Unfortunately the schools ahd hospitals were destroyed by the rebels in the recent civil way. The rebels were a bunch of drug-crazed gangsters using child soldiers to.steal the gold and diamond mines.(The entire mines, not just the produce).
It was American money that funded the rebels, and the Europeans that insisted the government "negotiate" with the rebels as if they were a legitimate democratic opposition. This is the equivalent of asking the Italian government to negotiate with the Mafia. Only worse: The rebels knew they would go to hell for crimes against humanity if caught, so they were prepared to go to any extreme to avoid being caught - chopping random limbs off men women and children without mercy in drug-fueled rampages was only a part of it.
In other words, a relatively nasty government. So what are you going to do about it? And why treat them any differently than say Zimbabwe or North Korea?
A true Democracy would be a terrible system indeed, with the rich even more firmly in control. People give away their password for chocolate bars (70%) or even nothing (34%!), so voting for some obscure law, probably a chocolate bar would do just fine, or at least a threat of getting fired.
Things change when you toss in the second or the third rich person. They will need to offer more than a candy bar.
The tunnel's gonna need a whole lot of concrete, steel, etc. - global commodities whose cost doesn't vary that much by geography.
And don't actually cost that much.
The LHC is packed to the gills with custom components: everything from the the superconducting magnets to the RF generators to the detectors to the massive computing systems to sift through all the subatomic debris. Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom componentry (a question I can't answer - I simply don't know)...
I doubt they do. And I doubt that lack of technical expertise is actually an obstacle. After all, prior to constructing the LHC, Europe didn't have that expertise either and yet all those devices got built just the same.
does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?
I bet the EU could do that too. But it'd require changing how they build such things.
Also, I think any sort of root system would become less effective as the size of the anchored volume increases. For example, doubling the spatial scale of the volume to be anchored means that you have have four times the surface area to anchor to bedrock, but eight times the mass that needs to be anchored.
Suppose your landslipe was exactly a twentieth the mass and volume of the Oso one. Then your slide area would have about 2.7 less mass per surface area for roots to anchor. Get a large enough unstable area and nothing can anchor it. That's why Earth is an oblate spheroid in the first place.
You would be very wrong to believe that. What you are saying is as absurd as saying it would be cheaper to move the workforce for IT out of Silicon Valley. You clearly have no idea what life is actually like in Michigan.
Something which incidentally isn't that hard to do and actually happened. The IT workforce has been moving out of Silicon Valley for decades, just as it has for auto workers in Michigan. The difference is that someone has been moving back to California to replace those who left.
There is no scientifically valid way to rule out life forms which are unlike our own
1) Life will require energy flow. More fully, life will operate much like a heat pump tapping energy flow between a high entropy or temperature sink to a lower entropy or temperature sink.
2) Life will require an environment it can survive in. This story attempts to address part of that with the idea of climate buffering.
3) As K. S. Kyosuke noted in his reply, life will require some matrix capable of the complex morphological structures and behaviors that life will need to survive.
4) Life will need time or a shortcut (like a creator) in order to develop. Evolution-based life will need time (measured in generations) for adaptation to occur.
For example, let's take an isolated "rogue planet". First, it's an object massive enough to round itself under the force of its own gravity, but not massive enough to undergo fusion. Second, it's not orbiting a star and basically is slowly cooling down to the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (no external energy inputs of note). The driver for any life would have to be heat flow from the interior due to heat of formation and possible radioactive decay. The situation is contrived (but in a way that actually probably appears billions of times in nature, just in our galaxy) so that there is no other means to provide significant energy flow to the system.
Restriction 2) is rather simply solved since the environment is very stable over billions of years (unless the rogue planet happens to get too close to a star or runs into something).
Restriction 3) requires either complex chemistry (from elements other than hydrogen or helium) or structure from say possibly, the interaction of different phases of metallic hydrogen and electromagnetism at the core of a gas giant.
Restriction 4) means that if it's evolution-based life derived from abiogenesis, then it needs to be in a high enough energy flow over large enough volume so that enough generations can pass to evolve to a state where they can technically qualify as life (such as traits/information passed from past organisms to future ones). We don't know how big that would need to be, but bigger and older is better. Similarly, we would need the presence of complex structures, which are more likely in a high energy flow environment (eg, amino acids created by weather-induced lightning).
If it's creator-derived or evolved elsewhere and migrated, who knows. The resulting organism might be able to fuse deterium and/or helium 3 isotopes, for example. That allows for creation of higher weight elements too.
You think there is a lack of a willing and capable workforce in Detroit Metro?
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
I think it'd be far cheaper to move whatever fragment of that workforce which is still "capable" out of Michigan to California or Texas than it would be to build anything there.
we really only need an "order of magnitude" estimate and a survey of all available models indicates that 1,000 is the right order of magnitude.
That's boilerplate for "I feel like 1,000 today". There's no reason to expect any of these models to be applicable. My view is that if your estimate is below any detectable threshold, then zero is as good a number as any.
That coal should be left in the ground, and not foolishly burned for energy. It is criminal to turn such a valuable concentrated carbon resource into ash, particulate, and CO2 and disperse it into our environment.
If you're not using it, then it's not valuable. And that carbon concentrates just fine in living plants. The argument that burning coal pollutes is fairly sound. The argument that we have a bunch of highly valuable carbon that we'd be using for some other purpose, if we weren't burning it first, just doesn't make sense.
People accept that they aren't going to live to 1000 years. You can and do accept all sorts of things that you can't change or even for that matter conceive of changing.
In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
Again, where's the evidence to support your claim? The study doesn't show what you think it shows. I get tired of people who confuse opinion and confirmation bias with evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the schools ahd hospitals were destroyed by the rebels in the recent civil way. The rebels were a bunch of drug-crazed gangsters using child soldiers to.steal the gold and diamond mines.(The entire mines, not just the produce). It was American money that funded the rebels, and the Europeans that insisted the government "negotiate" with the rebels as if they were a legitimate democratic opposition. This is the equivalent of asking the Italian government to negotiate with the Mafia. Only worse: The rebels knew they would go to hell for crimes against humanity if caught, so they were prepared to go to any extreme to avoid being caught - chopping random limbs off men women and children without mercy in drug-fueled rampages was only a part of it.
In other words, a relatively nasty government. So what are you going to do about it? And why treat them any differently than say Zimbabwe or North Korea?
Then you have 5 years to build something new and try to catch 40 years worth of rules and logic.
Sounds hard, but far from impossible on a $300 million budget and five years.
The only difference is that corporations have more legal room to hide their mistakes.
Such as needing to turn a profit and being legally required to follow GAAP?
They never bothered to repeal it.
Meaning it has never been abandoned.
Trees suck up water that otherwise causes slides.
Unless it rains a lot. You can increase the threshold a bit before a slide occurs, but big, unstable areas will slide sooner or later.
There's really only two ways to deal with landslide issues this big - disposable land use or get rid of the hillside.
A true Democracy would be a terrible system indeed, with the rich even more firmly in control. People give away their password for chocolate bars (70%) or even nothing (34%!), so voting for some obscure law, probably a chocolate bar would do just fine, or at least a threat of getting fired.
Things change when you toss in the second or the third rich person. They will need to offer more than a candy bar.
The tunnel's gonna need a whole lot of concrete, steel, etc. - global commodities whose cost doesn't vary that much by geography.
And don't actually cost that much.
The LHC is packed to the gills with custom components: everything from the the superconducting magnets to the RF generators to the detectors to the massive computing systems to sift through all the subatomic debris. Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom componentry (a question I can't answer - I simply don't know)...
I doubt they do. And I doubt that lack of technical expertise is actually an obstacle. After all, prior to constructing the LHC, Europe didn't have that expertise either and yet all those devices got built just the same.
does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?
I bet the EU could do that too. But it'd require changing how they build such things.
Also, I think any sort of root system would become less effective as the size of the anchored volume increases. For example, doubling the spatial scale of the volume to be anchored means that you have have four times the surface area to anchor to bedrock, but eight times the mass that needs to be anchored.
Suppose your landslipe was exactly a twentieth the mass and volume of the Oso one. Then your slide area would have about 2.7 less mass per surface area for roots to anchor. Get a large enough unstable area and nothing can anchor it. That's why Earth is an oblate spheroid in the first place.
You seem awful confident about that assertion for some reason.
You would be very wrong to believe that. What you are saying is as absurd as saying it would be cheaper to move the workforce for IT out of Silicon Valley. You clearly have no idea what life is actually like in Michigan.
Something which incidentally isn't that hard to do and actually happened. The IT workforce has been moving out of Silicon Valley for decades, just as it has for auto workers in Michigan. The difference is that someone has been moving back to California to replace those who left.
There is no scientifically valid way to rule out life forms which are unlike our own
1) Life will require energy flow. More fully, life will operate much like a heat pump tapping energy flow between a high entropy or temperature sink to a lower entropy or temperature sink.
2) Life will require an environment it can survive in. This story attempts to address part of that with the idea of climate buffering.
3) As K. S. Kyosuke noted in his reply, life will require some matrix capable of the complex morphological structures and behaviors that life will need to survive.
4) Life will need time or a shortcut (like a creator) in order to develop. Evolution-based life will need time (measured in generations) for adaptation to occur.
For example, let's take an isolated "rogue planet". First, it's an object massive enough to round itself under the force of its own gravity, but not massive enough to undergo fusion. Second, it's not orbiting a star and basically is slowly cooling down to the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (no external energy inputs of note). The driver for any life would have to be heat flow from the interior due to heat of formation and possible radioactive decay. The situation is contrived (but in a way that actually probably appears billions of times in nature, just in our galaxy) so that there is no other means to provide significant energy flow to the system.
Restriction 2) is rather simply solved since the environment is very stable over billions of years (unless the rogue planet happens to get too close to a star or runs into something).
Restriction 3) requires either complex chemistry (from elements other than hydrogen or helium) or structure from say possibly, the interaction of different phases of metallic hydrogen and electromagnetism at the core of a gas giant.
Restriction 4) means that if it's evolution-based life derived from abiogenesis, then it needs to be in a high enough energy flow over large enough volume so that enough generations can pass to evolve to a state where they can technically qualify as life (such as traits/information passed from past organisms to future ones). We don't know how big that would need to be, but bigger and older is better. Similarly, we would need the presence of complex structures, which are more likely in a high energy flow environment (eg, amino acids created by weather-induced lightning).
If it's creator-derived or evolved elsewhere and migrated, who knows. The resulting organism might be able to fuse deterium and/or helium 3 isotopes, for example. That allows for creation of higher weight elements too.
Well, California probably will go bankrupt anyway. Tesla seems a better sink for that money than most.
You think there is a lack of a willing and capable workforce in Detroit Metro?
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
I think it'd be far cheaper to move whatever fragment of that workforce which is still "capable" out of Michigan to California or Texas than it would be to build anything there.
One Problem with your plan... Poor people need firewood to.
Well, some fruit trees give high quality firewood. So they seem likely to be able to provide on that front as well.
What are the masses of unemployed except for the lucky handful supposed to do to feed their families?
Get a job somewhere else other than Tesla. It's not the only employer in existence.
It is. But I guess you have to be there.
we really only need an "order of magnitude" estimate and a survey of all available models indicates that 1,000 is the right order of magnitude.
That's boilerplate for "I feel like 1,000 today". There's no reason to expect any of these models to be applicable. My view is that if your estimate is below any detectable threshold, then zero is as good a number as any.
You first have to show there's a problem with that.
That coal should be left in the ground, and not foolishly burned for energy. It is criminal to turn such a valuable concentrated carbon resource into ash, particulate, and CO2 and disperse it into our environment.
If you're not using it, then it's not valuable. And that carbon concentrates just fine in living plants. The argument that burning coal pollutes is fairly sound. The argument that we have a bunch of highly valuable carbon that we'd be using for some other purpose, if we weren't burning it first, just doesn't make sense.
Trying to find a compromise.
By banning the activity outright? Somehow I don't buy that at all.
The only real aspect that you could strongly argue came from only LOTR was the concept of the halfling.
And elves, dwarves, and dragons. Sure, other sources had them, but these races as presented in D&D were of Tolkien's peculiar flavor.
People accept that they aren't going to live to 1000 years. You can and do accept all sorts of things that you can't change or even for that matter conceive of changing.
In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
Again, where's the evidence to support your claim? The study doesn't show what you think it shows. I get tired of people who confuse opinion and confirmation bias with evidence.
The natural background radiation is nothing society has voluntarily accepted.
I didn't say "voluntarily accepted". I said "accepted".
You are equating "very low risk" with "safe".
Something can be high risk and still be rationally considered safe.
This is OK in personal life but not if you talking about a large number of affected people.
Sure, it can. We do it all the time, such as in this discussion about radiation exposure.
If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this.
Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen to be the case.
And this needs to be considered.
Not if the cost is well below background noise.