They've been using it over a year with no issue. I was there over Christmas and re-wrapped the electrical tape. (They had made a bubble by adding more layers to it as the ends kept lifting up. I took it down to the wire and re-wrapped it. The reason I didn't use wire nuts was that it would look butt ugly and I was just doing a temporary fix so that we could have coffee.
As often happens though temporary becomes permanent. The wire can be replaced at the terminals and if they still have it next time I go there I should do that. Nonetheless at the time I was there they hadn't brew coffee for two days as they couldn't grind their beans and were trying to decide which grinder to buy - and I wanted my coffee and the corner bodega was closed.
If your coffee grinder doesn't work because the electric cord was left on the stove and burned would you know how to fix it? A friend of mine was going to through his out. I cut out the burnt wire; stripped the rubber; spliced the wire together; used some electrical tape and VOILA. It works. No need to throw it out. No need to go to the corner bodega for coffee or buying ground coffee. 5 minutes and you're done.
This wasn't difficult. My willingness and ability to fix it doesn't mean as much as their inability to fix it.
We're not talking about 30F now are we. The worst greatest temperature increase I've seen predicted was 3-5 degrees celsius. Not 30 degrees F. (And most are talking about 1.5-2.5 degress C) The consequences of said temperature increase will be rising coastlines not that the planet will be too high to sustain mammalian and other life. By the way -- mammals will not be able to survive throughout the planet as they did 55 million years ago if the avg temperature was 30 degrees F higher.
Where did you get 30 F? You just baselessly scared yourself silly.
Well. In economic terms - what is the worst case scenario to the global economy? If we discuss things along those lines - fine. Then the question is less "chicken-little" then "how do we prepare for the following world events.
Ultimately I think pollutants, habitat encroachment and over-population are a far greater concern than rising C02 levels.
Now that is the type of argument I like.Yes. Things may get very bumpy for a whole slew of reason (over-population); war based on greed or climate change; destruction of habitats, disease, etc...
We have built huge cities in flood plains (New Orleans) and entire nations (Bangladesh). There will be huge problems as see levels rise. Some places will endure problems (Florida) and some island nations will cease to be. Wars and other problems may arrive from this.
I am not saying to be an ostrich and bury ones head in the sand or to go around and *just be happy* (or if you like a more literary reference - that we should all take a Panglossian perspective on what-will-be).
But being a chicken-little (I'm not referring to you) saying that the sky is falling; and that rising C02 levels are an existential threat to life on earth - now that just rubs me the wrong way. It's like hearing a snake-oil salesman or phoney-assed preacher scaring the rubes.
I hate to break it to you but if mammals could thrive at the temperatures and C02 levels of 55 million years ago then we can as well. I can't believe I even have to explain this to people.
Re: " We should be focusing on giving to our children the least debt and the most wealth - not merely survival." I could not agree more. And I may have misinterpreted the meaning and intent of your statement.
My point about survival is that many global warming people say that rising C02 levels are an existential threat - hence my use of the term survival. Sea levels change all the time, with or without industrial activity. Island chains appear and disappear; coastlines expand and contract. If C02 levels go up will life continue? Is it truly an existential threat?
Well there was an incredible variety of life 55 million years ago with C02 levels far above the worst-case scenario put forth by alarmist. THEREFORE it is NOT an existential threat.
I think we, as a species, are doing horrible things to our planet. I just think that mildly rising CO2 levels is trivial in comparison to the dumping toxic brews.
That is the point we disagree on. What makes the point when we starting monitoring changes to be significant? It isn't. And, the time frame is not appropriate. IMHO.
Which is why I didn't go back billions. I went back to when mammals were flourishing. We could have gone back earlier but the connection wouldn't have been as clear. Mammals were flourishing 55 million years ago. So the temperature and CO2 levels would be just fine for people. Life was flourishing (so it wouldn't be limited to just mammals).
Therefore when people bring up the "worst-case" CO2 levels as an example of an existential threat - and we see it's still far lower levels of 55 million years ago then we know we're hearing bullshit.
No. There is a period of time that makes sense to review. I happen to think that 135 years is ridiculous when we're talking about geological time frames. *I* happen to think that when looking at temperature and C02 levels looking back at the past 80-135 million years makes sense and Including pre-cambrian levels does not. You may have a different time frame. Fine.
But if you look back only 135 years ago you're then taking those temperature and C02 levels to be the established norms and I think that is a grave mistake.
No. I don't think that climate change poses an existential threat. I think dumping toxic brews is far more harmful than a historically marginal rise in CO2 levels and a changing shoreline.
Re maximizing profits - what does sarcasm have to do with the conversation? Oh - you mean that Al Gore and other snake charmer's might lose some money if people don't buy their shit. Ok. Maybe you have a point.
But rising due to what reason? And what are the consequences. Haven't there been periods of global warming in between periods of global cooling over the last 2.4+ million years? And did you notice there were NO ice ages before that? Hmmm. Millions of years and no ice ages. And then 22 or so in the last 2.4 million years.
Why is that?
Are our measurements wrong? Or did something change (perhaps tectonic shifts that changed water and air currents?) All this shows is that things aren't static. What makes you think that the last 135 years are significant or the changes are significant or that you even know what the caused the change?
I happen to think putting harmful industrial waste into barrels and dumping them into the ocean is far worse that rising CO2 levels. But that's just me.
Yes - we should look back at the last year (or some such relevant time period). And in geological terms 55 million years is 1 year.
We're not going back 4+ billion years. (Which would be the entire record.) Nor are we going back to the early proterozoic (2 billions years); nor the pre-cambrian 500 millions ago. No. I think starting 80 million years ago when mammals evolve is good starting point. Temperatures and C02 levels have changed dramatically over that period.
We care about survival. (That includes other species). Coastlines rise and fall. Florida wasn't there a short while ago, but it's there now. There used to be a land bridges where now there aren't. All this has happened in the last few thousand years (not millions) and not due to human activity.
If you want to say we should do things differently... and we should do (this) or we should do (that) then fine. We'll discuss (this) and (that). But when people say that we're breaking record temperatures and they go back only 135 years then they are misrepresenting the truth - for whatever reason (they're ignorant, they're liars, they are trying to galvanize action with a few "white lies.")
Because 135 is too short a time frame. If you're tracking a stock and want to see it's history would you use it's price ticks over the last 135 seconds and think that is the representative of the whole? If you follow baseball or basketball would you extrapolate the results from one game and say that is what the player will average over the year or his career? No.
Compare 135 years to 100 million years and what do you get. Put it on a year scale. Do the math and see if you think the sample means anything.
One month equals approximately 8 million years.
One week equals approximately 2 million years. (Yes there are 4.33 weeks in a mth but this exercise to help grasp the scope.)
One day equals approximately 250,000 years
One hour equals approximately 10,000 years
One minute equals approximately 160 years
So... we have records for less than the last one minute and we're extrapolating over the past year. (And that's only using 100 million years as a basis.) We can (and should) go further back.
Proto-Humans have been around for what 3-5 million years? (Depending on the text)
So we know that humans are fine in global temperature and CO2 variations in that time period.
Primates have been around for 20+ million years. So that time frame is good.
Mammals have been around for 80+million years. So that time frame is good.
Proto-mammals have been around for 130+ millions years. So that time frame is good.
Let's not go further back. The relationship would be less obvious.
Take a look at the temperature and C02 levels of 55 million years ago (we as a species would survive with ease as would other mammals) and compare it to now. That would be a record worth comparing to. Using the last 135 years as a comparison point is more that silly - it's being dishonest. (ie lying to people to make a point).
You can yell fire. The point is that you cannot falsely yell fire. If you do you will be held liable for the consequences thereof (people being trampled to death as they were fleeing the fire).
What? You didn't read the book did you? Galt "gave up" because he didn't want the owners of the company to take his idea. It had nothing to do with railroads.
Slashdot Mirror
Imperialism is not the same thing as playing the "great game".
Where exactly has been the imperialistic war? What minerals and resources did the imperialist forces take from muslim lands?
:
Or are you
1) just a brain-dead fuck who says things he doesn't understand/ or
2) simply an apologist for islamofascists? (as opposed to muslims).
They've been using it over a year with no issue. I was there over Christmas and re-wrapped the electrical tape. (They had made a bubble by adding more layers to it as the ends kept lifting up. I took it down to the wire and re-wrapped it. The reason I didn't use wire nuts was that it would look butt ugly and I was just doing a temporary fix so that we could have coffee.
As often happens though temporary becomes permanent. The wire can be replaced at the terminals and if they still have it next time I go there I should do that. Nonetheless at the time I was there they hadn't brew coffee for two days as they couldn't grind their beans and were trying to decide which grinder to buy - and I wanted my coffee and the corner bodega was closed.
If your coffee grinder doesn't work because the electric cord was left on the stove and burned would you know how to fix it? A friend of mine was going to through his out. I cut out the burnt wire; stripped the rubber; spliced the wire together; used some electrical tape and VOILA. It works. No need to throw it out. No need to go to the corner bodega for coffee or buying ground coffee. 5 minutes and you're done.
This wasn't difficult. My willingness and ability to fix it doesn't mean as much as their inability to fix it.
We're not talking about 30F now are we. The worst greatest temperature increase I've seen predicted was 3-5 degrees celsius. Not 30 degrees F. (And most are talking about 1.5-2.5 degress C) The consequences of said temperature increase will be rising coastlines not that the planet will be too high to sustain mammalian and other life. By the way -- mammals will not be able to survive throughout the planet as they did 55 million years ago if the avg temperature was 30 degrees F higher.
Where did you get 30 F? You just baselessly scared yourself silly.
Well. In economic terms - what is the worst case scenario to the global economy? If we discuss things along those lines - fine. Then the question is less "chicken-little" then "how do we prepare for the following world events.
Ultimately I think pollutants, habitat encroachment and over-population are a far greater concern than rising C02 levels.
Now that is the type of argument I like.Yes. Things may get very bumpy for a whole slew of reason (over-population); war based on greed or climate change; destruction of habitats, disease, etc...
We have built huge cities in flood plains (New Orleans) and entire nations (Bangladesh). There will be huge problems as see levels rise. Some places will endure problems (Florida) and some island nations will cease to be. Wars and other problems may arrive from this.
I am not saying to be an ostrich and bury ones head in the sand or to go around and *just be happy* (or if you like a more literary reference - that we should all take a Panglossian perspective on what-will-be).
But being a chicken-little (I'm not referring to you) saying that the sky is falling; and that rising C02 levels are an existential threat to life on earth - now that just rubs me the wrong way. It's like hearing a snake-oil salesman or phoney-assed preacher scaring the rubes.
I hate to break it to you but if mammals could thrive at the temperatures and C02 levels of 55 million years ago then we can as well. I can't believe I even have to explain this to people.
Re: " We should be focusing on giving to our children the least debt and the most wealth - not merely survival." I could not agree more. And I may have misinterpreted the meaning and intent of your statement.
My point about survival is that many global warming people say that rising C02 levels are an existential threat - hence my use of the term survival. Sea levels change all the time, with or without industrial activity. Island chains appear and disappear; coastlines expand and contract. If C02 levels go up will life continue? Is it truly an existential threat?
Well there was an incredible variety of life 55 million years ago with C02 levels far above the worst-case scenario put forth by alarmist. THEREFORE it is NOT an existential threat.
Well. Sarcasm breeds sarcasm. Doesn't it?
I would like to avoid it.
I think we, as a species, are doing horrible things to our planet. I just think that mildly rising CO2 levels is trivial in comparison to the dumping toxic brews.
That is the point we disagree on. What makes the point when we starting monitoring changes to be significant? It isn't. And, the time frame is not appropriate. IMHO.
Which is why I didn't go back billions. I went back to when mammals were flourishing. We could have gone back earlier but the connection wouldn't have been as clear. Mammals were flourishing 55 million years ago. So the temperature and CO2 levels would be just fine for people. Life was flourishing (so it wouldn't be limited to just mammals).
Therefore when people bring up the "worst-case" CO2 levels as an example of an existential threat - and we see it's still far lower levels of 55 million years ago then we know we're hearing bullshit.
No. There is a period of time that makes sense to review. I happen to think that 135 years is ridiculous when we're talking about geological time frames. *I* happen to think that when looking at temperature and C02 levels looking back at the past 80-135 million years makes sense and Including pre-cambrian levels does not. You may have a different time frame. Fine.
But if you look back only 135 years ago you're then taking those temperature and C02 levels to be the established norms and I think that is a grave mistake.
No. I don't think that climate change poses an existential threat. I think dumping toxic brews is far more harmful than a historically marginal rise in CO2 levels and a changing shoreline.
Re maximizing profits - what does sarcasm have to do with the conversation? Oh - you mean that Al Gore and other snake charmer's might lose some money if people don't buy their shit. Ok. Maybe you have a point.
But rising due to what reason? And what are the consequences. Haven't there been periods of global warming in between periods of global cooling over the last 2.4+ million years? And did you notice there were NO ice ages before that? Hmmm. Millions of years and no ice ages. And then 22 or so in the last 2.4 million years.
Why is that?
Are our measurements wrong? Or did something change (perhaps tectonic shifts that changed water and air currents?) All this shows is that things aren't static. What makes you think that the last 135 years are significant or the changes are significant or that you even know what the caused the change?
I happen to think putting harmful industrial waste into barrels and dumping them into the ocean is far worse that rising CO2 levels. But that's just me.
Yes - we should look back at the last year (or some such relevant time period). And in geological terms 55 million years is 1 year.
We're not going back 4+ billion years. (Which would be the entire record.) Nor are we going back to the early proterozoic (2 billions years); nor the pre-cambrian 500 millions ago. No. I think starting 80 million years ago when mammals evolve is good starting point. Temperatures and C02 levels have changed dramatically over that period.
We care about survival. (That includes other species). Coastlines rise and fall. Florida wasn't there a short while ago, but it's there now. There used to be a land bridges where now there aren't. All this has happened in the last few thousand years (not millions) and not due to human activity.
... and we should do (this) or we should do (that) then fine. We'll discuss (this) and (that). But when people say that we're breaking record temperatures and they go back only 135 years then they are misrepresenting the truth - for whatever reason (they're ignorant, they're liars, they are trying to galvanize action with a few "white lies.")
If you want to say we should do things differently
Because 135 is too short a time frame. If you're tracking a stock and want to see it's history would you use it's price ticks over the last 135 seconds and think that is the representative of the whole? If you follow baseball or basketball would you extrapolate the results from one game and say that is what the player will average over the year or his career? No.
... we have records for less than the last one minute and we're extrapolating over the past year. (And that's only using 100 million years as a basis.) We can (and should) go further back.
Compare 135 years to 100 million years and what do you get. Put it on a year scale. Do the math and see if you think the sample means anything.
One month equals approximately 8 million years.
One week equals approximately 2 million years. (Yes there are 4.33 weeks in a mth but this exercise to help grasp the scope.)
One day equals approximately 250,000 years
One hour equals approximately 10,000 years
One minute equals approximately 160 years
So
Proto-Humans have been around for what 3-5 million years? (Depending on the text)
So we know that humans are fine in global temperature and CO2 variations in that time period.
Primates have been around for 20+ million years. So that time frame is good.
Mammals have been around for 80+million years. So that time frame is good.
Proto-mammals have been around for 130+ millions years. So that time frame is good. Let's not go further back. The relationship would be less obvious.
Take a look at the temperature and C02 levels of 55 million years ago (we as a species would survive with ease as would other mammals) and compare it to now. That would be a record worth comparing to. Using the last 135 years as a comparison point is more that silly - it's being dishonest. (ie lying to people to make a point).
Wow!!! Hottest year on record. Ooooooo. Guess the world started 135 years ago. And those "records" from 55 million yrs ago counts for nothing.
You can yell fire. The point is that you cannot falsely yell fire. If you do you will be held liable for the consequences thereof (people being trampled to death as they were fleeing the fire).
Well said. I wish I had mod points to mod you up.
Wish I had mod points for: Just because you're talking does NOT mean you're communicating.
:-) thanks for the reminder
What? You didn't read the book did you? Galt "gave up" because he didn't want the owners of the company to take his idea. It had nothing to do with railroads.