are actually in such a bad situation that quitting is necessary.
If they spend some time on the streets (I have) they might decide what is really important to them, or they might just keep whining about their own choices.
Ouch. - I've been very fortunate in that respect. That must give a person a whole new outlook to draw upon.
So many of these whiners can't come up with a job that they want to do other than, "one that pays good."
And there is a lesson in that, and possibly a major difference between people. I want a job that is interesting, and requires thought, and to be around good and interesting people. The money part is taken care of with luck and hard work.
And now you are redefining the dictionary. You obviously have a rather severe problem with reality-perception. Fits the other pathologies you exhibit.
I also enjoy pissing tools off. That would be you.
Your apocryphal story might have a little more insight if his job caused him to have the stroke.
You mean, like if stress were a major contributor to cardiovascular disease?
You seem to assume that his job caused him stress. It's so very odd - I've worked with shakers and movers most of my professional life, and they were not stressed individuals. Most were pretty happy. In fact, more the opposite. The most stressed people were on the lower layers.
Very early on in my career, I thought much like many slashdotters do. The suits are all stressed out type A pricks. After meeting enough of them, I realized that is not even remotely true. I only had one, and he was actually a good guy who vented really easily, I fear that that the stressed out suit idea is a meme that has been made up by the rank and file to allow the rank and file to feel better about themselves.
The narcissism practically drips from this. As I said, sad and wasted.
As does the anger from yours. signed, your happy deluded slave.
And I think you're unable to see things from another perspective. We can all play the "I Think Game."
I've read enough of gwehir's posts to understand he is an angry individual, and likely possessed of more than a smattering of jealousy as well.
And when a person's argument is of the basic essence , that if a person is happy, he is deluded, magnificently exhibited in the comment gwehir made:
"The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves."
Perhaps he might look into who is actually deluded. I "managed" to have a full, and active life while working - and putting in extra time as needed. I was well paid for it, enough to retire really early. I would even guess in the extra 12 to 15 years some of my compadre's will put in, they will even surpass the total number of hours worked in their lifetime.
In fact, my problem is that I've *done* everything I've ever wanted to do. I've accomplished all my goals, I've been everywhere I wanted to go, and I've learned everything I needed to learn to accomplish those goals. These days, I mostly just keep learning and doing different things as a way to enjoy myself but I don't really need to.
My problem, if you want to call it that, is I am a total sponge as far as knowledge goes. Even as a small boy, I did amusing things such as read encyclopedias for fun. I fondly remember the Funk & Wagnall's we had my bedroom. My intense curiosity all by istelf can keep me busy. And despite the meme of the nerdy bookworm, I was not anti-social. All of that has served me well, and I have no intention of stopping.
At this point, I am teaching classes in communications, computers, and electronics. Acting as a technical liaison to emergency communications groups as well. And enjoying the living hell out of it all. Learning and doing are all a part of me, and that in turn, makes me happy - I don't need to do anything now, but still do. Delusion? In gwehir's world, I would be happier sitting on the couch and watching Judge Judy, because woing work and enjoying it makes me a happy stupid slave. Meh.
And when tools like gwehir project their own problems on me, it does get a little sad. But then I remember that we are all capable of change. But who should change? A person who has managed some measure of success, or someone who thinks that work is a vice?
I think you are kidding yourself to explain away your sad, wasted life.
I think you are projecting, dear fellow.
When I'm president, we're only gonna have elegant, classy science. Science Americans can be proud of, alright?
So does that mean my research into sex toy effects is in or out?