Bad comparison. Much better one would be "arsonist".
And arsonists did destroy entire portions of the cities when successful before we perfected fire fighting and started building less buildings out of wood and worked on improved fire safety of said buildings.
I think you missed the forest for the trees. No one suggests that any single country is a problem. Problem is that when ANY of the major players openly refuses to ratify, it makes it much harder to convince others who haven't made their decision yet to support it.
You argument is against United States of Europe, which is just one of many visions of how European Union may evolve. There are numerous others that do not have the problems you list, such as maintaining a free trade zone along with extending common foreign policy, while maintaining sovereign nations in terms of fiscal responsibility, taxation and internal policies. There are also countless others that offer different fusions, and your example is on the very extremist edge of unification.
The argument is that monetary union in its current state is doomed to failure. There is no meaningful incentive for south not to run up huge debts while being "carried" by low interest rates which are given due to north's industrial power. Free trade zone however, along with Shengen and common legislative initiative has been overwhelmingly positive so far.
This is provably false. Many people who "believe in it", or more specifically, believe that there is no meaningful fault with our measuring equipment and we do not have a mass scale fraud of people who work that equipment, believe that nuclear is in fact a solution. I am one of these people for example.
Some believe it's still too dangerous (for a number of reasons) to be an option. But to claim that everyone who agrees with evidence of global warming is anti-nuclear is like saying that all scientists are religious because they have to believe in God to be able to manage to live with their discoveries.
From what I recall (correct me if you have better data), India has a major problem with distribution of power generation. They have a very large amount of small and extremely polluting (relative to amount of power produced) power plants. That's not just in terms of CO2, we're looking at far nastier local pollutants as well.
The point is that if USA was to sign, it would be MUCH easier to get India and China to sign on as well. Big worldwide agreements like that become easier and easier to get others to join the more big players are in already.
Not necessarily. Capitalism with significant control over it can manage it's resources. Take a look at oil wealth in US - it makes a brilliant example. US has domestic oil to last decades if not centuries, and it would be cheap. But smart people agreed that it's much better to burn someone else's oil first, and save US oil for when oil in other parts of the world will start running out and become difficult to get.
US spends a shitload of resources to keep enough production from other countries to be sold to US at favorable prices instead of having to get it domestically. That is the capitalism with smart planning in work.
So it's not a question of capitalism. It's a question of controlling the capitalism to be a beneficial force, and blocking the harmful manifestations through governance.
Well, as it stands now, the only FEASIBLE technological solution is world war 3, which would annihilate most of the manufacturing base and humans that consume resources. There really are no other feasible "technological solutions" that offer either a reduction of total amount of people on the planet or reduction of total amount of resources consumed by each person to a meaningful level in any feasibly fast way without severe social incentives.
There are however many social solutions and incentives, one of which was Kyoto.
What exactly is wrong with EU on such a grand scale? Even whiny moronic right in the UK that currently is in power is forced to acknowledge that EU is simply necessary at the moment, in spite of all their populistic bullshit.
Reality is, the future is in the hands of superpowers, and for European nations to be taken seriously in that environment, they will have to team up in some meaningful way.
EMU (monetary union) is the whole different story however.
Not really. First of all, they wouldn't know of being targeted, and second, there's absolutely no problem in using a normal radar detection on these ships. These aren't military or stealthy - they're bare bones basic fishing boats.
Most ports will simply not allow you to dock if you have weapons, unless you're a military vessel with a permit. Also, if you're not a military ship, and have weapons, you will not be able to enter Suez, which cuts down the potential reasons for sailing near Somalia quite a bit.
Considering that it's illegal to have weapons on a civilian vessel, yes it does actually. That's why when they inspect a vessel and find weapons, they usually confiscate weapons, rather then wait for an attack.
If you had any and all understanding of logistics and distances, you would understand that building a DIRT road is indeed possible over it, as it's very insensitive to shifting of bottom elements of the road.
You would also understand just how bad dirt road is for major hauling over long distances, and how uneconomical, which is why railways are always a primary ways of shifting heavy loads over continental surface, with paved roads being a very distant second, and dirt and gravel being largely unused unless absolutely necessary.
The point that it's quite cheap to simply chop the trees that are nearby and slap them under the new railway tracks if that was that simple. You could just move the trees through the already built railway, which is what was done when they were building tracks on permafrost (and is usually done when building new railways).
Ignoring the issues of powering such laser, how do you plant to pierce the atmosphere and retain enough of the energy in the beam to do more then make people wonder "what's this weird light show?"
Also, if you think that space tracking from satellite would solve Somalia's piracy issues, you think it wouldn't have been done already? We have absolutely ridiculous spy satellite capacity, and that was one place where essentially every major nation in the world wanted for the problem to end.
The real issue is that there is no way to tell a "pirate ship" from thousands of fishing vessels in the waters until you step aboard and check it for weapons.
There is some really good footage when this happened to already build tracks in Russia. Google for it.
In short: You're going to have to spend HUGE amounts to built any kind of a steel track (and even more to build and maintained a paved road that carries a lot less) to tundra if it thaws. Essentially start hoping that whatever resources you're extracting are close enough to the shore.
Most surface problems are caused by simple wear out due to time passage, rather then disk hitting the head. These would happen even if disk was stationary and head was reading the surface with some uber gear from much bigger distance.
If you actually get dust INSIDE your HDD, you're fucked. It means seal has been breached and the disk is toast anyway.
I obviously referred to damage incurred in normal use, not damage incurred by improper handling. I don't drop my laptops while using them, and as a result, don't have a significant increase in mechanical failures on HDDs in them.
You belief is rather strange, as modern hard drives have very few mechanical failures. Most of the failures they suffer from are usually surface or logic failures. This includes wear and tear (with some rare exceptions of drives clocking insane hours and actually wearing out the bearings - this requires hundreds of thousands of hours of spinning on modern drives).
Slashdot Mirror
Bad comparison. Much better one would be "arsonist".
And arsonists did destroy entire portions of the cities when successful before we perfected fire fighting and started building less buildings out of wood and worked on improved fire safety of said buildings.
I think you missed the forest for the trees. No one suggests that any single country is a problem. Problem is that when ANY of the major players openly refuses to ratify, it makes it much harder to convince others who haven't made their decision yet to support it.
Same is true for ALL major countries.
You argument is against United States of Europe, which is just one of many visions of how European Union may evolve. There are numerous others that do not have the problems you list, such as maintaining a free trade zone along with extending common foreign policy, while maintaining sovereign nations in terms of fiscal responsibility, taxation and internal policies. There are also countless others that offer different fusions, and your example is on the very extremist edge of unification.
The argument is that monetary union in its current state is doomed to failure. There is no meaningful incentive for south not to run up huge debts while being "carried" by low interest rates which are given due to north's industrial power. Free trade zone however, along with Shengen and common legislative initiative has been overwhelmingly positive so far.
This is provably false. Many people who "believe in it", or more specifically, believe that there is no meaningful fault with our measuring equipment and we do not have a mass scale fraud of people who work that equipment, believe that nuclear is in fact a solution. I am one of these people for example.
Some believe it's still too dangerous (for a number of reasons) to be an option. But to claim that everyone who agrees with evidence of global warming is anti-nuclear is like saying that all scientists are religious because they have to believe in God to be able to manage to live with their discoveries.
From what I recall (correct me if you have better data), India has a major problem with distribution of power generation. They have a very large amount of small and extremely polluting (relative to amount of power produced) power plants. That's not just in terms of CO2, we're looking at far nastier local pollutants as well.
No, but they could switch to nuclear, which is one of the easiest way of cutting CO2 emissions to near-zero when it comes to power generation.
Example for reference: France.
The point is that if USA was to sign, it would be MUCH easier to get India and China to sign on as well. Big worldwide agreements like that become easier and easier to get others to join the more big players are in already.
Not necessarily. Capitalism with significant control over it can manage it's resources. Take a look at oil wealth in US - it makes a brilliant example. US has domestic oil to last decades if not centuries, and it would be cheap. But smart people agreed that it's much better to burn someone else's oil first, and save US oil for when oil in other parts of the world will start running out and become difficult to get.
US spends a shitload of resources to keep enough production from other countries to be sold to US at favorable prices instead of having to get it domestically. That is the capitalism with smart planning in work.
So it's not a question of capitalism. It's a question of controlling the capitalism to be a beneficial force, and blocking the harmful manifestations through governance.
Well, as it stands now, the only FEASIBLE technological solution is world war 3, which would annihilate most of the manufacturing base and humans that consume resources. There really are no other feasible "technological solutions" that offer either a reduction of total amount of people on the planet or reduction of total amount of resources consumed by each person to a meaningful level in any feasibly fast way without severe social incentives.
There are however many social solutions and incentives, one of which was Kyoto.
The current crisis is NOT an EU crisis. It's and EMU crisis.
Reality.
What exactly is wrong with EU on such a grand scale? Even whiny moronic right in the UK that currently is in power is forced to acknowledge that EU is simply necessary at the moment, in spite of all their populistic bullshit.
Reality is, the future is in the hands of superpowers, and for European nations to be taken seriously in that environment, they will have to team up in some meaningful way.
EMU (monetary union) is the whole different story however.
There is a reason why NZ is a small country literally "on the edge of the world" in more then one sense. NZ is one of the very few exceptions here.
Not really. First of all, they wouldn't know of being targeted, and second, there's absolutely no problem in using a normal radar detection on these ships. These aren't military or stealthy - they're bare bones basic fishing boats.
Most ports will simply not allow you to dock if you have weapons, unless you're a military vessel with a permit. Also, if you're not a military ship, and have weapons, you will not be able to enter Suez, which cuts down the potential reasons for sailing near Somalia quite a bit.
Considering that it's illegal to have weapons on a civilian vessel, yes it does actually. That's why when they inspect a vessel and find weapons, they usually confiscate weapons, rather then wait for an attack.
If you had any and all understanding of logistics and distances, you would understand that building a DIRT road is indeed possible over it, as it's very insensitive to shifting of bottom elements of the road.
You would also understand just how bad dirt road is for major hauling over long distances, and how uneconomical, which is why railways are always a primary ways of shifting heavy loads over continental surface, with paved roads being a very distant second, and dirt and gravel being largely unused unless absolutely necessary.
The point that it's quite cheap to simply chop the trees that are nearby and slap them under the new railway tracks if that was that simple. You could just move the trees through the already built railway, which is what was done when they were building tracks on permafrost (and is usually done when building new railways).
Ignoring the issues of powering such laser, how do you plant to pierce the atmosphere and retain enough of the energy in the beam to do more then make people wonder "what's this weird light show?"
Also, if you think that space tracking from satellite would solve Somalia's piracy issues, you think it wouldn't have been done already? We have absolutely ridiculous spy satellite capacity, and that was one place where essentially every major nation in the world wanted for the problem to end.
The real issue is that there is no way to tell a "pirate ship" from thousands of fishing vessels in the waters until you step aboard and check it for weapons.
You do realize that this wouldn't work? Logs would shift, and the road would destroy itself in a matter of months.
If solution was that simple, they wouldn't have this problem in Russia. Taiga is choke full of trees.
There is some really good footage when this happened to already build tracks in Russia. Google for it.
In short: You're going to have to spend HUGE amounts to built any kind of a steel track (and even more to build and maintained a paved road that carries a lot less) to tundra if it thaws. Essentially start hoping that whatever resources you're extracting are close enough to the shore.
Most surface problems are caused by simple wear out due to time passage, rather then disk hitting the head. These would happen even if disk was stationary and head was reading the surface with some uber gear from much bigger distance.
If you actually get dust INSIDE your HDD, you're fucked. It means seal has been breached and the disk is toast anyway.
I obviously referred to damage incurred in normal use, not damage incurred by improper handling. I don't drop my laptops while using them, and as a result, don't have a significant increase in mechanical failures on HDDs in them.
Also, you ignored desktops.
You belief is rather strange, as modern hard drives have very few mechanical failures. Most of the failures they suffer from are usually surface or logic failures. This includes wear and tear (with some rare exceptions of drives clocking insane hours and actually wearing out the bearings - this requires hundreds of thousands of hours of spinning on modern drives).
+1 funny. Definitely!