And chinese fireworks won't get you to the moon either but you learn something in the process that helps you get there.
No one is saying that Virgin is building the USS Enterprise that will go battle the Klingons or something.
What I am saying is that the technology informs a familiarity and builds a facility to get into orbit with similar technology.
Lessons learned and mistakes made. Look at the plane the Wright brother's flew. It was crap but it did fly all be it terribly.
Imagine if the plane crashed and killed one of the brothers. Then some stupid journalist shows up and says "this stupid hobby you're working on isn't worth dying over because it will never amount to anything."
Every small town has a factory with a night shift huh? You want to go with that little theory? Sure you don't want to phone a friend or ask the audience or something?
You didn't read a single fucking word I wrote apparently.
I will say again, the risks are known. The pilots know. We know. The prospective passangers know. The engineers know. And the evil billionaire you hate for having more money then you knows the risks as well.
Do you honestly think that space tourism is a hot investment opportunity for Virgin enterprises? Are you so fucking clueless that you think this is seen as a big money maker?
Come the fuck on.
This is a labor of love and believe and... ego. This is not a project you make money on. It is a project you SPEND money on.
Virgin will be very lucky to break even on Virgin Galactic and they are very unlikely to do so.
The pilots could make more money doing much safer things. They fly on those rockets because they choose to do it. And if it isn't for the money... then why?
What about the passangers? These are rich people in their own right. Think they need to take some little thrill ride into space? They don't. For the same amount of money they could dive into a luxury hotel room full of a dozen whores and enough drugs to kill a team of elephants. Yet they signed up for the ride into space.
The risks are known.
It isn't for the thrill. You can get the same thrill jumping out of a plane or hang-gliding.
It is all about the meaning.
It is about men and women reaching up and touching the sky. If that fire doesn't burn in you... then so be it. It burns in millions of us. I burns in Branson. It burns in Musk. It burns in their pilots.
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
No. I didn't say they were easier. I said they were better. Rockets are easier. Rockets were something we could do immediately. That is why we use rockets.
Space planes are HARD. Space planes are complicated. Space planes involved technology we still haven't figured out yet. Rockets we understood in the 1950s.
So no. We will use space planes because they are better but only after we've worked the bugs out.
As to it being more then that if we don't mitigate... you don't know that. And you don't know if your mitigations will have any impact on the rise at all.
Consider this for all your hysteria... what if it is already too late? What if we've already pulled the trigger and the bullet is just sliding down the barrel into our brains?
See the problem with this sort of nonsense?
What we know is 1 foot over 100 years. That is what we know. The rest is crystal ball gazing and people eating bath salts.
I'm sure your grandfather has... and what would make you think my grandfather hasn't?
The man just gets upset at things that don't bother me. For example, he gets upset when he sees men that wear baseball caps the wrong way. Either backwards or sideways. He just doesn't like it. It pisses him off. Its kind of adorable.
Now how many people in my generation... his children's children's generation are likely to get upset by seeing someone with a baseball cap the wrong way?
For me... no real reaction. I think it is a stupid fashion statement but I can't say I really care about it.
Now flip that around... how many people in his generation might have a negative reaction to any of a million things in our modern culture that you or I might not care about?
generation is relevant. You have to filter for that if you're going to play this game. You need to have your sample be as homogenous as possible with the EXCEPTION that some of them swing one way politically and the others swing another. If for example all the men happen to republicans then are you filtering for republicans or are you filtering for men? Savvy?
As to tipping points, since you're dutch... are you aware of the Dutch Tulip crash?
Do you think your ancestors were morons? Why did they sell whole ships for such things? Why did the market get bid up insanely?
Think about that mass hysteria. Your ancestors were very clever and educated. They were masters of trade, science, engineering, and art. And yet they collectively bought into a mass delusion that brought some of your wealthier tycoons to their knees when the market collapsed.
Do you think you are immune from a similar syndrome? None of us are, friend. The madness swims behind our eyes and the only defense is to see it like fairies just at the periphery of your vision. Be aware of your madness. Know it is there so it can't take hold.
The point is, be aware of problems or opportunities. But do not buy into mass hysteria. That way lies madness and ruin. That we ALL learn from studying the histories of our own peoples. My ancestors were no wiser then yours. They likewise were overcome at times with their own madness.
As to the great engineering achievement of your people. The great dikes of Holland... If I am not mistaken, you raise them on a regular basis, do you not? Would your people be unable to raise them by 12 inches over 100 years? If you can manage that... and I think you can... you're likely fine.
As to tipping points... Again, you're presuming an ability to see the future. Ask your ancestors if they were able to do that? Mine never were able to do that. My family used to be commodities traders in the Chicago commodities exchange. Before the great crash. The market was shattered after that. My family lost everything that and so we left Chicago to start a new life in California. We built successful businesses from nothing. We've done that many times. Success and failure. We do our best to anticipate the future but none of us know what it will bring.
And that includes the climate scientists. You are aware that their models are unable to predict CURRENT or PAST climate conditions given known climate data... right? The japanese gave them a super computer to validate their models. Their models were unable to model PAST or CURRENT climate conditions given KNOWN climate data. They couldn't do it.
And as such, I don't believe their models can predict future climate conditions. It would be foolish to believe otherwise knowing that they cannot simulate current or even past climate conditions with those models.
It will be okay. Take a deep breath. These are big systems. Whomever is correct, we have time.
A mutilated body of whom? If I showed you a picture of mussolini hanging from a lamp post that would give you some sort of reaction. If I showed that to some other people... they might have different reactions.
I show it to old Italians for example and there are going to be different emotions happening in their heads.
The point I am making is that you really need to include some of those images... especially the key ones that showed a difference so people know what triggered it.
I also want to know if the gender break down was the same. They say conservatives did this and liberals did that. But what if for some reason there was a gender split on political lines?
There are a lot of things that can effect these things. The human mind is complex thing. Lets not think we can boil something as complicated as ideology down to "what is your reaction to this image that we won't show you in the abstract for no apparent reason even though we showed you other images and this is probably the most important bit of data in the entire study."...
I mean. If that ONE image was doing that. You need to show it. Full stop.
Wrong. Space planes were actually the preferred method of getting to space before the Apollo program. And the only reason we shifted to rockets was because we didn't have the time to screw with the planes.
Space planes are better if we can get them to work properly. It gets us to the upper atmosphere while spending a fraction of the fuel and getting us to a pretty good speed.
Obviously you need a form of propulsion that will work in vacuum... so the wings only take you so far. But it does effectively take care of the first stage of the rocket boost at a tiny fraction of the weight, fuel, etc. And it is reuseable which is HUGE if we're going to do a lot of launches.
... That is for the pilots and space tourists to decide. Not you.
They know rockets blow up sometimes. We all know that. We've seen the challenger rocket go up in flames. We've seen many others go up as well.
It is always very sad. But despite that... when they say "we're going again" more people sign up to go then they have rockets to send.
Every
Single
Time
Is it the money? What money? Astronauts don't make much more money. Not enough to cover the risk. They go because they are going into space. They go because they BELIEVE it is important.
You say "space tourism" like it is unworthy or dirty. Its space. And every time we send something up there we get better at it. Every time we learn a little something. We get more comfortable doing it. And we think "what else might we do up there?"
It is as beautiful as it is vital.
And this writer is a disgrace to the publication for which he writes.
"wired"? This is what we can expect from a publication that presumes to be farseeing into technology and science?
Maybe you should just complete the fashion mag transition and slap some models in mascara on the cover and talk about which color is in fashion this year. If this is really how you feel then you're done.
I'm not going to ship them anywhere to do anything.
I'm suggesting that you simply scale back the subsidized housing. Do it slowly so there isn't a big shock. It took us a long time to get here, it is going to take a long time to get out of it.
Scale it back over 10 years or something. Lots of time. And have exceptions for people that really can't survive otherwise. But most people unless they are outright inferior to the rest of the active labor force... can support themselves. And for the record that should be about 90 percent of them.
A lot of them are going to realize they aren't going to be able to live where they're living. Some will move out to the periphery of the city. Some might talk to family members in other parts of the country and say "oh, maybe I'll start my new life over there." Others will take a chance in various places. They're not all going to move at once. Just a little bit at a time.
These are not children or cattle we're talking about here. I am not going to ship them anywhere. It is not my right to ship them. These are grown men and women. Adults. These are people we allow to vote.
If they're so stupid in your opinion that they are unable to solve rudimentary problems in their lives... then basically you're suggesting these people need to be institutionalized. That they must be given cradle to grave support by the rest of society because they're just too broken to be able to take care of themselves.
You made this rather stupid insinuation that I was shipping black people off to work on slave plantations. Well, ironically, you're the one suggesting that these same people are so stupid and inferior that you need to keep them in state institutions eating government jello for the rest of their lives like people with brain damage.
Am I racist for suggesting that grown men and women can take care of themselves or are you racist for saying they're inferior, unable to compete, and must be taken care of for the rest of their lives like children?
Kindly don't try that snarky shit with me again or I will rhetorically slap the shit out of you again.
You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. You don't know what I know.
You live by the sea because it is beautiful, the weather is moderate, you have access to fresh sea food, etc etc etc.
There is however a price. Let us be adults and simply accept that without blaming the whole planet for what those happen to be...
If you live in the desert you are going to deal with the sun, the lack of water, the low humidity, probably the sudden cold nights... etc. Comes with the territory. Don't like it? - Leave.
Living next to the ocean comes with its own set of pros and cons. Deal with them like the Dutch, don't deal with them like the Maldives, or leave.
The foot happens over a century. Not all at once or out of nowhere. You have plenty of time to prepare for such an issue by adding 1 foot to your sea walls.
As to old coastal cities not being viable forever without renovation?
Both New York and Venice can break out the tiniest violin in the world.
Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least. If you're not going to fix your infrastructure to handle it then you can move now. Complaining to the UN isn't going to change that. It is happening.
Its done. It will happen. Prepare or do not prepare. Either are choices.
I'm a little curious what precisely they were showing to these people.
I mean... the images could have had political connotations that are not evident in the abstract's description.
In any case, politics are largely taught cultural traits rather then innate biological traits. So... not entirely sure where this is going.
Someone that watches more horror movies for example is going to have a higher threshold for disgust and shock probably then someone that doesn't.
I know that most men for example don't get grossed out, threatened, or shocked by things will tend to cause many women to gag, become uncomfortable, or otherwise become startled.
Then you have age and generational issues in that given ages and generations have different cultural perspectives that influence the way they respond to things.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
It is a very murky issue and from what I am reading here they don't appear to have controlled for all the variables properly.
I'd want to grab college students for example because they're all pretty close to the same age. That would limit the study to some extent and control for some of the age issues. And then the images you show them really do need to be examined for subtle political connotations which really are very hard to eliminate.... this is a stickier issue then I think the study properly appreciates. That said, glad they're having fun with the MRI machine... looks neato.
1. If by stable, you mean seas have risen at a slower rate, then yes. Stable.
2. No, not 3 to 6 feet. One foot over 100 years. That is what has happened. Notice how all the ports in the world have been crippled by this unexpected rise in the seas?
Me neither.
As to hurricane categories... by this logic what would 120 meters be on your hurricane scale? You can't add the slow rise of seas due to slower processes to a hurricane rating.
Are portions of the coast going to become a greater risk for storms etc? Sure. Been happening for thousands of years. The only places really at risk are very low elevation, flat areas, with sandy erosion prone soil, and near areas prone to strong storm or tsunami zones. Those areas are well known and either have been dealing effectively with the problem for as long as they've been inhabited or are currently being evacuated.
To my knowledge, there is only one place is that is actually being evacuated... some islands in the south pacific that are mostly just eroding away more then anything else. The population is being shifted to other places slowly. Every other place on earth so far as I know... is dealing with it.
So... explain why I should freak out? Not why I should care. I do care. You need to justify me entering crisis mode, dedicating extreme levels of resources, disrupting all public and economic policy, and really treating the whole thing like a war.
Do you have enough for that? Do you have enough to justify me going to War?
Because if not. Calm down. Its being dealt with at a speed and resource level that is manageable. If you want extreme attention then you need to explain to me why I must move heaven and earth to respond to this issue. I do not see any justification for that intensity of action.
Justification for action? Yes. Justification for a war footing against climate change? No.
The equation of time? what are you babbling about?
We had watches and clocks long before we had DST to say nothing of the actual concept of time which we've had since... always.
The point is that DST was instituted to save CANDLES. It had nothing to do with the equation of time or whatever you've confused yourself into thinking that means.
The problem was that during some months of the year it was dark at the start of the day. This required people to burn candles before the sun came up in many cases. And then in other months it was dark before the work day ended requiring people again to light candles so they could finish their jobs.
The point of DST was to shift the work day an hour one way then the other so that more of the work day happened during natural day light which meant burning fewer candles.
Candles is the reason we have DST. That is what it is all about.
Candles. Not the equation of time or... whatever that is supposed to mean... CANDLES.
Do you know what we use candles for these days? Birthday cakes and formal dinners. That is pretty much it. Even in a power outage you use a flashlight.
DST is an anachronism. It is the male nipple policies. And what is more it is only relevant to specific latitudes.
If you're on the equator then there is no seasonal variation in the length of the day. What is more if you are at a much higher latitude then the differences can literally be measured in MONTHS not a god damn hour.
If you really wanted to do a proper daylight saving time system, you'd have to do it something like the time zone system only laterally. With the equator being the baseline and zones every so many degrees having their own seasonal offsets.
This would make the question of what time it is quite a bit more complicated because you'd have to know roughly your longitude and latitude as well as the day of the year in addition to the actual hour. BUT... assuming you want to keep track of all that in real time... go for it. We have smartphones and smart watches and internet of things devices and so forth... they can do the math for us if you really want to do that.
I'm personally happy with zulu time. I don't especially care for time zones or daylight savings time. They confuse matters as often as not unless you stay within your zone and don't interact with anything outside of it.
I do. I interact with the world on a regular basis and thus saying "oh lets do that at 3 pm" has a completely different meaning to someone else. Which is why I prefer zulu time. I tell them when something is happening Zulu... and they tell me when things are happening Zulu. No confusion. No worrying about people's different changing reference points because we're all using the same global reference point.
This isn't especially unusual. You see people in the finance industry do this and you see people that manage any kind of international shipping or travel do this as well. Pilots all work in Zulu for example. Take off and landing times are all in Zulu in the traffic controller's room.
But that's just me. If you want to have your regional time zones... fine. Its no skin off my back. I do however wish that stupid daylight savings time would either get reformed to be more rational or simply retired. It is beyond idiotic that people in Hawaii for example are shifting their clocks around. The sun doesn't appreciably rise or set any sooner at that latitude. Its pointless.
Oh, I totally missed something. You said "night shift"... small towns often do not have a night shift. Around 10 pm or the whole town sleeps. I think there are night shift jobs for walmart and McDonalds. But that's about it. Everything else closes. And if you don't have a car and you need to use the bus... you don't take those jobs. It isn't a big deal. Compare unemployment rural, suburban, and urban. People get jobs just fine.
1. As to night buses... you can typically walk around small towns no trouble. And if you can't, cars are not expensive if you are prepared to buy a crap one. Illegal immigrants in Los Angeles can afford a car... IN the city of Los Angeles. Which means a poor person can afford a car in a small town.
2. As to your desired field, that depends on what you're doing. If you want to be in the finance industry then you want to be in New York or Chicago. If you want to be in movies then it helps to be in Los Angeles. However, if you are someone living in government housing on welfare... is it unreasonable for me to assume that you might be more flexible to other options in the labor pool? Or are you just going to say that because it is hard to get into movies in Kentucky it is suddenly reasonable to house thousands of people in assisted living in New York City? It is an irrational retort. Your problem with finding niche employment in niche industries is a problem in those labor pools that will probably require you to live in certain places. However, that objection is irrelevant to someone living in the conditions I am addressing which are not relevant to your attempted rebuttal.
3. As to needing to get driving experience... I think I might be talking to someone that has never lived outside of a dense urban city? Is that correct? Well, if you actually had lived anywhere else, you'd know this isn't a problem. Getting driving experience is no big deal. People will help you with it. And really, it is much easier to drive in less congested areas. In some areas for example I think you can get a driver's license as young as 10-12 with the condition that you can't drive after dark. This is largely to allow children to drive farm equipment or otherwise help around rural households. Is your mind blown?
Here is the final nail in the coffin... deal with this point or concede: Rural populations are not especially wealthy and yet they have people that are doing just fine. They raise families. They pay their taxes. They go to college. They have jobs. And all these things happen without the urban infrastructure you somehow think is required for human life. It isn't. It is required for life in your city. But that is because the city itself places demands on you that simply don't exist beyond it. Do you know how much traffic I deal with outside a major city? Nada. I get in my car and go where I want to go. I might get stuck behind a slow moving truck now and again but you can usually pass him if you're patient.
People get by.
Those dense housing projects in those cities are stupid. They're counter productive in that they limit the opportunities of the people that live in them. They create problems for the cities without really offering any solutions. They are a net and continuous cost with no benefit besides allowing people to subsist in an environment that is ill suited to their needs. These people need an environment where they can prosper and thrive on their own two feet. Those housing projects have been proven not to do that. Case closed.
In the last 20 thousand years we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise. The rate of sea level rise was much faster in ages past and it largely stabilized about 3 or 4 thousand years ago.
It has however still been going up.
If we took the average over time just to get a basic grasp of how much things have moved over what kind of time scale...
20,000 years / 120 meters = 166.6 years per meter of sea level rise in the last 20,000 years.
Now again, that is not the average rate of sea level rise today. Today, it is mostly stable and ticks up a little bit but it is nothing like what it was before.
At our current rate of about 1 foot per 100 years, our sea level rise is about half the gross average sea level rise over the last 20,000 years. Only in the context of the last 3 thousand years is that rate unusual. However it isn't even an extreme departure.
This is a very big system we're talking about that operates on literally geologic time scales. What we have is a blip on that system and it isn't even that unusual.
Look, my stance since everyone wants to play the US vs THEM game is that I think we have time. I think we have some serious problems to deal with but they are very large and slow systems we are dealing with that do not need to rush to address.
Our technology is advancing rapidly and most of the current concerns are going to be naturally rendered irrelevant before they become an actual threat to our planetary biosphere.
Can coastal communities expect rising seas? Yep. Of about 1 foot per 100 years so far. If they can't handle that then move. That is a totally reasonable amount of fluctuation in sea levels. Humans have lived near the sea for time out of mind, Our noses are unlike any other primate species because it allows us to more comfortably submerge ourselves in water. There are ancient human settlements that have been found that appear to have been continuously inhabited for hundreds of thousands of years.
We know the sea. Stop whining about what are relatively tiny changes in sea level. A fucking foot? Come now. Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.
We have more pressing problems to deal with them to obsess over this issue endlessly.
... This is like asking how one is to eat without McDonalds.
How do you think everyone gets to work outside major cities? Do you think we go to work by training hamsters, making little carts out of sticks, discarded cans, and duct tape... and then getting them to move forward by tossing peanuts in front them?
First off, small towns generally do have mass transit. Buses are very common.
Second, for very small towns you don't need mass transit because you can literally just walk anywhere in the town in about 5 to 10 minutes.
Third, cars are not that expensive especially if you out of the big cities. It is very common for people in trailer parks to have cars. Not great cars... but cars that can get them where ever they need to go. And because it is an area with low congestion they spend ZERO time in traffic and they probably aren't that far away from work anyway which means they might only be in the car for 10 to 20 minutes tops. Compare that to city commutes which can top two hours WASTED going to and from your place of work every day. When I was in Los Angeles, I would often spend upwards of an hour commuting sometimes EACH WAY. And that is STILL considered normal in LA.
I just don't know where to start with your question. It is as if you think we didn't have civilization at all until subways were invented.
And are you under the impression that everyone outside cities are rich? Think about that. There are poor people that don't live in cities. How do they get to work every day without mass transit.
Slashdot Mirror
aerospace engineers disagree with you... *yawn*
And chinese fireworks won't get you to the moon either but you learn something in the process that helps you get there.
No one is saying that Virgin is building the USS Enterprise that will go battle the Klingons or something.
What I am saying is that the technology informs a familiarity and builds a facility to get into orbit with similar technology.
Lessons learned and mistakes made. Look at the plane the Wright brother's flew. It was crap but it did fly all be it terribly.
Imagine if the plane crashed and killed one of the brothers. Then some stupid journalist shows up and says "this stupid hobby you're working on isn't worth dying over because it will never amount to anything."
It is ignorant. Point blank.
Every small town has a factory with a night shift huh? You want to go with that little theory? Sure you don't want to phone a friend or ask the audience or something?
*laughs*
where do you fucktards come from... :D
You didn't read a single fucking word I wrote apparently.
I will say again, the risks are known. The pilots know. We know. The prospective passangers know. The engineers know. And the evil billionaire you hate for having more money then you knows the risks as well.
Do you honestly think that space tourism is a hot investment opportunity for Virgin enterprises? Are you so fucking clueless that you think this is seen as a big money maker?
Come the fuck on.
This is a labor of love and believe and... ego. This is not a project you make money on. It is a project you SPEND money on.
Virgin will be very lucky to break even on Virgin Galactic and they are very unlikely to do so.
The pilots could make more money doing much safer things. They fly on those rockets because they choose to do it. And if it isn't for the money... then why?
What about the passangers? These are rich people in their own right. Think they need to take some little thrill ride into space? They don't. For the same amount of money they could dive into a luxury hotel room full of a dozen whores and enough drugs to kill a team of elephants. Yet they signed up for the ride into space.
The risks are known.
It isn't for the thrill. You can get the same thrill jumping out of a plane or hang-gliding.
It is all about the meaning.
It is about men and women reaching up and touching the sky. If that fire doesn't burn in you... then so be it. It burns in millions of us. I burns in Branson. It burns in Musk. It burns in their pilots.
Know that.
Sigh... I quoted Poe's law and everything.
Fine.
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
Again. PERIOD.
And with that... there is clarity. :-)
No. I didn't say they were easier. I said they were better. Rockets are easier. Rockets were something we could do immediately. That is why we use rockets.
Space planes are HARD. Space planes are complicated. Space planes involved technology we still haven't figured out yet. Rockets we understood in the 1950s.
So no. We will use space planes because they are better but only after we've worked the bugs out.
As to it being more then that if we don't mitigate... you don't know that. And you don't know if your mitigations will have any impact on the rise at all.
Consider this for all your hysteria... what if it is already too late? What if we've already pulled the trigger and the bullet is just sliding down the barrel into our brains?
See the problem with this sort of nonsense?
What we know is 1 foot over 100 years. That is what we know. The rest is crystal ball gazing and people eating bath salts.
I'm sure your grandfather has... and what would make you think my grandfather hasn't?
The man just gets upset at things that don't bother me. For example, he gets upset when he sees men that wear baseball caps the wrong way. Either backwards or sideways. He just doesn't like it. It pisses him off. Its kind of adorable.
Now how many people in my generation... his children's children's generation are likely to get upset by seeing someone with a baseball cap the wrong way?
For me... no real reaction. I think it is a stupid fashion statement but I can't say I really care about it.
Now flip that around... how many people in his generation might have a negative reaction to any of a million things in our modern culture that you or I might not care about?
generation is relevant. You have to filter for that if you're going to play this game. You need to have your sample be as homogenous as possible with the EXCEPTION that some of them swing one way politically and the others swing another. If for example all the men happen to republicans then are you filtering for republicans or are you filtering for men? Savvy?
Failure to justify crisis mode is failure to justify crisis mode.
Crisis mode was not justified so crisis mode is not approved.
Thank you, come again.
As to tipping points, since you're dutch... are you aware of the Dutch Tulip crash?
Do you think your ancestors were morons? Why did they sell whole ships for such things? Why did the market get bid up insanely?
Think about that mass hysteria. Your ancestors were very clever and educated. They were masters of trade, science, engineering, and art. And yet they collectively bought into a mass delusion that brought some of your wealthier tycoons to their knees when the market collapsed.
Do you think you are immune from a similar syndrome? None of us are, friend. The madness swims behind our eyes and the only defense is to see it like fairies just at the periphery of your vision. Be aware of your madness. Know it is there so it can't take hold.
The point is, be aware of problems or opportunities. But do not buy into mass hysteria. That way lies madness and ruin. That we ALL learn from studying the histories of our own peoples. My ancestors were no wiser then yours. They likewise were overcome at times with their own madness.
As to the great engineering achievement of your people. The great dikes of Holland... If I am not mistaken, you raise them on a regular basis, do you not? Would your people be unable to raise them by 12 inches over 100 years? If you can manage that... and I think you can... you're likely fine.
As to tipping points... Again, you're presuming an ability to see the future. Ask your ancestors if they were able to do that? Mine never were able to do that. My family used to be commodities traders in the Chicago commodities exchange. Before the great crash. The market was shattered after that. My family lost everything that and so we left Chicago to start a new life in California. We built successful businesses from nothing. We've done that many times. Success and failure. We do our best to anticipate the future but none of us know what it will bring.
And that includes the climate scientists. You are aware that their models are unable to predict CURRENT or PAST climate conditions given known climate data... right? The japanese gave them a super computer to validate their models. Their models were unable to model PAST or CURRENT climate conditions given KNOWN climate data. They couldn't do it.
And as such, I don't believe their models can predict future climate conditions. It would be foolish to believe otherwise knowing that they cannot simulate current or even past climate conditions with those models.
It will be okay. Take a deep breath. These are big systems. Whomever is correct, we have time.
A mutilated body of whom? If I showed you a picture of mussolini hanging from a lamp post that would give you some sort of reaction. If I showed that to some other people... they might have different reactions.
I show it to old Italians for example and there are going to be different emotions happening in their heads.
The point I am making is that you really need to include some of those images... especially the key ones that showed a difference so people know what triggered it.
I also want to know if the gender break down was the same. They say conservatives did this and liberals did that. But what if for some reason there was a gender split on political lines?
There are a lot of things that can effect these things. The human mind is complex thing. Lets not think we can boil something as complicated as ideology down to "what is your reaction to this image that we won't show you in the abstract for no apparent reason even though we showed you other images and this is probably the most important bit of data in the entire study."...
I mean. If that ONE image was doing that. You need to show it. Full stop.
Wrong. Space planes were actually the preferred method of getting to space before the Apollo program. And the only reason we shifted to rockets was because we didn't have the time to screw with the planes.
Space planes are better if we can get them to work properly. It gets us to the upper atmosphere while spending a fraction of the fuel and getting us to a pretty good speed.
Obviously you need a form of propulsion that will work in vacuum... so the wings only take you so far. But it does effectively take care of the first stage of the rocket boost at a tiny fraction of the weight, fuel, etc. And it is reuseable which is HUGE if we're going to do a lot of launches.
... That is for the pilots and space tourists to decide. Not you.
They know rockets blow up sometimes. We all know that. We've seen the challenger rocket go up in flames. We've seen many others go up as well.
It is always very sad. But despite that... when they say "we're going again" more people sign up to go then they have rockets to send.
Every
Single
Time
Is it the money? What money? Astronauts don't make much more money. Not enough to cover the risk. They go because they are going into space. They go because they BELIEVE it is important.
You say "space tourism" like it is unworthy or dirty. Its space. And every time we send something up there we get better at it. Every time we learn a little something. We get more comfortable doing it. And we think "what else might we do up there?"
It is as beautiful as it is vital.
And this writer is a disgrace to the publication for which he writes.
"wired"? This is what we can expect from a publication that presumes to be farseeing into technology and science?
Maybe you should just complete the fashion mag transition and slap some models in mascara on the cover and talk about which color is in fashion this year. If this is really how you feel then you're done.
I'm not going to ship them anywhere to do anything.
I'm suggesting that you simply scale back the subsidized housing. Do it slowly so there isn't a big shock. It took us a long time to get here, it is going to take a long time to get out of it.
Scale it back over 10 years or something. Lots of time. And have exceptions for people that really can't survive otherwise. But most people unless they are outright inferior to the rest of the active labor force... can support themselves. And for the record that should be about 90 percent of them.
A lot of them are going to realize they aren't going to be able to live where they're living. Some will move out to the periphery of the city. Some might talk to family members in other parts of the country and say "oh, maybe I'll start my new life over there." Others will take a chance in various places. They're not all going to move at once. Just a little bit at a time.
These are not children or cattle we're talking about here. I am not going to ship them anywhere. It is not my right to ship them. These are grown men and women. Adults. These are people we allow to vote.
If they're so stupid in your opinion that they are unable to solve rudimentary problems in their lives... then basically you're suggesting these people need to be institutionalized. That they must be given cradle to grave support by the rest of society because they're just too broken to be able to take care of themselves.
You made this rather stupid insinuation that I was shipping black people off to work on slave plantations. Well, ironically, you're the one suggesting that these same people are so stupid and inferior that you need to keep them in state institutions eating government jello for the rest of their lives like people with brain damage.
Am I racist for suggesting that grown men and women can take care of themselves or are you racist for saying they're inferior, unable to compete, and must be taken care of for the rest of their lives like children?
Kindly don't try that snarky shit with me again or I will rhetorically slap the shit out of you again.
You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. You don't know what I know.
All you did was project your own inherent racism onto me.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Exactly.
You live by the sea because it is beautiful, the weather is moderate, you have access to fresh sea food, etc etc etc.
There is however a price. Let us be adults and simply accept that without blaming the whole planet for what those happen to be...
If you live in the desert you are going to deal with the sun, the lack of water, the low humidity, probably the sudden cold nights... etc. Comes with the territory. Don't like it? - Leave.
Living next to the ocean comes with its own set of pros and cons. Deal with them like the Dutch, don't deal with them like the Maldives, or leave.
The foot happens over a century. Not all at once or out of nowhere. You have plenty of time to prepare for such an issue by adding 1 foot to your sea walls.
As to old coastal cities not being viable forever without renovation?
Both New York and Venice can break out the tiniest violin in the world.
Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least. If you're not going to fix your infrastructure to handle it then you can move now. Complaining to the UN isn't going to change that. It is happening.
Its done. It will happen. Prepare or do not prepare. Either are choices.
End of line.
I'm a little curious what precisely they were showing to these people.
I mean... the images could have had political connotations that are not evident in the abstract's description.
In any case, politics are largely taught cultural traits rather then innate biological traits. So... not entirely sure where this is going.
Someone that watches more horror movies for example is going to have a higher threshold for disgust and shock probably then someone that doesn't.
I know that most men for example don't get grossed out, threatened, or shocked by things will tend to cause many women to gag, become uncomfortable, or otherwise become startled.
Then you have age and generational issues in that given ages and generations have different cultural perspectives that influence the way they respond to things.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
It is a very murky issue and from what I am reading here they don't appear to have controlled for all the variables properly.
I'd want to grab college students for example because they're all pretty close to the same age. That would limit the study to some extent and control for some of the age issues. And then the images you show them really do need to be examined for subtle political connotations which really are very hard to eliminate. ... this is a stickier issue then I think the study properly appreciates. That said, glad they're having fun with the MRI machine... looks neato.
1. If by stable, you mean seas have risen at a slower rate, then yes. Stable.
2. No, not 3 to 6 feet. One foot over 100 years. That is what has happened. Notice how all the ports in the world have been crippled by this unexpected rise in the seas?
Me neither.
As to hurricane categories... by this logic what would 120 meters be on your hurricane scale? You can't add the slow rise of seas due to slower processes to a hurricane rating.
Are portions of the coast going to become a greater risk for storms etc? Sure. Been happening for thousands of years. The only places really at risk are very low elevation, flat areas, with sandy erosion prone soil, and near areas prone to strong storm or tsunami zones. Those areas are well known and either have been dealing effectively with the problem for as long as they've been inhabited or are currently being evacuated.
To my knowledge, there is only one place is that is actually being evacuated... some islands in the south pacific that are mostly just eroding away more then anything else. The population is being shifted to other places slowly. Every other place on earth so far as I know... is dealing with it.
So... explain why I should freak out? Not why I should care. I do care. You need to justify me entering crisis mode, dedicating extreme levels of resources, disrupting all public and economic policy, and really treating the whole thing like a war.
Do you have enough for that? Do you have enough to justify me going to War?
Because if not. Calm down. Its being dealt with at a speed and resource level that is manageable. If you want extreme attention then you need to explain to me why I must move heaven and earth to respond to this issue. I do not see any justification for that intensity of action.
Justification for action? Yes. Justification for a war footing against climate change? No.
Another null post. No further comment required.
The equation of time? what are you babbling about?
We had watches and clocks long before we had DST to say nothing of the actual concept of time which we've had since... always.
The point is that DST was instituted to save CANDLES. It had nothing to do with the equation of time or whatever you've confused yourself into thinking that means.
The problem was that during some months of the year it was dark at the start of the day. This required people to burn candles before the sun came up in many cases. And then in other months it was dark before the work day ended requiring people again to light candles so they could finish their jobs.
The point of DST was to shift the work day an hour one way then the other so that more of the work day happened during natural day light which meant burning fewer candles.
Candles is the reason we have DST. That is what it is all about.
Candles. Not the equation of time or... whatever that is supposed to mean... CANDLES.
Do you know what we use candles for these days? Birthday cakes and formal dinners. That is pretty much it. Even in a power outage you use a flashlight.
DST is an anachronism. It is the male nipple policies. And what is more it is only relevant to specific latitudes.
If you're on the equator then there is no seasonal variation in the length of the day. What is more if you are at a much higher latitude then the differences can literally be measured in MONTHS not a god damn hour.
If you really wanted to do a proper daylight saving time system, you'd have to do it something like the time zone system only laterally. With the equator being the baseline and zones every so many degrees having their own seasonal offsets.
This would make the question of what time it is quite a bit more complicated because you'd have to know roughly your longitude and latitude as well as the day of the year in addition to the actual hour. BUT... assuming you want to keep track of all that in real time... go for it. We have smartphones and smart watches and internet of things devices and so forth... they can do the math for us if you really want to do that.
I'm personally happy with zulu time. I don't especially care for time zones or daylight savings time. They confuse matters as often as not unless you stay within your zone and don't interact with anything outside of it.
I do. I interact with the world on a regular basis and thus saying "oh lets do that at 3 pm" has a completely different meaning to someone else. Which is why I prefer zulu time. I tell them when something is happening Zulu... and they tell me when things are happening Zulu. No confusion. No worrying about people's different changing reference points because we're all using the same global reference point.
This isn't especially unusual. You see people in the finance industry do this and you see people that manage any kind of international shipping or travel do this as well. Pilots all work in Zulu for example. Take off and landing times are all in Zulu in the traffic controller's room.
But that's just me. If you want to have your regional time zones... fine. Its no skin off my back. I do however wish that stupid daylight savings time would either get reformed to be more rational or simply retired. It is beyond idiotic that people in Hawaii for example are shifting their clocks around. The sun doesn't appreciably rise or set any sooner at that latitude. Its pointless.
Oh, I totally missed something. You said "night shift"... small towns often do not have a night shift. Around 10 pm or the whole town sleeps. I think there are night shift jobs for walmart and McDonalds. But that's about it. Everything else closes. And if you don't have a car and you need to use the bus... you don't take those jobs. It isn't a big deal. Compare unemployment rural, suburban, and urban. People get jobs just fine.
1. As to night buses... you can typically walk around small towns no trouble. And if you can't, cars are not expensive if you are prepared to buy a crap one. Illegal immigrants in Los Angeles can afford a car... IN the city of Los Angeles. Which means a poor person can afford a car in a small town.
2. As to your desired field, that depends on what you're doing. If you want to be in the finance industry then you want to be in New York or Chicago. If you want to be in movies then it helps to be in Los Angeles. However, if you are someone living in government housing on welfare... is it unreasonable for me to assume that you might be more flexible to other options in the labor pool? Or are you just going to say that because it is hard to get into movies in Kentucky it is suddenly reasonable to house thousands of people in assisted living in New York City? It is an irrational retort. Your problem with finding niche employment in niche industries is a problem in those labor pools that will probably require you to live in certain places. However, that objection is irrelevant to someone living in the conditions I am addressing which are not relevant to your attempted rebuttal.
3. As to needing to get driving experience... I think I might be talking to someone that has never lived outside of a dense urban city? Is that correct? Well, if you actually had lived anywhere else, you'd know this isn't a problem. Getting driving experience is no big deal. People will help you with it. And really, it is much easier to drive in less congested areas. In some areas for example I think you can get a driver's license as young as 10-12 with the condition that you can't drive after dark. This is largely to allow children to drive farm equipment or otherwise help around rural households. Is your mind blown?
Here is the final nail in the coffin... deal with this point or concede:
Rural populations are not especially wealthy and yet they have people that are doing just fine. They raise families. They pay their taxes. They go to college. They have jobs. And all these things happen without the urban infrastructure you somehow think is required for human life. It isn't. It is required for life in your city. But that is because the city itself places demands on you that simply don't exist beyond it. Do you know how much traffic I deal with outside a major city? Nada. I get in my car and go where I want to go. I might get stuck behind a slow moving truck now and again but you can usually pass him if you're patient.
People get by.
Those dense housing projects in those cities are stupid. They're counter productive in that they limit the opportunities of the people that live in them. They create problems for the cities without really offering any solutions. They are a net and continuous cost with no benefit besides allowing people to subsist in an environment that is ill suited to their needs. These people need an environment where they can prosper and thrive on their own two feet. Those housing projects have been proven not to do that. Case closed.
In the last 20 thousand years we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise. The rate of sea level rise was much faster in ages past and it largely stabilized about 3 or 4 thousand years ago.
It has however still been going up.
If we took the average over time just to get a basic grasp of how much things have moved over what kind of time scale...
20,000 years / 120 meters = 166.6 years per meter of sea level rise in the last 20,000 years.
Now again, that is not the average rate of sea level rise today. Today, it is mostly stable and ticks up a little bit but it is nothing like what it was before.
At our current rate of about 1 foot per 100 years, our sea level rise is about half the gross average sea level rise over the last 20,000 years. Only in the context of the last 3 thousand years is that rate unusual. However it isn't even an extreme departure.
This is a very big system we're talking about that operates on literally geologic time scales. What we have is a blip on that system and it isn't even that unusual.
Look, my stance since everyone wants to play the US vs THEM game is that I think we have time. I think we have some serious problems to deal with but they are very large and slow systems we are dealing with that do not need to rush to address.
Our technology is advancing rapidly and most of the current concerns are going to be naturally rendered irrelevant before they become an actual threat to our planetary biosphere.
Can coastal communities expect rising seas? Yep. Of about 1 foot per 100 years so far. If they can't handle that then move. That is a totally reasonable amount of fluctuation in sea levels. Humans have lived near the sea for time out of mind, Our noses are unlike any other primate species because it allows us to more comfortably submerge ourselves in water. There are ancient human settlements that have been found that appear to have been continuously inhabited for hundreds of thousands of years.
We know the sea. Stop whining about what are relatively tiny changes in sea level. A fucking foot? Come now. Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.
We have more pressing problems to deal with them to obsess over this issue endlessly.
... This is like asking how one is to eat without McDonalds.
How do you think everyone gets to work outside major cities? Do you think we go to work by training hamsters, making little carts out of sticks, discarded cans, and duct tape... and then getting them to move forward by tossing peanuts in front them?
First off, small towns generally do have mass transit. Buses are very common.
Second, for very small towns you don't need mass transit because you can literally just walk anywhere in the town in about 5 to 10 minutes.
Third, cars are not that expensive especially if you out of the big cities. It is very common for people in trailer parks to have cars. Not great cars... but cars that can get them where ever they need to go. And because it is an area with low congestion they spend ZERO time in traffic and they probably aren't that far away from work anyway which means they might only be in the car for 10 to 20 minutes tops. Compare that to city commutes which can top two hours WASTED going to and from your place of work every day. When I was in Los Angeles, I would often spend upwards of an hour commuting sometimes EACH WAY. And that is STILL considered normal in LA.
I just don't know where to start with your question. It is as if you think we didn't have civilization at all until subways were invented.
And are you under the impression that everyone outside cities are rich? Think about that. There are poor people that don't live in cities. How do they get to work every day without mass transit.
Come... the fuck... on.