Sorry, I don't see that. The map has contour intervals of 100 meters and the swamp symbols don't extend to the coast in the stretch you mention.
Because, you know, no one had ever seen a tsunami in Japan before. Oh wait, tsunami is a Japanese word. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?
Japan had fifteen of them since 1900, before Tohoku (the slightly dated linked list misses the 2007 Niigata tsunami).
None of these tsunami were greater than the height of the sea wall at Fukushima. And having a large number of tsunami doesn't inform you as to how high they can get.
You certainly sound like you eat drink and poop Fox News.
Sounds like you watch Fox News therefore I don't have to consider anything you say. QED. Plus, I'll rant like a loon for a while and strengthen my argument!
That's not what "flood plain" means. A flood plain is an area frequently inundated by a river. Else everything under about 1000 meters is technically flood plain (from nearby several km asteroid impacts).
Nonsense. Plenty of people thought it was a problem before it happened. The area is hit by a big tsunami about every 300 years. There are historical records of the last few, and geological sediment records of many more. The last one was 300 years ago. They were due.
Plenty of people knew including the builders of the plant who had constructed seawalls capable of withstanding a tsunami about 5 meters shorter than the one that actually hit. What they didn't know until much more recently was that tsunami could be considerably higher than the original 1 in a century events. For example, the earliest work I've seen anyone cite was from 2001. The study by TEPCO (the operators of the Fukushima nuclear plant) reached a similar conclusion much more recently (I recall some point on or after 2008).
For some reason, there's a lot of people here who think that such knowledge can magically transform into a higher seawall overnight despite the participation of several slow bureaucracies in the decision making and construction process. They don't trust these bureaucracies to run nuclear reactors, but they expect them to act instantly on new information and spend gobs of money to address any threat, real or imagined.
These same people seem to forget that Fukushima was scheduled to start its decommissioning in 2013 as well (yes, the life of the plant was extended, but not at the time that the higher seawall would have been evaluated). Why slap up a higher seawall when the plant will stop operating in a few years? One needs a better argument than that a very infrequent earthquake could happen during that period of time.
Yes, I get that people are pouting because their team didn't win. But you don't get massive uprisings like the one that threw out the Russian puppet government just because some superpower throws a little money in. Note also how much trouble Russia is having maintaining its side of the conflict, requiring a number of Russian troops to keep their uprising from falling apart.
and as first-strike weapons they would be very hard if not impossible to stop
No harder than ICBMs.
First-strike weaponry generally enables the crazy/unstable countries
Who aren't known for their adherence to treaty. We are extremely fortunate that development of nuclear weapons in the first place is hard enough that our current crop of crazy/unstable countries hasn't been able to develop them. I think it would be a terrible assumption to assume that anyone who does manage to do that, isn't going to try to develop delivery methods with continued disregard for international treaty as well.
"Vision" is not just a leader making large scale or long term decisions. It's the ability to see in some metaphorical sense. The current state of NASA, as more a tool for distributing public funds than as a space exploration pioneer, is a choice made by leaders, but it isn't a result of vision.
Sure, US presidents make the final choices and US congresses set the budget. Those parties have the control and final say over anything NASA does. But the only party with the vision in this mess is NASA. They're the only ones here who have the ability to evaluate the consequences of actions and determine ways to implement future goals. They also have the ability to steer the decision-making. If something remarkable is feasible, they can push for it.
And as I noted earlier, that's an explicit job function of NASA in the law.
He's supposed to have those skills, experience, and time.
Of course, that isn't true. Even in some sort of ideal case, no one expects a leader to be a highly proficient expert in everything. The leader is expected to delegate his authority to subordinates who do have the necessary skills.
There isn't any point to the rest of your post since I've already quoted for DerekLyons, the relevant quotes of the law.
So what? There's a good chance that will be "later" and never be Putin's problem. And even if it causes an "unkindness" to Russia's fortunes at some point, that may still put Russia well ahead of Putin not acting as he does. History is "unkind" to nations for a whole lot of other reasons as well.
Personally, I think these assertions that Putin is "irrational", whatever that is supposed to mean in this context, are dangerous in that they encourage the belief holder to blind themselves to people like Putin, particularly, their beliefs, motivations, and incentives.
Even in cases where irrationality is obvious, such as someone pulling a heavy vending machine down upon themselves (here, a poorly thought out action with an obvious downside which wasn't considered at the time), there still are reasons why the irrational behavior happened and things can be done to improve the situation.
So the POTUS decides who heads the execution of the activities (NASA, or DoD), which in effect means the POTUS sets the vision.
That's fine, except the US President doesn't have the skills, experience, or time to set the vision. That's why Congress allotted funding for an agency to enable and implement the President's authority in this matter.
Then how about get someone else who also has a successful history of developing rockets? NASA already has a rather long history of failing to develop launch vehicles which the US hypothetically really wants.
Alternately, they could just not bother at all. Heavy lift isn't that important and one can run a vigorous manned space program (including colonization of Mars or whatever) on the large number of launch vehicles capable of launching 20-25 tons to LEO.
Airplanes are far from easy and I would consider the more complex of them of similar difficulty as well, just due to the much greater reliability standards they have to meet. They are subject to the rocket equation as well.
Bioweapons just don't evolve. They must be designed and created. They also don't work well at any rate. Russia and the US didn't agree to stop pursuing them because they thought they could work. They agreed because they had figured out that they just don't work well at all.
Directed evolution is another way to design and create. While I don't know about ISIL, a small terrorist group need not have the same definition of "work well" as a major superpower. For example, I recall Osama bin Laden was reported to be satisfied with the outcome of the 911 attacks. But they wouldn't have served a useful purpose for a hostile superpower since they didn't actually diminish the US's power or weaken their relations with other countries.
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
It's a good thing then that I actually quoted relevant parts of the law in question to address this very concern. That's the law as written - not my creative interpretation of reality or for that matter, your creative interpretation of reality.
And if we approach this from a rational point of view, who is supposed to provide the vision for NASA's activities? Congress and US presidents don't have the ability and a host of many other distractions. Presidents can appoint informal special panels to do the vision thing, but those come and go. They aren't legally binding.
Ultimately, it's NASA who has that job simply because no one in the US government has the right combination of competence and authority.
My view is that NASA has for decades abandoned its primary duties as the organizer and planner for the exploration and development of space by the US. NASA should have resisted and redirected the whims of Congress rather than devolving into yet another government organization whose most important duty is to put the right names on the checks.
Sure, it does some things in space. But I think we should have much higher expectations than that.
Using the word "government" here is completely unhelpful because it is much to broad. "Military industrial complex" or "Crony Capitalism" would be much more precise and accurate.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the terms "precise" and "accurate". Every government beyond a rather modest size has a military industrial complex. And crony capitalism doesn't even require a government.
Blaming government in general for the specific failures of some corrupted politicians is arguing in favor of anarchy.
Consider how many generations are exposed to these treatments in the real world. Yet we don't see new "bioweapon" strains popping up all the time.
Actually, we do see dangerous drug resistant strains coming up all the time. And why should those environments be even remotely as effective at creating a bioweapon as deliberating creating an environment where the dominant selection processes are for bioweapon potential?
Probably more because that's what gets measured. You know like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under the street lamp, because the light is better.
Look -- I'm as impressed by what SpaceX has achieved as the next guy: basically, I'd describe the pattern as "taking as much unneeded complexity out of the process". But SpaceX couldn't thrive in an environment in which NASA and the government's space program didn't exist. It's a symbiosis (and Elon Musk is clear enough in acknowledging that; actually this clarity is one of his main strengths)
So what do you think NASA does (well supposed to do, I guess, ignoring its role as yet another distribution system for doling out Other Peoples' Money)? And how does developing its own launch vehicle at somewhere around a factor of ten more than SpaceX can help NASA do that?
Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality. Few billionaires have some billions they can put into to what they want rather than meeting political objectives (war, votes, whatever).
Ok, so what? In other contexts, that's an interesting observation, say as an argument for wealth inequality. But I don't see it as having any relevance to the current discussion. NASA has a history of occasional interference with private enterprise particularly when NASA projects are threatened or embarrassed. And it remains that SpaceX in particular has demonstrated a much superior ability to design rockets and similar things than NASA does.
Argue all you want, you still have to deal with the tyranny of the Rocket Equation.
I remain puzzled by the point of your post. This so-called "tyranny" permits quite a bit. For example, it doesn't prohibit NASA from consolidating its operations and upping its space game - without even getting another cent in extra funding from Congress. The politics not the physics of the US space program more or less preclude that.
Slashdot Mirror
Ran for delegate to the 2012 DNC and won - went to Charlotte, NC and worked on both campaigns - 2008 and 2012. Are we clear?
Well, we're clear that you have poor judgment.
Because, you know, no one had ever seen a tsunami in Japan before. Oh wait, tsunami is a Japanese word. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?
Japan had fifteen of them since 1900, before Tohoku (the slightly dated linked list misses the 2007 Niigata tsunami).
None of these tsunami were greater than the height of the sea wall at Fukushima. And having a large number of tsunami doesn't inform you as to how high they can get.
You certainly sound like you eat drink and poop Fox News.
Sounds like you watch Fox News therefore I don't have to consider anything you say. QED. Plus, I'll rant like a loon for a while and strengthen my argument!
The area is periodically inundated by tsunamis.
That's not what "flood plain" means. A flood plain is an area frequently inundated by a river. Else everything under about 1000 meters is technically flood plain (from nearby several km asteroid impacts).
Nonsense. Plenty of people thought it was a problem before it happened. The area is hit by a big tsunami about every 300 years. There are historical records of the last few, and geological sediment records of many more. The last one was 300 years ago. They were due.
Plenty of people knew including the builders of the plant who had constructed seawalls capable of withstanding a tsunami about 5 meters shorter than the one that actually hit. What they didn't know until much more recently was that tsunami could be considerably higher than the original 1 in a century events. For example, the earliest work I've seen anyone cite was from 2001. The study by TEPCO (the operators of the Fukushima nuclear plant) reached a similar conclusion much more recently (I recall some point on or after 2008).
For some reason, there's a lot of people here who think that such knowledge can magically transform into a higher seawall overnight despite the participation of several slow bureaucracies in the decision making and construction process. They don't trust these bureaucracies to run nuclear reactors, but they expect them to act instantly on new information and spend gobs of money to address any threat, real or imagined.
These same people seem to forget that Fukushima was scheduled to start its decommissioning in 2013 as well (yes, the life of the plant was extended, but not at the time that the higher seawall would have been evaluated). Why slap up a higher seawall when the plant will stop operating in a few years? One needs a better argument than that a very infrequent earthquake could happen during that period of time.
Guess we'll have to diversify then. And prepare countermeasures.
but it does seem like important stuff in a flood plain
Fukushima wasn't in a flood plain.
should be inspected and thought through once per year by smart people to find glaring problems like this.
The problem wasn't glaring except in hindsight.
Yes, I get that people are pouting because their team didn't win. But you don't get massive uprisings like the one that threw out the Russian puppet government just because some superpower throws a little money in. Note also how much trouble Russia is having maintaining its side of the conflict, requiring a number of Russian troops to keep their uprising from falling apart.
and as first-strike weapons they would be very hard if not impossible to stop
No harder than ICBMs.
First-strike weaponry generally enables the crazy/unstable countries
Who aren't known for their adherence to treaty. We are extremely fortunate that development of nuclear weapons in the first place is hard enough that our current crop of crazy/unstable countries hasn't been able to develop them. I think it would be a terrible assumption to assume that anyone who does manage to do that, isn't going to try to develop delivery methods with continued disregard for international treaty as well.
Do you really think that would \have stopped Russia separatists?
Yes, because a huge part of that game was the massive military support from Russia and the previous puppet government sponsored by Russia.
If Russia threaten the Ukraine with nuclear force, then the US, and others, will step in.
And do what? Disapprove with lots of words?
"Vision" is not just a leader making large scale or long term decisions. It's the ability to see in some metaphorical sense. The current state of NASA, as more a tool for distributing public funds than as a space exploration pioneer, is a choice made by leaders, but it isn't a result of vision.
Sure, US presidents make the final choices and US congresses set the budget. Those parties have the control and final say over anything NASA does. But the only party with the vision in this mess is NASA. They're the only ones here who have the ability to evaluate the consequences of actions and determine ways to implement future goals. They also have the ability to steer the decision-making. If something remarkable is feasible, they can push for it.
And as I noted earlier, that's an explicit job function of NASA in the law.
What makes being a member of NATO any more relevant than the treaty obligations those same members of NATO had with Ukraine?
He's supposed to have those skills, experience, and time.
Of course, that isn't true. Even in some sort of ideal case, no one expects a leader to be a highly proficient expert in everything. The leader is expected to delegate his authority to subordinates who do have the necessary skills.
There isn't any point to the rest of your post since I've already quoted for DerekLyons, the relevant quotes of the law.
So what? There's a good chance that will be "later" and never be Putin's problem. And even if it causes an "unkindness" to Russia's fortunes at some point, that may still put Russia well ahead of Putin not acting as he does. History is "unkind" to nations for a whole lot of other reasons as well.
Personally, I think these assertions that Putin is "irrational", whatever that is supposed to mean in this context, are dangerous in that they encourage the belief holder to blind themselves to people like Putin, particularly, their beliefs, motivations, and incentives.
Even in cases where irrationality is obvious, such as someone pulling a heavy vending machine down upon themselves (here, a poorly thought out action with an obvious downside which wasn't considered at the time), there still are reasons why the irrational behavior happened and things can be done to improve the situation.
Unless, of course, NATO blinks again and lets it happen.
So the POTUS decides who heads the execution of the activities (NASA, or DoD), which in effect means the POTUS sets the vision.
That's fine, except the US President doesn't have the skills, experience, or time to set the vision. That's why Congress allotted funding for an agency to enable and implement the President's authority in this matter.
Then how about get someone else who also has a successful history of developing rockets? NASA already has a rather long history of failing to develop launch vehicles which the US hypothetically really wants.
Alternately, they could just not bother at all. Heavy lift isn't that important and one can run a vigorous manned space program (including colonization of Mars or whatever) on the large number of launch vehicles capable of launching 20-25 tons to LEO.
Airplanes are far from easy and I would consider the more complex of them of similar difficulty as well, just due to the much greater reliability standards they have to meet. They are subject to the rocket equation as well.
Bioweapons just don't evolve. They must be designed and created. They also don't work well at any rate. Russia and the US didn't agree to stop pursuing them because they thought they could work. They agreed because they had figured out that they just don't work well at all.
Directed evolution is another way to design and create. While I don't know about ISIL, a small terrorist group need not have the same definition of "work well" as a major superpower. For example, I recall Osama bin Laden was reported to be satisfied with the outcome of the 911 attacks. But they wouldn't have served a useful purpose for a hostile superpower since they didn't actually diminish the US's power or weaken their relations with other countries.
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
It's a good thing then that I actually quoted relevant parts of the law in question to address this very concern. That's the law as written - not my creative interpretation of reality or for that matter, your creative interpretation of reality.
And if we approach this from a rational point of view, who is supposed to provide the vision for NASA's activities? Congress and US presidents don't have the ability and a host of many other distractions. Presidents can appoint informal special panels to do the vision thing, but those come and go. They aren't legally binding.
Ultimately, it's NASA who has that job simply because no one in the US government has the right combination of competence and authority.
My view is that NASA has for decades abandoned its primary duties as the organizer and planner for the exploration and development of space by the US. NASA should have resisted and redirected the whims of Congress rather than devolving into yet another government organization whose most important duty is to put the right names on the checks.
Sure, it does some things in space. But I think we should have much higher expectations than that.
Using the word "government" here is completely unhelpful because it is much to broad. "Military industrial complex" or "Crony Capitalism" would be much more precise and accurate.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the terms "precise" and "accurate". Every government beyond a rather modest size has a military industrial complex. And crony capitalism doesn't even require a government.
Blaming government in general for the specific failures of some corrupted politicians is arguing in favor of anarchy.
Good thing we didn't do that then.
Consider how many generations are exposed to these treatments in the real world. Yet we don't see new "bioweapon" strains popping up all the time.
Actually, we do see dangerous drug resistant strains coming up all the time. And why should those environments be even remotely as effective at creating a bioweapon as deliberating creating an environment where the dominant selection processes are for bioweapon potential?
Probably more because that's what gets measured. You know like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under the street lamp, because the light is better.
Look -- I'm as impressed by what SpaceX has achieved as the next guy: basically, I'd describe the pattern as "taking as much unneeded complexity out of the process". But SpaceX couldn't thrive in an environment in which NASA and the government's space program didn't exist. It's a symbiosis (and Elon Musk is clear enough in acknowledging that; actually this clarity is one of his main strengths)
So what do you think NASA does (well supposed to do, I guess, ignoring its role as yet another distribution system for doling out Other Peoples' Money)? And how does developing its own launch vehicle at somewhere around a factor of ten more than SpaceX can help NASA do that?
Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality. Few billionaires have some billions they can put into to what they want rather than meeting political objectives (war, votes, whatever).
Ok, so what? In other contexts, that's an interesting observation, say as an argument for wealth inequality. But I don't see it as having any relevance to the current discussion. NASA has a history of occasional interference with private enterprise particularly when NASA projects are threatened or embarrassed. And it remains that SpaceX in particular has demonstrated a much superior ability to design rockets and similar things than NASA does.
Argue all you want, you still have to deal with the tyranny of the Rocket Equation.
I remain puzzled by the point of your post. This so-called "tyranny" permits quite a bit. For example, it doesn't prohibit NASA from consolidating its operations and upping its space game - without even getting another cent in extra funding from Congress. The politics not the physics of the US space program more or less preclude that.
No, it is 5 successes and 1 partial success out of 9 launches through to the end of 2013. Also, you claim 13 launches there not 9.