And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is. Especially not facts. What other scientific ideas are you willing to ascribe to politics? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Thermodynamics (that's even worse than climate change: it says we're really screwed). Evolution?...logical that we're still warming up from it.
You don't think the climate scientists might have noticed that too? Perhaps if you actually took a look at the work that they do rather than simply spouting off you might rrealise that.
I don't think that science is necessarily political, but scientific funding may lead to a selection bias, both in the public and private sectors.
Every nuclear facility has probability of catastrophic accident. It is a positive number, usually written as "once every XXX years". Now just multiply that number with needed number of nuclear reactors for the whole world and you'll get a number which is IMHO far too small (bad accident every few tens of years).
Look at the current situation though.
The output of each coal power plants ends up killing people each year, if the coal plant is operating correctly. Multiply that by all the coal power plants in the US.
Then compare that to a bad US accident (Three Mile Island, for example).
One is far worse than the other.
By the way, expensive power has a health and environmental cost as well. While cheap fuel may have contributed to urban sprawl in the US (bad for the environment), cheap power also allows us to use energy intensive processes that are more environmentally friendly.
It is easy to point at this and say "OMG RELIGION MUST BE BAD!" But perhaps a better lesson to take away from this is that society tends to punish those who break commonly held cultural norms, at the expense of the health of society and personal liberty.
Many modern western democracies have laws against "hate" speech. The US is one of the major exceptions because of the first amendment. I doubt racism is any worse in the US than most of Europe (other than there are more racial heterogeneity in the US to hate). But even with the example of the US thriving with rather liberal free speech rights, much of Europe believes such laws are necessary to promote the greater good.
One could make a strong argument that restrictions on hate speech just drives the groups underground instead of keeping them in the public where they can be refuted and mocked.
But, as I said, cultural norms tend to be enforced through punishing the rule breakers. This is true in the US and in Europe -- much of Europe has hate speech criminalized, while in the US, there is a strong social condemnation for groups that fight for the freedom of all speech, including unpopular speech (such as the ACLU's support of neo-NAZIs).
Perhaps we should do a lot less patting ourselves on the back and saying that we are better than the Irish law makers, and take some time to look at our own laws and what has been legislated from a visceral reaction. For USians, a good start would be examining any law that was supposed to "protect the children".
1. Roger Corman - this director made a huge number of very low budget films, all of which made substantial profits. There were several periods where you could take the financials on Corman's last 10 films, compare them with the same numbers for every director in the entire studio system, and for every single Hollywood studio, it would have made a lot more sense to hire Corman and hand him 30 million dollars with very loose, few strings attached contracts, and most likely get 10 more films out of it that would probably gross 100 million plus at the box office, than to risk that 30 million on a single big budget epic with any other director, given those director's reputation for expensive flops. But that didn't happen.
If you are a young studio executive who wants to make it big, is it better to be responsible for one major blockbuster, or for a string of mediocre films that make money most of the time, with a few noteworthy flops?
Of course, I've also never bought into the idea that the only way to clean up an infected windows box is to reinstall everything from scratch. It takes me about 30 minutes of work to clean up the worst infected windows computer I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). That's 30 minutes of work for me and about a day or so of work for the computer. Saves the end user a ton of work reinstalling everything, though.
Depends on the virus.
The most common bad viruses I've seen create a bunch of random junk files somewhere, usually with a 8.3 name, often under the windows directory. A virus scanner will detect that a few of the files are infected -- before deleting them, look at when they were created and then search the computer for all files created at around the same time. (Virus writers haven't been altering timestamps yet, from what I've seen, but it is only a matter of time.)
If the virus writer was feeling a tad malicious, part of the malware will be a device driver. Those are fun to remove. Registry editing + a seperate computer works (but make sure to turn off autorun, and check the infected computer's autorun files anyways).
Registry or profile editing is sometimes needed anyways, due to the virus disabling minor things like the task manager. If this is the case, the pstools can be a big help (google pstool, it is a free download from Microsoft).
I've also seen cases where a computer appears "clean" but is reinfected within 24 hours of no use. I'm not sure how this happens, my current theory is that it is scheduling an automatic download (Where? I checked the multiple areas where run-on-startup is set under Windows. Could it be triggered on running an executable instead?) or storing a file or files in a format that aren't identifiable as a virus, but can be transformed into one via a scheduled command.
I do agree that with enough time, a wipe and reload should be avoidable (a repair install may not be). But for the average computer shop, or the average geek just wanting to get things done, a wipe & reload is often the easiest and quickest solution.
PS: An "Installation-Files" folder is a Very Good Idea. Copy the CD of any software you want to install to that folder. Create a __CD_KEY__.txt file. Eject the CD and install from the local disk copy. Use the CD key in the text file. If you need to reinstall or reload the computer, copy Installation-Files to an external drive.
So, what we should do is put people in a "mock spacecraft" for a "test" and launch them towards Mars. At the end of the 105 days they open the hatch and... surprise!
There was an old SF short story about a similarly fake moon mission.
The "ship" went off course and managed to give the "astronauts" a glimps of the dark side of the moon -- which ended up being obviously a wooden prop.
But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.
Heh, at least they won't look at you funny.
About a quarter of the images (usually the ones I can't see anything else in) reminds me of roadkill.
I doubt that's going to be a positive test outcome.
Maybe I'm a serial killer in disguise, but I'm pretty sure that my interpretation has something to do with bicycling on the shoulders of busy highways.
Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat". These two ways of looking at the world are not, and never will be, compatible. Those who "combine" the two really are saying, "I believe this or that, but, I can't completely ignore this incontrovertible evidence over here, but, for anything else, I'll just BELIEVE!" Horse-Puckey!
Is all religion incompatible with science, or just the strain of fundie Christianity you happened to be exposed to while skipping channels on TV?
Perhaps you should take some time and do some research first. Why don't you try looking at some of the few religions that can be atheistic.
Most of the digital mapping data misses out a lot of local features. Even the Tele Atlas data that Google maps uses is buggy and in Western Europe misses minor roads, and I've even seen it miss junctions between major roads. In Eastern Europe it often misses entire roads and cities (e.g. compare the capital of Albania on Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.
In the US, Google Maps misses new additions.
A family member whose business requires him to frequently go to new additions recommended a Hudson atlas to me -- about $30 at a gas station. It covers the entire metro area I'm in (plus a mediocre state map in the back of the book), includes house numbering, and will have the latest additions. It is cheaper than a GPS but does require taking a minute or so before the trip to map out the route.
1. An individual would have to be VERY motivated to attack two countries at once. Especially if those countries are the US and South Korea. The only thing that makes them unique is that they're at war with North Korea. We also know for a fact that the North Korean citizen does not have internet access from reporters inside the country, in fact posessing a device that can access the outside is punishable by death there so it can't have been a NK citizen acting alone. Assuming it was just one citizen from another country they would have to be very dedicated to perform what is basically a military strike against a foreign power. Prepared to risk death to frame North Korea; that would be a very unique combination and it makes little sense.
So what would motivate an individual or private group to attack two countries at once and create a crisis?
How about money?
Set up the situation in order to profit in the stock markets from the political turmoil.
I've discussed environmental issues with a hundred different people, all of whom had different opinions on the subject, and none as silly as the one you quote. I've overheard the kind of silliness you quote in a public hot tub on the other side of town.
Public policy wise, that sort of silliness seems to be the norm.
The handling of waste material is inconsistant between nuclear waste and non-nuclear waste.
We don't think twice about putting household waste (including hazardous chemicals and materials) in a landfill, even though the liner isn't expected to last a millenium. Sure, we might have laws against dumping some stuff in landfills, but they still end up there.
Our public sewage treatment plants end up dumping drugs into the water system, allowing the same drugs to enter the water supply system of downstream towns. We don't require anything different.
We don't require waste repositories on the same scale as nuclear waste repositories for the byproducts of industrial manufacturing, even though some of that material (the heavy metals) will be dangerous forever.
But as soon as we have nuclear waste, we start making plans to store if for thousands and thousands of years.
We'd probably be far better off (from a public health standpoint) of vitrifying the nuclear waste we have, dumping it in a deep mine someplace that seems dry enough, and SPEND THE REST OF THE MONEY ON PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS THAT ARE CLOSER TO HOME!
figure out how many calories you burn in a typical day, and eat less than that, the amount less than that you eat will determine how fast you lose weight.
For me, it doesn't always work that way.
Below a certain point, my body decides that instead of getting the missing 3500 calories from burning fat, it would rather decrease my metabolism. Drastically, if necessary. I'm still losing small amounts of weight, but not 1 lb for every 3500 missing calories.
From a perspective of evolution, my body's great: It cuts down on calorie usage when food supply decreases. From a dieting perspective, it is hard for me to lose the final 5-10 lbs of weight.
Take a look at the Assault, Rape, and Murder statistics.
Canada has more rapes per capita than the US? Almost double the US? Other than that, US is in the lead.
Assault wise, it looks like US has a slight edge, but the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia is effectively the same.
Murders is weird. US is ahead for being a developed nation, but there are several nations that I'd consider to be developed that rank above it, such as Poland. (Most of Eastern Europe and the former USSR seem to have high murder rates...)
I'd have assumed that the US would be far out in the rankings, due to our rather tattered social safety net and ineffective prison system that doesn't encourage rehabilitation. But it doesn't seem that way, except in murders, and that could probably be chalked up to the availability of guns in the US.
Sooner or later, we'll want these things to do more than watch and report. Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium(gun small enough to fit in your pocket, sure, gun small enough to fit in a one pound aircraft with reasonable endurance, not so much). The only mechanisms that do scale down are toxins and pathogens, which are what pretty much all dangerous animals of that scale and smaller use.
These things fly, right?
While taking out multiple people may be a problem, taking out one person should not be. Fly the drone to the top of its flight ceiling, then transform its potential energy into kinetic energy. Maybe have lightweight wings that break off, increasing its terminal velocity, and put the control surfaces in the tail, so it still has guidance control as it falls.
If you want to take out more people, design the components to break apart into shrapnel with a small explosive charge. The kinetic energy will still be from the PE->KE transformation, the only explosive charge needed will be the charge to seperate the shrapnal. The target area size can be varied by changing the height above the target the charge is detonated at.
The majority of crashes and deaths aren't caused by people that blow a 0.086. They're habitual offenders who blow.25s.
Don't forget the statistics are sometimes utterly bullshit.
Here in Minnesota, we had an interstate bridge collapse (the I35W bridge) into a major river a few years ago.
Officially, all those deaths from the bridge collapse count as alcohol-related fatalities, due to the fact that a few of the people who died had detectable levels of alcohol in their blood.
Note, they weren't necessarily drunk or even impaired, but since they had detectable levels, it counts.
What should they have done differently? Given up because they lacked the resources and training to effectively fight their opponents when the war started? We had the luxury of two oceans between us and time to build up and train our forces. We had the luxury of choosing when we would fight.
What should they have done differently?
In Stalin's case, how about not purging Red Army leadership in the 1930s?
Perhaps with generals such as Tukhachevsky, the USSR would have done a lot better in WWII.
I would have never gone if it wasn't for sites like wikipedia and sites listing band information, as well as being able to check out the band's music that was (in all likelyhood) illegally uploaded to youtube. After all, there are plenty of bands out there, even in "obscure" genres, and unless I can hear what a band sounds like, why am I going to spend my money acquiring their music over another band's music?
Now I have over half of their CDs, and expect to buy more.
This band is on an independent label, headquartered in Germany, and sings in either English or Finnish. They aren't going to get air play on any major US radio station. Yet they can tour the US. That's due to word of mouth and to piracy.
Yes, people are pirating this band's music from torrent sites, I'm sure. Would these people pay for music anyways? Probably not.
But the benefits to this band from copyright infringement outways the risks, IMO. Copyright infringement hurts the big boys -- we know what they sound like, we either like them or we don't. Copyright infringement helps the smaller bands more than it hurts them, since it acts like free advertising.
Would you rather have 50 people buy your album at $10/pop, or have a song uploaded to youtube, have 5,000 people watch it for free (potentially $50,0000 in lost sales, according to the RIAA), and have 250 people buy the album?
Most people find something really comfortable about being in their cars, even if it requires sitting in rush hour traffic watching the light rail pass by. I know they see the train, they have to, in order to stop for it. But it doesn't seem to cross their mind that by parking (for free) at a park & ride, they could get downtown faster and easier. With fuel costs and the price of parking, it will probably even be cheaper.
A bike will easily go 15 mph, doesn't have a range restriction, and uses no electricity.
A motorized scooter will go the same speed or faster, and has a greater range, plus has the advantage of being able to stop almost anywhere for gasoline.
- Cars don't improve the standards of living (in which case, WTF are you doing arguing about this?)
- Worldwide supply of oil is perfectly stable (and I've got a bridge to sell you...)
- Salaries in the US and other, car-dependant nations will rise at least as much as the price of oil does. (The bridge is still on sale...)
- The US *will* have to reduce its standard of living.
- The existance of non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels.
Personally, I'd like more mass transit and so called "livable" communities.
But I'm not stupid enough to think that if oil ran out tomorrow, we wouldn't have an electric vehicle or an artifical hydrocarbon production infrastructure very quickly.
Admittedly, that's just another energy source to use up, but humanity does use just a mere fraction of the available energy in this solar system. It may seem crazy to talk about the possibilities today, but it probably is less crazy than trying to explain pumping muddy tar out of the ground from thousands of feet below to travel miles and miles in mere minutes to someone a few centuries ago.
I don't have the time, but I'd like to see how they did the study.
In the US at least, exposure to more air pollution is probably directly correlated in how car-centric a city in, and I could easily see the decrease in exercise being the driving force for most of the reduction in life expectancy.
Comparing it worldwide gets even iffier -- lax air pollution standards probably correlates quite well with a poorer economy and lax standards in other areas.
Slashdot Mirror
The wording struck me as odd...
Why do you need to be a minority to have an experience with race-based bigotry?
I don't think that science is necessarily political, but scientific funding may lead to a selection bias, both in the public and private sectors.
Look at the current situation though.
The output of each coal power plants ends up killing people each year, if the coal plant is operating correctly. Multiply that by all the coal power plants in the US.
Then compare that to a bad US accident (Three Mile Island, for example).
One is far worse than the other.
By the way, expensive power has a health and environmental cost as well. While cheap fuel may have contributed to urban sprawl in the US (bad for the environment), cheap power also allows us to use energy intensive processes that are more environmentally friendly.
Some days, the concept of trial by a jury of my peers scares me.
Perhaps we should have trial by Magic 8 Ball instead. The Magic 8 Ball will not use my name to judge if I'm guilty or innocent.
It is easy to point at this and say "OMG RELIGION MUST BE BAD!" But perhaps a better lesson to take away from this is that society tends to punish those who break commonly held cultural norms, at the expense of the health of society and personal liberty.
Many modern western democracies have laws against "hate" speech. The US is one of the major exceptions because of the first amendment. I doubt racism is any worse in the US than most of Europe (other than there are more racial heterogeneity in the US to hate). But even with the example of the US thriving with rather liberal free speech rights, much of Europe believes such laws are necessary to promote the greater good.
One could make a strong argument that restrictions on hate speech just drives the groups underground instead of keeping them in the public where they can be refuted and mocked.
But, as I said, cultural norms tend to be enforced through punishing the rule breakers. This is true in the US and in Europe -- much of Europe has hate speech criminalized, while in the US, there is a strong social condemnation for groups that fight for the freedom of all speech, including unpopular speech (such as the ACLU's support of neo-NAZIs).
Perhaps we should do a lot less patting ourselves on the back and saying that we are better than the Irish law makers, and take some time to look at our own laws and what has been legislated from a visceral reaction. For USians, a good start would be examining any law that was supposed to "protect the children".
If you are a young studio executive who wants to make it big, is it better to be responsible for one major blockbuster, or for a string of mediocre films that make money most of the time, with a few noteworthy flops?
Depends on the virus.
The most common bad viruses I've seen create a bunch of random junk files somewhere, usually with a 8.3 name, often under the windows directory. A virus scanner will detect that a few of the files are infected -- before deleting them, look at when they were created and then search the computer for all files created at around the same time. (Virus writers haven't been altering timestamps yet, from what I've seen, but it is only a matter of time.)
If the virus writer was feeling a tad malicious, part of the malware will be a device driver. Those are fun to remove. Registry editing + a seperate computer works (but make sure to turn off autorun, and check the infected computer's autorun files anyways).
Registry or profile editing is sometimes needed anyways, due to the virus disabling minor things like the task manager. If this is the case, the pstools can be a big help (google pstool, it is a free download from Microsoft).
I've also seen cases where a computer appears "clean" but is reinfected within 24 hours of no use. I'm not sure how this happens, my current theory is that it is scheduling an automatic download (Where? I checked the multiple areas where run-on-startup is set under Windows. Could it be triggered on running an executable instead?) or storing a file or files in a format that aren't identifiable as a virus, but can be transformed into one via a scheduled command.
I do agree that with enough time, a wipe and reload should be avoidable (a repair install may not be). But for the average computer shop, or the average geek just wanting to get things done, a wipe & reload is often the easiest and quickest solution.
PS: An "Installation-Files" folder is a Very Good Idea. Copy the CD of any software you want to install to that folder. Create a __CD_KEY__.txt file. Eject the CD and install from the local disk copy. Use the CD key in the text file. If you need to reinstall or reload the computer, copy Installation-Files to an external drive.
There was an old SF short story about a similarly fake moon mission.
The "ship" went off course and managed to give the "astronauts" a glimps of the dark side of the moon -- which ended up being obviously a wooden prop.
One of the men went insane.
Heh, at least they won't look at you funny.
About a quarter of the images (usually the ones I can't see anything else in) reminds me of roadkill.
I doubt that's going to be a positive test outcome.
Maybe I'm a serial killer in disguise, but I'm pretty sure that my interpretation has something to do with bicycling on the shoulders of busy highways.
Is all religion incompatible with science, or just the strain of fundie Christianity you happened to be exposed to while skipping channels on TV?
Perhaps you should take some time and do some research first. Why don't you try looking at some of the few religions that can be atheistic.
In the US, Google Maps misses new additions.
A family member whose business requires him to frequently go to new additions recommended a Hudson atlas to me -- about $30 at a gas station. It covers the entire metro area I'm in (plus a mediocre state map in the back of the book), includes house numbering, and will have the latest additions. It is cheaper than a GPS but does require taking a minute or so before the trip to map out the route.
So what would motivate an individual or private group to attack two countries at once and create a crisis?
How about money?
Set up the situation in order to profit in the stock markets from the political turmoil.
Public policy wise, that sort of silliness seems to be the norm.
The handling of waste material is inconsistant between nuclear waste and non-nuclear waste.
We don't think twice about putting household waste (including hazardous chemicals and materials) in a landfill, even though the liner isn't expected to last a millenium. Sure, we might have laws against dumping some stuff in landfills, but they still end up there.
Our public sewage treatment plants end up dumping drugs into the water system, allowing the same drugs to enter the water supply system of downstream towns. We don't require anything different.
We don't require waste repositories on the same scale as nuclear waste repositories for the byproducts of industrial manufacturing, even though some of that material (the heavy metals) will be dangerous forever.
But as soon as we have nuclear waste, we start making plans to store if for thousands and thousands of years.
We'd probably be far better off (from a public health standpoint) of vitrifying the nuclear waste we have, dumping it in a deep mine someplace that seems dry enough, and SPEND THE REST OF THE MONEY ON PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS THAT ARE CLOSER TO HOME!
For me, it doesn't always work that way.
Below a certain point, my body decides that instead of getting the missing 3500 calories from burning fat, it would rather decrease my metabolism. Drastically, if necessary. I'm still losing small amounts of weight, but not 1 lb for every 3500 missing calories.
From a perspective of evolution, my body's great: It cuts down on calorie usage when food supply decreases. From a dieting perspective, it is hard for me to lose the final 5-10 lbs of weight.
Canada has more rapes per capita than the US? Almost double the US? Other than that, US is in the lead.
Assault wise, it looks like US has a slight edge, but the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia is effectively the same.
Murders is weird. US is ahead for being a developed nation, but there are several nations that I'd consider to be developed that rank above it, such as Poland. (Most of Eastern Europe and the former USSR seem to have high murder rates...)
I'd have assumed that the US would be far out in the rankings, due to our rather tattered social safety net and ineffective prison system that doesn't encourage rehabilitation. But it doesn't seem that way, except in murders, and that could probably be chalked up to the availability of guns in the US.
These things fly, right?
While taking out multiple people may be a problem, taking out one person should not be. Fly the drone to the top of its flight ceiling, then transform its potential energy into kinetic energy. Maybe have lightweight wings that break off, increasing its terminal velocity, and put the control surfaces in the tail, so it still has guidance control as it falls.
If you want to take out more people, design the components to break apart into shrapnel with a small explosive charge. The kinetic energy will still be from the PE->KE transformation, the only explosive charge needed will be the charge to seperate the shrapnal. The target area size can be varied by changing the height above the target the charge is detonated at.
Don't forget the statistics are sometimes utterly bullshit.
Here in Minnesota, we had an interstate bridge collapse (the I35W bridge) into a major river a few years ago.
Officially, all those deaths from the bridge collapse count as alcohol-related fatalities, due to the fact that a few of the people who died had detectable levels of alcohol in their blood.
Note, they weren't necessarily drunk or even impaired, but since they had detectable levels, it counts.
What should they have done differently?
In Stalin's case, how about not purging Red Army leadership in the 1930s?
Perhaps with generals such as Tukhachevsky, the USSR would have done a lot better in WWII.
I'm going to see a Finnish folk metal band early next month and hopefully buy some schwag.
I would have never gone if it wasn't for sites like wikipedia and sites listing band information, as well as being able to check out the band's music that was (in all likelyhood) illegally uploaded to youtube. After all, there are plenty of bands out there, even in "obscure" genres, and unless I can hear what a band sounds like, why am I going to spend my money acquiring their music over another band's music?
Now I have over half of their CDs, and expect to buy more.
This band is on an independent label, headquartered in Germany, and sings in either English or Finnish. They aren't going to get air play on any major US radio station. Yet they can tour the US. That's due to word of mouth and to piracy.
Yes, people are pirating this band's music from torrent sites, I'm sure. Would these people pay for music anyways? Probably not.
But the benefits to this band from copyright infringement outways the risks, IMO. Copyright infringement hurts the big boys -- we know what they sound like, we either like them or we don't. Copyright infringement helps the smaller bands more than it hurts them, since it acts like free advertising.
Would you rather have 50 people buy your album at $10/pop, or have a song uploaded to youtube, have 5,000 people watch it for free (potentially $50,0000 in lost sales, according to the RIAA), and have 250 people buy the album?
Most people find something really comfortable about being in their cars, even if it requires sitting in rush hour traffic watching the light rail pass by. I know they see the train, they have to, in order to stop for it. But it doesn't seem to cross their mind that by parking (for free) at a park & ride, they could get downtown faster and easier. With fuel costs and the price of parking, it will probably even be cheaper.
35 mph, 35 miles before a recharge is needed.
A bike will easily go 15 mph, doesn't have a range restriction, and uses no electricity.
A motorized scooter will go the same speed or faster, and has a greater range, plus has the advantage of being able to stop almost anywhere for gasoline.
So which niche is this targetting?
- The existance of non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels.
Personally, I'd like more mass transit and so called "livable" communities.
But I'm not stupid enough to think that if oil ran out tomorrow, we wouldn't have an electric vehicle or an artifical hydrocarbon production infrastructure very quickly.
Admittedly, that's just another energy source to use up, but humanity does use just a mere fraction of the available energy in this solar system. It may seem crazy to talk about the possibilities today, but it probably is less crazy than trying to explain pumping muddy tar out of the ground from thousands of feet below to travel miles and miles in mere minutes to someone a few centuries ago.
I don't have the time, but I'd like to see how they did the study.
In the US at least, exposure to more air pollution is probably directly correlated in how car-centric a city in, and I could easily see the decrease in exercise being the driving force for most of the reduction in life expectancy.
Comparing it worldwide gets even iffier -- lax air pollution standards probably correlates quite well with a poorer economy and lax standards in other areas.
As a city, I like it.
Kind of like San Francisco with the severe elevation changes, but if it was transferred to the frozen tundra for half the year.
The lake is pretty and Engers tower is worth visiting if you're ever in the area.