If one doesn't live in Italy, there is no reason to care what Italians choose for themselves. The country has been a joke since before the Great War, the citizens choose their fate, and it's none of our business what they do to each other.
"who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2?"
Hundreds of pilots currently sitting alert would get a huge woody at the chance to put an AMRAAM or two into a MIG.
If it gets in, it still has to escape over water or lightly inhabited areas. It could punch off a simple pod to deliver drugs (the common USAF travel pod is an old napalm cannister with a door in the side and (obviously, because it would scatter valuable golf clubs) no fuses, but the aircraft could still be presumed hostile and shot down. Any nation defending its borders has every right to kill aircraft that refuse to land when so directed.
The USAF routinely hosts warbird collectors at base airshows, and there are plenty of MIGs. Go to the next open house in your area, it's very cool.
Anyone wanting to blow up shit and kill people could just as well rent a cargo plane, pack it to the gills with expedient explosive, and bring MUCH more to the game than a few thousand lbs of ordinary bombs.
Maintaining them without parts is _extremely_ difficult, and requires cannibalizing (cann'ing) parts from the rest of the fleet.
Even the US Air Force has a managed cann program and each squadron normally designates one cann jet. The cann birds are normally brought back up every thirty days by using the next cann bird, which ensures they don't get torn down too far. This continues on deployments, with a cann bird being chosen out of each group deployed. It's quite efficient, but illustrates the difficulty of keeping "spare everything".
FedEx eventually comes to the rescue, praise be to Allah.:)
The force of circumstance can indeed compress the world population.
Extremely high value land like the Netherlands that is also inhabited by technologically sophisticated people with a surplus of resources to build dykes is unusual.
Modern transport doesn't require vast cities on the coastline, it requires container ports and ways to offload oil tankers. Tanker connections can be made offshore and the oil piped to stations on land.
Bangladesh is among the areas people should not densely inhabit.
They will do so anyway, and many routinely perish in consequence. Neighbor countries would be burdened by an influx of such people, and will likely try to keep them out.
That is a local problem, not a global one, and it isn't my problem at all.
I've been hearing about the disastrous consequences of relentless breeding for decades. I'm tired of watching it on TV and seeing it on the internet. Nature's rule is "adapt or die", and death happens sooner to those who refuse to get the hint. Sending the victims food and aid just keeps them functioning in place, although there is an emotional need to pretend something different.
We don't have to give up on inhabiting coastal areas, but we don't have to locate in flood zones and highly vulnerable areas. We can make decisions based on logic instead of emotion, and those of us who will get skinned by the taxman to pay for the stupid choices of others can fight back.
The idea of building in such an area was excusable when people knew no better, but the vast space available in the US means there is now no intelligent reason to have anything but a port and supporting infrastructure in NOLA.
"And there is the basic lesson, don't build your city below sea level next to the ocean."
Tell that to the slum dwellers who want their slum replaced where they were.
New Orleans was basically a giant ghetto with the French Quarter as tourist bait. Too bad more of it didn't get destroyed sufficient to prohibit rebuilding. There was nothing of value there.
"Protecting vulnerable coastal areas with levees and such is a valuable investment in human life."
You don't need a levee if you don't build in an area that require a levee. The US is vast, no one requires to live below sea level or in areas inevitably subject to storm surge.
The intelligent and ethical way to protect people from the consequences of living below sea level or in other extremely vulnerable areas where no one would build a city now is to prohibit them from doing it.
Let's remember that NOLA is a consequence of terrible choices about where to build. There is a vast amount of room available in the US, but people relentlessly insisted on building in low areas that were vulnerable. Now they relentlessly crave to return there for nothing more than emotional reasons. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for their utterly indefensible choice.
Moving cities isn't "defeat". Let's remember that coastal cities are where they are because that's where the "coast" is, and when the coastline changes construction can adapt to that.
"What are their plans for handling starving refugees? Or, merely feeding themselves? Living with tropical diseases? I think a little more thought on the disruptions would encourage a redoubling of efforts to stop the warming. It is not yet too late for that."
Why should there be any such problems from a _gradual_ rise in sea levels?
Cities are normally "replaced" in-place as decades go by, so it is fair to call the replacement process "cheap". Builders can simply build on high ground and not replace low-lying structures. Old cities are obstacles to urban improvement. Consider the modern cities of Germany and Japan that started from blank slates in 1945 vs the decaying cities of the US Rust Belt.
Slums such as most of NOLA can be removed and not replaced, which is "cheaper" than rebuilding a ghetto. The whole idea of warehousing poor people in cities where they will always remain poor is discredited. Even if they are used to that economic prison they should be freed from it by displacement.
Dispersing dependant populations out of coastal cities would facilitate gentrification of the newly built areas and economic health. That's better than "cheap".
No current structure need last 90 years for other than sentimental reasons because their design will be obsolete. Urban renewal require infrastructure replacement, and 90 years is plenty of time.
"Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora)"
Attacks breed robustness by killing off the "slowest zebras". If we want strong systems, we need malicious players to make running vulnerable systems so dangerous that they are replaced.
People will not run secure systems unless their insecure systems are broken for them.
People can't think in terms of replacing cities because the idea that cities are changing instead of truly permanent is completely outside what they are taught. They cling to cities they should simply abandon and bulldoze (Detroit, the below-sea-level areas of New Orleans) for no logical reason.
Cities are cheap to replace, there is plenty of room, and the way to get better cities (especially in the US) is to smash old infrastructure instead of trying to save it.
Rising sea levels could force healthy changes to current urban areas by making them untenable.
"Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed."
Imagine a decades long program of remote-manned Mars missions instead, which would vastly enhance the scope of what we could do on Mars and elsewhere before we send the meat tourists.
The idea that people should do things directly despite the extreme burden posed by supporting them on-site is terribly counterproductive because is diverts attention from robotic efforts we will require anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
If one doesn't live in Italy, there is no reason to care what Italians choose for themselves. The country has been a joke since before the Great War, the citizens choose their fate, and it's none of our business what they do to each other.
They vote for him, thus they get what they want and deserve.
Democracy works that way, and people are not entitled to good outcomes when they make stupid decisions.
"Where would all of the drunk college girls flash their boobies?"
Florida.
"who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2?"
Hundreds of pilots currently sitting alert would get a huge woody at the chance to put an AMRAAM or two into a MIG.
If it gets in, it still has to escape over water or lightly inhabited areas. It could punch off a simple pod to deliver drugs (the common USAF travel pod is an old napalm cannister with a door in the side and (obviously, because it would scatter valuable golf clubs) no fuses, but the aircraft could still be presumed hostile and shot down. Any nation defending its borders has every right to kill aircraft that refuse to land when so directed.
The USAF routinely hosts warbird collectors at base airshows, and there are plenty of MIGs. Go to the next open house in your area, it's very cool.
Anyone wanting to blow up shit and kill people could just as well rent a cargo plane, pack it to the gills with expedient explosive, and bring MUCH more to the game than a few thousand lbs of ordinary bombs.
Maintaining combat aircraft isn't particularly difficult.
Maintaining them without parts is _extremely_ difficult, and requires cannibalizing (cann'ing) parts from the rest of the fleet.
Even the US Air Force has a managed cann program and each squadron normally designates one cann jet. The cann birds are normally brought back up every thirty days by using the next cann bird, which ensures they don't get torn down too far. This continues on deployments, with a cann bird being chosen out of each group deployed. It's quite efficient, but illustrates the difficulty of keeping "spare everything".
FedEx eventually comes to the rescue, praise be to Allah. :)
The force of circumstance can indeed compress the world population.
Extremely high value land like the Netherlands that is also inhabited by technologically sophisticated people with a surplus of resources to
build dykes is unusual.
Modern transport doesn't require vast cities on the coastline, it requires container ports and ways to offload oil tankers. Tanker connections can be made offshore and the oil piped to stations on land.
Bangladesh is among the areas people should not densely inhabit.
They will do so anyway, and many routinely perish in consequence. Neighbor countries would be burdened by an influx of such people, and will likely try to keep them out.
That is a local problem, not a global one, and it isn't my problem at all.
I've been hearing about the disastrous consequences of relentless breeding for decades. I'm tired of watching it on TV and seeing it on the internet. Nature's rule is "adapt or die", and death happens sooner to those who refuse to get the hint. Sending the victims food and aid just keeps them functioning in place, although there is an emotional need to pretend something different.
I strongly agree.
The truth is controversial because people have an emotional buy-in to obsolete ways of thinking.
The ocean shares no such outlook.
You can always buy in Galveston. The sea periodically rises to meet you.
We don't have to give up on inhabiting coastal areas, but we don't have to locate in flood zones and highly vulnerable areas. We can make decisions based on logic instead of emotion, and those of us who will get skinned by the taxman to pay for the stupid choices of others can fight back.
New Orleans didn't need to do it at all.
The idea of building in such an area was excusable when people knew no better, but the vast space available in the US means there is now no intelligent reason to have anything but a port and supporting infrastructure in NOLA.
"And there is the basic lesson, don't build your city below sea level next to the ocean."
Tell that to the slum dwellers who want their slum replaced where they were.
New Orleans was basically a giant ghetto with the French Quarter as tourist bait. Too bad more of it didn't get destroyed sufficient to prohibit rebuilding. There was nothing of value there.
"Protecting vulnerable coastal areas with levees and such is a valuable investment in human life."
You don't need a levee if you don't build in an area that require a levee. The US is vast, no one requires to live below sea level or in areas inevitably subject to storm surge.
The intelligent and ethical way to protect people from the consequences of living below sea level or in other extremely vulnerable areas where no one would build a city now is to prohibit them from doing it.
Let's remember that NOLA is a consequence of terrible choices about where to build. There is a vast amount of room available in the US, but people relentlessly insisted on building in low areas that were vulnerable. Now they relentlessly crave to return there for nothing more than emotional reasons. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for their utterly indefensible choice.
Moving cities isn't "defeat". Let's remember that coastal cities are where they are because that's where the "coast" is, and when the coastline changes construction can adapt to that.
"What are their plans for handling starving refugees? Or, merely feeding themselves? Living with tropical diseases? I think a little more thought on the disruptions would encourage a redoubling of efforts to stop the warming. It is not yet too late for that."
Why should there be any such problems from a _gradual_ rise in sea levels?
Cities are normally "replaced" in-place as decades go by, so it is fair to call the replacement process "cheap". Builders can simply build on high ground and not replace low-lying structures. Old cities are obstacles to urban improvement. Consider the modern cities of Germany and Japan that started from blank slates in 1945 vs the decaying cities of the US Rust Belt.
Slums such as most of NOLA can be removed and not replaced, which is "cheaper" than rebuilding a ghetto. The whole idea of warehousing poor people in cities where they will always remain poor is discredited. Even if they are used to that economic prison they should be freed from it by displacement.
Dispersing dependant populations out of coastal cities would facilitate gentrification of the newly built areas and economic health. That's better than "cheap".
"Live in a house boat. They float. An chicks dig house boats."
Two words: "Storm surge".
No current structure need last 90 years for other than sentimental reasons because their design will be obsolete. Urban renewal require infrastructure replacement, and 90 years is plenty of time.
"Perhaps it will take some huge widespread event (like Operation Aurora)"
Attacks breed robustness by killing off the "slowest zebras". If we want strong systems, we need malicious players to make running vulnerable systems so dangerous that they are replaced.
People will not run secure systems unless their insecure systems are broken for them.
"to not go to dodgy fracking porn and wares sites"
Dodgy sites amuse me, and I expect the OS I run to survive exposure to the most vile corners of the Internet intact and undamaged.
It does, but I don't go there running Windows. I'm completely jaded yet without malware. Life is good.
Links please?
I'd like to those that using a VM. (VirtualBox for teh convenient win!)
People can't think in terms of replacing cities because the idea that cities are changing instead of truly permanent is completely outside what they are taught. They cling to cities they should simply abandon and bulldoze (Detroit, the below-sea-level areas of New Orleans) for no logical reason.
Cities are cheap to replace, there is plenty of room, and the way to get better cities (especially in the US) is to smash old infrastructure instead of trying to save it.
Rising sea levels could force healthy changes to current urban areas by making them untenable.
Remember what a rip-off and a homage have in common is that they are just attempts to cash in without being original.
What's sad about _not_ being able to copy something as trifling as someone else's game idea?
Save the lawyer fees and do something original. Copying someone else's idea is limiting yourself.
"Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed."
Imagine a decades long program of remote-manned Mars missions instead, which would vastly enhance the scope of what we could do on Mars and elsewhere before we send the meat tourists.
The idea that people should do things directly despite the extreme burden posed by supporting them on-site is terribly counterproductive because is diverts attention from robotic efforts we will require anyway.