that makes it difficult to use another plumber or add fixtures from another comapny, is pure evil, and plain greedy.
A plumber who does good work for a fair price, using agreed standards so the next plumber can easily find his way around the job, and so that off the shelf fixtures bolt right on, is worth his service fee.
There is a votes-per-hour limit on each machine, and a total-votes-per-polling-place limit of 1500 votes.
So even if you managed to capture the entire output of a polling place, you only affect 1500 votes maximum. With the votes-per-hour limit, you have to hold that polling place for hours to do even that.
Thats a lot of risk for a pretty uncertain and limited advantage.
Well, we dont actualy know about nanotech yet, somaybe only one. But nukes are qualitatively unlike the other items on that list.
Everything through machine guns allow a person acting on individuals in his vicinity, to kill them faster, more effectivley, and in larger numbers. But only local to the person pulling the trigger,and only selectively by pointing the thing at the person being killed.
Nukes (and their accompanying technology) can be launched at and utterly destroy effectively an entire country. In fact, some years back, I used the estimate of 50,000 functional nukes in the world's inventory at that time, and figured that you could (in principle) hit a triangular grid covering the entire northern hemisphere land mass, and put nukes about 30 miles apart.
We've only been living with these things for coming up on 60 years now. Still awfully early to say they wont live up to their terrible promise.
And yoe said more than that. You said:
"there's absolutely zero evidence that this is due to human activity."
That isnt true. Not even close. Right now, there isnt bulletproof, conclusive evidence. But there is a mountain of circumstantioal, mechanistic, theoretical, field-observation, and model-derived evidence in support of anthropogenic causes for at least a good part of observed warming.
When you make a dogmatic statement like "there's absolutely zero evidence," please dont come back with nitpicking about how you are being misread.
whatis striking is that the pattern of temperature variations is consistent across thsoe cores, for the years that they overlap.
They give us quite a nice picture of overall temp variation at those locatins, and the temp variatins at those locations are in agreement.
we are already as warm as we've ever seen for the last 420,000 years. See the Vostok Ice Core data, which is is good agreement with otehr ice core data for as far back as the otehr cores go.
We know:
1. CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) trap heat.
2. CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) have increased rapidly and dramatically in concentration, from anthropogenic inputs.
3. That would be expected to trap heat.
4. WE are already at a local AND GLOBAL temp max for the last 400,000 years or so.
5. We are warming very, very rapidly from that local and global maximum.
Given JUST that, even without the good agreement of the models with obeerved data, it seems almost perverse to argue that humans arent creating a pretty solid upward pressure on temps.
This isnt evidence for anthropogenic warming. It isnt evidence for long-term trends. We HAVE reasonable long-ter. measurements of global temp, going back well over 300,000 years.
This is a solid, precise measurement of the rate of warming for this 18 year period. Nothign more. It says that the rate may behigher than previously measured.
Given that the current climate models predict warming, and that the rate of warmng is part of that prediction, this number is important as one (of several) tests of those models, OVER THAT 18 YEARS.
Tehg carboniferous age was much warmer and had likely much higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Thing is, much of the CO2 got sequetered, over literally tens on tens of millions of years, into geological stores.
Now we are releasing large percentages of the sequestered carbon, in 100 years or so. We are reversing a process taht happened in geological time, but we are doign so in historical time, or even current time. That means the problems associated with the change are going to be different.
than curretn temperatures.
According to deep ice cores, we are now as hot as we have been at any time in the last 300,000 years. This warming is happening ON TOP OF temperatures at or very near historical peak, and it is pushing us into temperature regimes not observed over that period.
We are moving OUTSIDE the observed temperature cycles, ane arguing from the effects of those past cycles is problematic; they simply arent relevant, because they are entirely at temperatures lower than where we are going (or likely are now, for that matter).
of personal information about or from a lot of people who are not criminals.
And allowing that information to escape into the wild can hurt those non-criminals, or the people they were talking about.
Allowing this video to escape has hurt this guy's family. They are already dealing with the tragedy of his suicide. Now he becomes a celebrity for freaks who get off on death, some of them obviously overtly racist, because some cop decided it would be cool to post it somewhere?
Boy howdy, THAT is gonna increase my trust in cops.
It obviously affects the hell out of his mother.
Posting this was simply wrong. If it was a cop who posted it, or made ti availalbe, he should get nailed badly for doing so.
Would be a problem even if it only affects fish
on
Buckyballs Kill Fish
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Dumping toxic compounds into ecosystems is stupid, even if the compound in question doesn't directly damage humans.
Remember, we live on this planet, in the biosphere, not separate from it. Functioning ecosystems are A Very Good Thing. Taking out major components of functioning ecosystems (if that really is a risk with fullerenes) is not so good.
But dont forget, you have to get humans to mars,
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
and back. Along with the weight, cost and complexity of life support there, during, and back. Along with the orders of magnitude higher cost imposed by the reliability required to send a human, as opposed to a machine: A 95% reliable mission is much, much, much more expensive than an 80% reliable mission, and we aren't even running that high with our mars unmanned missions.
Why jump right to a high-cost, high-risk, lots of eggs in one basket manned mission when we can continue to learn so much with multiple unmanned missions, many of them, for a lot less cost, and apply the accrued knowledge to an eventual manned mission.
IMO, it isnt time yet.
Sure, bue sheer weight of numbers
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
makes it silly, IMO, to rush right oa manned mission.
Manned mimssins require that extra 10% of reliabilty that adds an order of magnitude or more to the cost. A 150 pound person, with life suport for a coupe years, and mehcanisms for return, adds exonenetialy to teh weight of the missin, and therefoe the amount of stuff we can send, or the cost of assembbling this to send it.
If we can send 100 90%-reliable missions for the cost of one 95%-reliable manned mission (and ai'm basically dreaming at these numbers; reality is much lower than that), we can learn a shitload more before committing ourselves to what is likely to be a one-off (for a good long time anyway) missin that may or may not have the materials necessary to modify the mission on teh ground if we see somethig interesting,and that basically kills the budget and missins if it fails.
One majpor advantage of robotic missions is that redundancy is relatively cheap. That alone is sufficient argument to do the early sets of missions via robotics.
We arent to teh pitn yet of justifying a manned mission, with its inherent limitatins.
Why do you need scientists to have a lab?
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
How many robotic missions can we send, for the cost of a manned mission, there and BACK?
Sorry 'bout that all-caps, but this is important.
The exhaust of a gas drier is not only carying the evaporated water from the drying clothes, it is also carrrying the combustion exhaust from the gas heater.
You DO NOT want to be running those combustion gasses to the interior of your home, where people would like to remain alive.
Striations can be laid down by wind-blown dust, or by ashfalls from volcanos, to name just two mechanisms tha tdotn require wqter at all. Adn we know that there were volcanoes. If there was an atmosphere at some point, there would have been wind-blown dust.
Even in the "wet" category, layers can be created by streams or freshwater lakes.
So the 'wet salty' part is also not at all implied by the observation of striated rock alone.
of our 90 year old bungalow.
SOME older houses were well built. Not ours.
But the wood is amazing. Ald growth all heart doug fir framing in full 2" dimension lumber. Every piece we removed was carefully stacked away to turn into interior trim later. Subfloors of 1x3 TG all heart old growth doug fir.
We pulled the sheetrock off one wall ( seems to have been put in mid '50s) and discovered that it covered up 5' high wainskoting in 1 x 12 doug fir, clear, all heart.
Our foundation went away completely. It was apparently poured using unwashed beach sand, and was so badly salt-deteriorated that we could dig chunks out by hand. Putting a pipe through wouldnt have required any chiseling or jackhammering.. just push hard and the pipe would have gone right through.
And we live less than a mile from the highest-load portion of the Hayward fault. shudder.. god I'm glad we have a new foundation.
A crew of two, myself and one other skilled and motivated hard worker. We were paid piece, so no structure, no pay. Slab foundation poured when we came in, and we stood up the walls, rolled roof trusses, sided with 4x8 sheets of T111, hung windows and outside doors, sheathed the roof, trimmed out the outside. 950 to 1250 sq foot houses.
The two of us routinely knocked out 2 of them a week, working 6 10 hour days.
This process seems to address the cheapest part of buildng cheap houses, with a very expensive machine, requiring tedious and precise set up.
Not unless someone screwed up.
in poured structures, the reinforcement, wiring chases, plumbing, ventilation, all the things necesary to turn a structure into an office or home, are laid into the walls before the pour.
Fixing a mistake later, by drilling for example. is hideously expensive, and has sent more than one contractor into bankruptcy.
For windows and doors, even in a curved surface, you justspecify a flat flange to install them to. Still have to install them, though. Also the interior door.
But what about foundations? Still gotta dig the hole and fill it with something heavy, rigid and stable. How do you tie it down to the foundation? Tie rods? You would still need rebar in the structure itself to attach the tie rods to. Here in California (and a lot of other places), you also need sufficient reinforcing in the structure itself to handle seismic loads, and those have to be connected via rods or bolts to the foundation.
What about wiring and plumbing? They are typically enclosed inside the walls, for safety and aesthetics. How do you imbed a complete wiring and plumbing system into the walls? Perhaps you could program the machine to actually form the waste piping, but you still need a water supply. Chases in the structure? Then you have the issue of pulling piping and wiring through a complex system of chases.
Ventilation, heat and cooling? Same issues.
This looks potentially cool, but building the structure is only one small part of building a house, and saving some money there doesnt necessarilly save you anything on the entire structure.
Slashdot Mirror
check out the vostok ice core data.
that makes it difficult to use another plumber or add fixtures from another comapny, is pure evil, and plain greedy. A plumber who does good work for a fair price, using agreed standards so the next plumber can easily find his way around the job, and so that off the shelf fixtures bolt right on, is worth his service fee.
There is a votes-per-hour limit on each machine, and a total-votes-per-polling-place limit of 1500 votes.
So even if you managed to capture the entire output of a polling place, you only affect 1500 votes maximum. With the votes-per-hour limit, you have to hold that polling place for hours to do even that.
Thats a lot of risk for a pretty uncertain and limited advantage.
Well, we dont actualy know about nanotech yet, somaybe only one. But nukes are qualitatively unlike the other items on that list. Everything through machine guns allow a person acting on individuals in his vicinity, to kill them faster, more effectivley, and in larger numbers. But only local to the person pulling the trigger,and only selectively by pointing the thing at the person being killed. Nukes (and their accompanying technology) can be launched at and utterly destroy effectively an entire country. In fact, some years back, I used the estimate of 50,000 functional nukes in the world's inventory at that time, and figured that you could (in principle) hit a triangular grid covering the entire northern hemisphere land mass, and put nukes about 30 miles apart. We've only been living with these things for coming up on 60 years now. Still awfully early to say they wont live up to their terrible promise.
And yoe said more than that. You said: "there's absolutely zero evidence that this is due to human activity." That isnt true. Not even close. Right now, there isnt bulletproof, conclusive evidence. But there is a mountain of circumstantioal, mechanistic, theoretical, field-observation, and model-derived evidence in support of anthropogenic causes for at least a good part of observed warming. When you make a dogmatic statement like "there's absolutely zero evidence," please dont come back with nitpicking about how you are being misread.
whatis striking is that the pattern of temperature variations is consistent across thsoe cores, for the years that they overlap. They give us quite a nice picture of overall temp variation at those locatins, and the temp variatins at those locations are in agreement.
vostok co2, methane, temp data
chekc out the ice core stuff. Vostok is a good starting place.
we are already as warm as we've ever seen for the last 420,000 years. See the Vostok Ice Core data, which is is good agreement with otehr ice core data for as far back as the otehr cores go. We know: 1. CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) trap heat. 2. CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) have increased rapidly and dramatically in concentration, from anthropogenic inputs. 3. That would be expected to trap heat. 4. WE are already at a local AND GLOBAL temp max for the last 400,000 years or so. 5. We are warming very, very rapidly from that local and global maximum. Given JUST that, even without the good agreement of the models with obeerved data, it seems almost perverse to argue that humans arent creating a pretty solid upward pressure on temps.
This isnt evidence for anthropogenic warming. It isnt evidence for long-term trends. We HAVE reasonable long-ter. measurements of global temp, going back well over 300,000 years. This is a solid, precise measurement of the rate of warming for this 18 year period. Nothign more. It says that the rate may behigher than previously measured. Given that the current climate models predict warming, and that the rate of warmng is part of that prediction, this number is important as one (of several) tests of those models, OVER THAT 18 YEARS.
Tehg carboniferous age was much warmer and had likely much higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Thing is, much of the CO2 got sequetered, over literally tens on tens of millions of years, into geological stores. Now we are releasing large percentages of the sequestered carbon, in 100 years or so. We are reversing a process taht happened in geological time, but we are doign so in historical time, or even current time. That means the problems associated with the change are going to be different.
than curretn temperatures. According to deep ice cores, we are now as hot as we have been at any time in the last 300,000 years. This warming is happening ON TOP OF temperatures at or very near historical peak, and it is pushing us into temperature regimes not observed over that period. We are moving OUTSIDE the observed temperature cycles, ane arguing from the effects of those past cycles is problematic; they simply arent relevant, because they are entirely at temperatures lower than where we are going (or likely are now, for that matter).
of personal information about or from a lot of people who are not criminals. And allowing that information to escape into the wild can hurt those non-criminals, or the people they were talking about. Allowing this video to escape has hurt this guy's family. They are already dealing with the tragedy of his suicide. Now he becomes a celebrity for freaks who get off on death, some of them obviously overtly racist, because some cop decided it would be cool to post it somewhere? Boy howdy, THAT is gonna increase my trust in cops.
It obviously affects the hell out of his mother. Posting this was simply wrong. If it was a cop who posted it, or made ti availalbe, he should get nailed badly for doing so.
Dumping toxic compounds into ecosystems is stupid, even if the compound in question doesn't directly damage humans. Remember, we live on this planet, in the biosphere, not separate from it. Functioning ecosystems are A Very Good Thing. Taking out major components of functioning ecosystems (if that really is a risk with fullerenes) is not so good.
and back. Along with the weight, cost and complexity of life support there, during, and back. Along with the orders of magnitude higher cost imposed by the reliability required to send a human, as opposed to a machine: A 95% reliable mission is much, much, much more expensive than an 80% reliable mission, and we aren't even running that high with our mars unmanned missions. Why jump right to a high-cost, high-risk, lots of eggs in one basket manned mission when we can continue to learn so much with multiple unmanned missions, many of them, for a lot less cost, and apply the accrued knowledge to an eventual manned mission. IMO, it isnt time yet.
next time, I preview first.
makes it silly, IMO, to rush right oa manned mission. Manned mimssins require that extra 10% of reliabilty that adds an order of magnitude or more to the cost. A 150 pound person, with life suport for a coupe years, and mehcanisms for return, adds exonenetialy to teh weight of the missin, and therefoe the amount of stuff we can send, or the cost of assembbling this to send it. If we can send 100 90%-reliable missions for the cost of one 95%-reliable manned mission (and ai'm basically dreaming at these numbers; reality is much lower than that), we can learn a shitload more before committing ourselves to what is likely to be a one-off (for a good long time anyway) missin that may or may not have the materials necessary to modify the mission on teh ground if we see somethig interesting,and that basically kills the budget and missins if it fails. One majpor advantage of robotic missions is that redundancy is relatively cheap. That alone is sufficient argument to do the early sets of missions via robotics. We arent to teh pitn yet of justifying a manned mission, with its inherent limitatins.
How many robotic missions can we send, for the cost of a manned mission, there and BACK?
Sorry 'bout that all-caps, but this is important. The exhaust of a gas drier is not only carying the evaporated water from the drying clothes, it is also carrrying the combustion exhaust from the gas heater. You DO NOT want to be running those combustion gasses to the interior of your home, where people would like to remain alive.
Striations can be laid down by wind-blown dust, or by ashfalls from volcanos, to name just two mechanisms tha tdotn require wqter at all. Adn we know that there were volcanoes. If there was an atmosphere at some point, there would have been wind-blown dust. Even in the "wet" category, layers can be created by streams or freshwater lakes. So the 'wet salty' part is also not at all implied by the observation of striated rock alone.
of our 90 year old bungalow. SOME older houses were well built. Not ours. But the wood is amazing. Ald growth all heart doug fir framing in full 2" dimension lumber. Every piece we removed was carefully stacked away to turn into interior trim later. Subfloors of 1x3 TG all heart old growth doug fir. We pulled the sheetrock off one wall ( seems to have been put in mid '50s) and discovered that it covered up 5' high wainskoting in 1 x 12 doug fir, clear, all heart. Our foundation went away completely. It was apparently poured using unwashed beach sand, and was so badly salt-deteriorated that we could dig chunks out by hand. Putting a pipe through wouldnt have required any chiseling or jackhammering.. just push hard and the pipe would have gone right through. And we live less than a mile from the highest-load portion of the Hayward fault. shudder.. god I'm glad we have a new foundation.
A crew of two, myself and one other skilled and motivated hard worker. We were paid piece, so no structure, no pay. Slab foundation poured when we came in, and we stood up the walls, rolled roof trusses, sided with 4x8 sheets of T111, hung windows and outside doors, sheathed the roof, trimmed out the outside. 950 to 1250 sq foot houses. The two of us routinely knocked out 2 of them a week, working 6 10 hour days. This process seems to address the cheapest part of buildng cheap houses, with a very expensive machine, requiring tedious and precise set up.
Not unless someone screwed up. in poured structures, the reinforcement, wiring chases, plumbing, ventilation, all the things necesary to turn a structure into an office or home, are laid into the walls before the pour. Fixing a mistake later, by drilling for example. is hideously expensive, and has sent more than one contractor into bankruptcy.
For windows and doors, even in a curved surface, you justspecify a flat flange to install them to. Still have to install them, though. Also the interior door. But what about foundations? Still gotta dig the hole and fill it with something heavy, rigid and stable. How do you tie it down to the foundation? Tie rods? You would still need rebar in the structure itself to attach the tie rods to. Here in California (and a lot of other places), you also need sufficient reinforcing in the structure itself to handle seismic loads, and those have to be connected via rods or bolts to the foundation. What about wiring and plumbing? They are typically enclosed inside the walls, for safety and aesthetics. How do you imbed a complete wiring and plumbing system into the walls? Perhaps you could program the machine to actually form the waste piping, but you still need a water supply. Chases in the structure? Then you have the issue of pulling piping and wiring through a complex system of chases. Ventilation, heat and cooling? Same issues. This looks potentially cool, but building the structure is only one small part of building a house, and saving some money there doesnt necessarilly save you anything on the entire structure.