ACtually we'd lose a fair bit. What's the %, something liek 15% of the US population lives near the coasts? along with many of our most productive and economically important cities? something like a quarter of Louisiana would go away, along with a fair bit of Florida. San Franciso bay would increase in size by like 20%, and if it got much higher potentially even spilling into the central valley (and they complain about lower production right now...:P).
Wow are you stupid. and you (hilariously) use that stupid fox trope of "low information so-and-so"....
during the last glacial maximum the ice sheets were 2 miles thick (or thicker) as far south as California's yosemite valley, and similarly far north in the southern hemisphere.
"all managed to survive"... not without some losses I assure you.
no, we're not still emerging from the last glaciation. and no, no polar caps is not the normal state, nor is that really a relevent thing. how do you determine normal? based on average length of with and without? so 3 billion years without, including the billion or so when the earth was cooling after formationa nd still largely covered by magma throws that average off a fair bit.
in short: the only one low on information around here, is you.
You're nothing but a troll, for whom the word "logic" represents a foreign language.
Fracking is about 60 years old, but even though it was invented awhile ago, it wasnt used regularly for extraction until recently. It also didnt involve the use of toxic chemicals originally; that's a recent "refinement" that allows higher pressures that pure water would allow for.
Yes it is. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what it is. Permafrost has been frozen for many thousands of years. The biological processes (re: bacteria) that break down organic materials into nutrients that make for fertile soil are not active and present. They take time to occur and spread and actually create thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming.
Tundra will become forest,.
No, it wont. Or rather, it's not a given, and even if it DID occur, you're talking about a process that will take several centuries on its own. Not exactly something we can just wait for realistically.
forest will become fertile farmland..
Again, no. Your understanding of agriculture, soil health, forestry, etc is...basically nonexistent. In fact, strike "basically". It is nonexistent.
Desertification is not 'obvious'..
Yes it is. It's happening before our eyes.
Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.
Ah, the old "more rain = good". First off, its not more rain period. Many area will get less rain, as they get pushed to the opposite extreme. Death Valley wont suddenly find itself pushed to wetness. In fact the opposite: Death Valley type conditions and dryness will cover a larger area in similar circumstances (rain shadows more severe, etc).
In other areas, they will get more rain. But more rain isnt automatically good. Too much rain too quickly doesnt soak in, but causes flash floods, erosion, and mudslides, stripping good soil off the surface, and clogging streams and rivers with sediment. This process expands river deltas, which are fertile, but leaves the interior with less arable land.
no we dont, you do not know what you're talking about. you are conflating existing general rules with specific-to-drone rules they are still creating rules specifically for drones. we've had at least TWO OTHER topics about this in the past month, and i keep covering the same ground cause people dont bother to read the actual regulations.
in the US ultralights are regged under FAR 103 (http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html).
no license required, VFR only, stay out of clouds, below 1200 feet, dont fly over cities/neighborhoods, stay out of controlled airspace, and avoiding other aircraft is your responsibility.
also, to qualify as an ultralight, there are restriction on the craft itself: 1 occupant, empty weight 250lbs or less (excluding safety equipment and floats; 150 lbs if unpowered), maximum fuel capacity 5 gals, maximum speed 55kias, and does not stall abofe 25kias.
exceed these limits and your ultralight is now a "light sport craft", the new category they made like 12 years ago and slipped in between "ultralight" and "airplane", which is still a lesser requirement than full on airplane.
no no no. there is no difference between bird strike and drone strike. you are severly ignorant here.
birds dont just "stop" and engine, while drones blow up planes.
first off, the bird gets shredded. it becomes ground meat. second, because of the speeds at whicj jet engines spin, if any of the vanes get bent (and even a bird strike can do that), the turbine can very quickly become unbalanced, and tear itself apart. potentially the pieces could puncture the wing, fuel tanks, even the fuselage.
which is exactly the same as what would happen with a small drone. no the battery wouldnt explode (seriously, wtf???)
your comments abuot the plane should be deisgned better show your ignorance on the subject.
a jet enginee spins at tens of thousands of rpm. it is a very precisely tuned and balanced machine, with internal tolerances of 0.000001" and less (no I'm not exaggerating, I calibrate the measurement devices they use). anything that gets sucked into the engine will shred the engine, causing turbine vanes to warp, bend, and tear to pieces from suddenly being unbalanced at 50000rpm. and yes, losing an engine IS a big deal, because: physic. all thrust on one side, and none on the other makes a plane very hard to control. and birds ARE A THREAT to them. that's why most major airports are designed to by and large provide no haven to birds, nothing that would attract them. many airports also have devices meant specifically to scare them away. plus birds generally on their own dont go near giant airplanes several thousand times their size and emitting sound >140db.
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
"buy up state legislatures"... where have you been? did you miss the RNC's specific strategy of gaining republican control of state legislatures specifically for the purpose of affecting national elections (redistricting, ALEC legislation, etc)
oh and speaking of ALEC....which is how businesses get friendly legislations into states, til a majority concensus happens, and then a federal version appears....
1. To be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines. 2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust: doubts politicians when they make sweeping statements. 3. To regard as unlikely: I doubt that we'll arrive on time.
its like the difference between drawing a really cool airplane... and actually designing the thing so it can function.
drawing a shape is easy. drawing one that will fly, not really much harder (unless you get really carried away with cool factor stuff). deciding where to route the miles of electrical wiring and plumbing, where to place the holes in the structural bulkheads for them pass through, how much space to leave between the inner skin and outer skin for them to be routed, where to place the systems the wiring/plumbing connects to, keeping everything balanced so the craft is stable, how much clearance around moving parts (like control or action rods) within the skin is required, where access panels should be located for maintenance, which panels need welded, which riveted, which screwed in, which are accessible....and this is just a short list focused on wiring and panel accessibility.
they arent looking for a solution to the door problem.
theyre using it to illustrate the kind of minutae and detail required for even an incosequential aspect of the game the most players arent even going to notice but simply take for granted.
we can go further: how much time and money and resources should we spend on a closet not even vital to the gameplay, or story, or that 99% of players wont even see or use? will players get tired of seeing the same bleach bottles that are inexplicably all over this world? ("boy, sure is a lot of Product X in this world"). is our goal a total open world (0% linear), or to essentially put the player on rails (100% linear)?
thats why they talk about feature creep, and design decisions and compromises.
its like the question in structural engineering of why we dont make buildings able to withstand X? because $$$. the more X you want to withstand, the more $$$ you require, usually with severe diminishing returns on the relations between $$$ and X.
note that I dont disagree with your opinion on arbitrary restrictions, and the door problem is mostly handled by the level designer, and how much work/effort he wants to put into the level (assuming the engine and computer can handle anything he creates).
but in your haste to answer the questions, you're making design decisions on just one minor facet of the game while assuming infinite resources, in terms of what the computer can handle, and in terms of what you can actually create, in terms of money you have to spend, in terms of time you have to deliver a product. all while ignoring the larger point: there's a door. it opens. ok, what's on the other side? a mop closet. ok, now we gotta add a mop closet to the game. what's in the closet? brooms. just brooms? a mop bucket. and a sink. does the sink turn on? can the player grab the items? how much interactivity does the engine handle? how finely detailed are the textures we're going to use? are they unique to this closet or are we reusing from elsewhere? how much space on the media will it take up? how far down the rabbit hole are we going?
that's the author's point: just because you have played games doesnt mean you grasp the complexities of actually creating and managing a project. its like saying you can design an airplane because you're a pilot.
Its an electric utility company. Its job isnt to provide growth or investment income. Its job is to fill the natural monpoly niche of providing power to the residents of a city.
it has nothing to do with sending water to another state. there's not enough there to send, and no means to do so.
no bundy has not been there since before it was a state. Bundy's claim dates to the 1880s. The state because a state during hte Civil War, the 1860s. the federal government has own the land in question since the 1840s, when it was a territory obtained from mexico. the federal government is the one that's owned the land since before it was a state.
bundy himself used this land since long before the 90s. and he was more than happy to pay the fees back then. there was a condition imposed that he reduce the size of the herd he ran ON THAT PEICE OF LAND, but he was free to use other lands or his own for the displaced cattle.
it had nothing to do with water, its because the desert tortiose is endangered. whether cattle are harmful to it, i dont know, im not a biologist, but ultiamtely it doesnt matter, because the law is the law. if you dont like it, change it, petition it, etc. but you dont get to just ignore it, keep using land that is not and never has been yours, for free, and threaten violence over it.
and, no, nevada is not that liberal, i assure you. like most states, its purple, and in recent years has been leaning more and more red.
Basically nothing you said is true. Dont comment on things you arent qualified to.
what overreach? its federal land. always has been.
Forcing unfavorable contract terms? He's free to use his own land. Or pay the (extremely reasonable) fees that every other rancher pays to use public lands.
It's pure property rights: the fed has em, Bundy does not. Bundy chose to ignore that, and has been running his cattle, at taxpayer expense (which is why the fees exist, to reduce the cost to the public) on public land.
Slashdot Mirror
ACtually we'd lose a fair bit. :P).
What's the %, something liek 15% of the US population lives near the coasts?
along with many of our most productive and economically important cities?
something like a quarter of Louisiana would go away, along with a fair bit of Florida.
San Franciso bay would increase in size by like 20%, and if it got much higher potentially even spilling into the central valley (and they complain about lower production right now...
Wow are you stupid. and you (hilariously) use that stupid fox trope of "low information so-and-so"....
during the last glacial maximum the ice sheets were 2 miles thick (or thicker) as far south as California's yosemite valley, and similarly far north in the southern hemisphere.
"all managed to survive" ... not without some losses I assure you.
no, we're not still emerging from the last glaciation.
and no, no polar caps is not the normal state, nor is that really a relevent thing. how do you determine normal? based on average length of with and without? so 3 billion years without, including the billion or so when the earth was cooling after formationa nd still largely covered by magma throws that average off a fair bit.
in short: the only one low on information around here, is you.
You're nothing but a troll, for whom the word "logic" represents a foreign language.
Fracking is about 60 years old, but even though it was invented awhile ago, it wasnt used regularly for extraction until recently. It also didnt involve the use of toxic chemicals originally; that's a recent "refinement" that allows higher pressures that pure water would allow for.
Tundra is not marginal.
Yes it is.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what it is. Permafrost has been frozen for many thousands of years. The biological processes (re: bacteria) that break down organic materials into nutrients that make for fertile soil are not active and present. They take time to occur and spread and actually create thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming.
Tundra will become forest, .
No, it wont.
Or rather, it's not a given, and even if it DID occur, you're talking about a process that will take several centuries on its own. Not exactly something we can just wait for realistically.
forest will become fertile farmland..
Again, no. ...basically nonexistent.
Your understanding of agriculture, soil health, forestry, etc is
In fact, strike "basically". It is nonexistent.
Desertification is not 'obvious'. .
Yes it is. It's happening before our eyes.
Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.
Ah, the old "more rain = good".
First off, its not more rain period.
Many area will get less rain, as they get pushed to the opposite extreme. Death Valley wont suddenly find itself pushed to wetness. In fact the opposite: Death Valley type conditions and dryness will cover a larger area in similar circumstances (rain shadows more severe, etc).
In other areas, they will get more rain. But more rain isnt automatically good. Too much rain too quickly doesnt soak in, but causes flash floods, erosion, and mudslides, stripping good soil off the surface, and clogging streams and rivers with sediment. This process expands river deltas, which are fertile, but leaves the interior with less arable land.
no we dont, you do not know what you're talking about.
you are conflating existing general rules with specific-to-drone rules
they are still creating rules specifically for drones.
we've had at least TWO OTHER topics about this in the past month, and i keep covering the same ground cause people dont bother to read the actual regulations.
in the US ultralights are regged under FAR 103 (http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html).
no license required, VFR only, stay out of clouds, below 1200 feet, dont fly over cities/neighborhoods, stay out of controlled airspace, and avoiding other aircraft is your responsibility.
also, to qualify as an ultralight, there are restriction on the craft itself: 1 occupant, empty weight 250lbs or less (excluding safety equipment and floats; 150 lbs if unpowered), maximum fuel capacity 5 gals, maximum speed 55kias, and does not stall abofe 25kias.
exceed these limits and your ultralight is now a "light sport craft", the new category they made like 12 years ago and slipped in between "ultralight" and "airplane", which is still a lesser requirement than full on airplane.
no no no.
there is no difference between bird strike and drone strike. you are severly ignorant here.
birds dont just "stop" and engine, while drones blow up planes.
first off, the bird gets shredded. it becomes ground meat.
second, because of the speeds at whicj jet engines spin, if any of the vanes get bent (and even a bird strike can do that), the turbine can very quickly become unbalanced, and tear itself apart. potentially the pieces could puncture the wing, fuel tanks, even the fuselage.
which is exactly the same as what would happen with a small drone.
no the battery wouldnt explode (seriously, wtf???)
your comments abuot the plane should be deisgned better show your ignorance on the subject.
a jet enginee spins at tens of thousands of rpm. it is a very precisely tuned and balanced machine, with internal tolerances of 0.000001" and less (no I'm not exaggerating, I calibrate the measurement devices they use). anything that gets sucked into the engine will shred the engine, causing turbine vanes to warp, bend, and tear to pieces from suddenly being unbalanced at 50000rpm. and yes, losing an engine IS a big deal, because: physic. all thrust on one side, and none on the other makes a plane very hard to control. and birds ARE A THREAT to them. that's why most major airports are designed to by and large provide no haven to birds, nothing that would attract them. many airports also have devices meant specifically to scare them away. plus birds generally on their own dont go near giant airplanes several thousand times their size and emitting sound >140db.
because its still technically a drone.
drone is not limited to octo or quad copters.
drone is not limited to autonomous devices.
R/C = drone = UAV
Is that when a sweaty guy in a Vneck, chest hair puffed out, gold chain on his neck, wont let you into "da club" ?
we dont need congress to do anything.
the FAA is neither in the wrong, nor overereaching.
you're an idiot.
We already covered ALL this ground 2 months ago in http://news.slashdot.org/story...
It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.
We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.
Reposting my post from http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
http://www.faa.gov/news/update...
"buy up state legislatures" ... where have you been? did you miss the RNC's specific strategy of gaining republican control of state legislatures specifically for the purpose of affecting national elections (redistricting, ALEC legislation, etc)
oh and speaking of ALEC....which is how businesses get friendly legislations into states, til a majority concensus happens, and then a federal version appears....
you have a dubious defintion of "doubt".
1. To be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust: doubts politicians when they make sweeping statements.
3. To regard as unlikely: I doubt that we'll arrive on time.
bingo.
its like the difference between drawing a really cool airplane...
and actually designing the thing so it can function.
drawing a shape is easy.
drawing one that will fly, not really much harder (unless you get really carried away with cool factor stuff).
deciding where to route the miles of electrical wiring and plumbing, where to place the holes in the structural bulkheads for them pass through, how much space to leave between the inner skin and outer skin for them to be routed, where to place the systems the wiring/plumbing connects to, keeping everything balanced so the craft is stable, how much clearance around moving parts (like control or action rods) within the skin is required, where access panels should be located for maintenance, which panels need welded, which riveted, which screwed in, which are accessible....and this is just a short list focused on wiring and panel accessibility.
they arent looking for a solution to the door problem.
theyre using it to illustrate the kind of minutae and detail required for even an incosequential aspect of the game the most players arent even going to notice but simply take for granted.
mod up
we can go further: how much time and money and resources should we spend on a closet not even vital to the gameplay, or story, or that 99% of players wont even see or use? will players get tired of seeing the same bleach bottles that are inexplicably all over this world? ("boy, sure is a lot of Product X in this world"). is our goal a total open world (0% linear), or to essentially put the player on rails (100% linear)?
thats why they talk about feature creep, and design decisions and compromises.
its like the question in structural engineering of why we dont make buildings able to withstand X? because $$$. the more X you want to withstand, the more $$$ you require, usually with severe diminishing returns on the relations between $$$ and X.
note that I dont disagree with your opinion on arbitrary restrictions, and the door problem is mostly handled by the level designer, and how much work/effort he wants to put into the level (assuming the engine and computer can handle anything he creates).
but in your haste to answer the questions, you're making design decisions on just one minor facet of the game while assuming infinite resources, in terms of what the computer can handle, and in terms of what you can actually create, in terms of money you have to spend, in terms of time you have to deliver a product. all while ignoring the larger point: there's a door. it opens. ok, what's on the other side? a mop closet. ok, now we gotta add a mop closet to the game. what's in the closet? brooms. just brooms? a mop bucket. and a sink. does the sink turn on? can the player grab the items? how much interactivity does the engine handle? how finely detailed are the textures we're going to use? are they unique to this closet or are we reusing from elsewhere? how much space on the media will it take up? how far down the rabbit hole are we going?
that's the author's point: just because you have played games doesnt mean you grasp the complexities of actually creating and managing a project. its like saying you can design an airplane because you're a pilot.
Its an electric utility company.
Its job isnt to provide growth or investment income.
Its job is to fill the natural monpoly niche of providing power to the residents of a city.
yes
nevada has been trying to get more control of its federal lands for years.
this of course will be a big setback to those wishes.
it has nothing to do with sending water to another state.
there's not enough there to send, and no means to do so.
no bundy has not been there since before it was a state.
Bundy's claim dates to the 1880s.
The state because a state during hte Civil War, the 1860s.
the federal government has own the land in question since the 1840s, when it was a territory obtained from mexico.
the federal government is the one that's owned the land since before it was a state.
bundy himself used this land since long before the 90s. and he was more than happy to pay the fees back then. there was a condition imposed that he reduce the size of the herd he ran ON THAT PEICE OF LAND, but he was free to use other lands or his own for the displaced cattle.
it had nothing to do with water, its because the desert tortiose is endangered. whether cattle are harmful to it, i dont know, im not a biologist, but ultiamtely it doesnt matter, because the law is the law. if you dont like it, change it, petition it, etc. but you dont get to just ignore it, keep using land that is not and never has been yours, for free, and threaten violence over it.
and, no, nevada is not that liberal, i assure you. like most states, its purple, and in recent years has been leaning more and more red.
Basically nothing you said is true.
Dont comment on things you arent qualified to.
what overreach?
its federal land.
always has been.
Forcing unfavorable contract terms?
He's free to use his own land.
Or pay the (extremely reasonable) fees that every other rancher pays to use public lands.
It's pure property rights: the fed has em, Bundy does not. Bundy chose to ignore that, and has been running his cattle, at taxpayer expense (which is why the fees exist, to reduce the cost to the public) on public land.
it doesnt get any simpler.