Gold is not a particularly useful metal. Why would you want to hoard it? You could use it for bullets I suppose, but lead is much cheaper and probably not much worse.
I highly doubt your figures. This page says that human emissions are 27 billion tons of CO2 per year. It also says the atmosphere contains 350ppm of CO2, and that it has a mass of 4.4 * 10^15 tons, which leads to a total CO2 content of 1500 billion tons. 100 billion tons of CO2 is just 4 years of emissions. Significant, but I certainly hope it is not enough to cause a mass extinction.
What good would the oxygen processors do? And what good does making the homes airtight do? The problem with CO2 isn't that it is poisonous (it is almost harmless to humans) but that it screws up the climate.
Incidentally, a 10km comet of CO2 would have a mass of around 10^16kg. Yearly CO2 emissions by humans are around 10^13kg. So that comet would only contribute a thousand years extra of CO2 emissions. Surely you are not suggesting that a thousand years of CO2 emissions will make the atmosphere unbreathable?
Since mankind is single largest net CO2 contributor, I find it hard to believe that reducing the CO2 output would achieve next to nothing, if the aim is to manage CO2 levels.
You can possibly argue that CO2 does not cause global warming (presumably because some other process offsets it), but you cannot at this point argue that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere comes from non-manmade sources.
I'm sure the Chinese government is quite nasty. However, you are specifically complaining about UNFPA, which is anything but shady. And that you are being "moved" by testimony is all well and good for you, but it doesn't convince me. For one thing, I haven't heard/read the testimony.
The Earth is probably going to kill us before we kill the Earth
I think that is a very compelling argument for doing what we can to avoid that. Frankly, I don't care about the environment. I care about my survival and my quality of life.
The latter frequently point to evidence in this planet's fossil record that suggests that CO2 levels vary dramatically whether we're here or not
If I starve to death because farming failed because of global warming, am I really going to die happy if I know it was a perfectly natural process? If the Earth's climate looked like it was going to change rapidly due to entirely natural processes, I sure hope that mankind would unite in an attempt to terraform. The obvious way to counteract global warming is to reduce the levels of greenhouse gasses. Other options include increasing albedo by painting dark areas light. Unfortunately parts of the ocean that used to be frozen (and white) are now open water (and darker).
No, that is fair. It's what the UNFPA is. They ENFORCE the one-woman, one-child rule to the point of FORCING abortion on a women who gets pregnant after having a child.
You will have to provide some evidence rather than just assertions. I tried to research the issue myself. The only actual information I found was that the British investigated and found no evidence that there were forced abortions supported by UNFPA. A pitifully small investigation, admittedly. The only actual evidence the other way is a couple of interviews that I find very unconvincing.
I find it horrible that anyone can sink so low in debate. This is like saying "Operation Iraqi Freedom (a US genocide in the Middle East)" when debating the Iraq war.
This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."
What does that have to do with being pro-life or not? I don't see anything about abortions in there.
Ok, find a car with dirty windows. Take a brush. Clean windows. Observe that the cleaning is pretty ineffective. Another suggestion seen on Slashdot was to blow the dust away with air. For that, take the dirty car from before and drive it for a while. Notice that the wind seems unable to blow the dirt away.
No, if NASA had been properly optimistic, they would have included a pump/sprinkler system that could use the discovered water. As well as a way to lubricate the stuck wheels with oil made from discovered plants.
I am certainly aware that running on a higher rated fuel than the engine is rated for is highly unlikely to offer any benefits. I simply don't believe that it is actually harmful.
Consequently it continues to deliver more fuel and less air (burns richer than needed for premium fuel). The result is no added performance or fuel economy and increased carbon/particulates.
The carbon/particulates should be neither better nor worse than what you get with a lower octane fuel. In a different engine you could get better results, of course.
Incidentally, modern cars do have octane sensors. They will detect if you run them on fuel that is rated less than what they normally require, and adjust to compensate. You will get lower performance though. The adjustment doesn't go in the other direction; they don't improve on higher rated fuel.
One good reason for not using high octane fuel is the nasty additives which are often used. Particularly in countries which haven't figured out that ethanol is great for increasing octane. (Like Denmark, unfortunately.)
The brakes would have crystallized. That's very easy to determine upon visual inspection.
How soon does that happen? If you get your brakes hot you will soon find that they lose some effect. If you hit them hard then they will still work effectively for quite a while before they truly stop working. However, if you're going 200km/h and you feel the brakes working less than perfectly, you may get frightened enough to only use them when you absolutely have to. I bet that he could have stopped anytime if he had stomped on the brakes and kept the pressure up -- but if it failed he would be stuck at 200km/h with no brakes at all.
The big question is -- how much wear does it put on the brakes to brake all the way from 200km/h? I suppose it is at this point I should start calculating power radiated from brakes, heat capacity... Hmm, the car probably has a kinetic energy of 50000J or so, and braking should take around 10s. Brakes on such a car definitely cannot radiate away 5000W, so most of the energy (plus whatever the engine contributes) probably ends up heating the brakes. If whatever brakes are made of has a heat capacity of 1J/gK, 50000J is enough to heat 250g 200K. How much do brakes weigh, anyway?
In conclusion, you are probably right. The brakes would have crystallized.
The third option is that the driver did try the brakes, but found that they heated rapidly and became useless. This happens surprisingly rapidly in many cars by the way, as anyone who has driven inexpensive cars on mountain roads can attest. (Of course, this problem can usually be avoided by using the engine for braking -- not an option in this case, unfortunately.)
The report was that the pads heated quickly and the brakes lost effectiveness so the driver decided to stop using them. Whether that ought to show itself as significant wear I don't know.
True, the bug kept itself nicely contained in the download directory. Unfortunately the default download directory is often the desktop. chroot would at least stop that. Anyway, you are right.
You have a point about Syria. Israel is immune from the UN due to the US being on the security council. Argentina into Falklands counts too, but you have to admit that conquering 2000 people is hardly the stuff of legends.
As far as I can tell, the UN is very successful in deterring invasions except when done by those who are immune to repercussions from it.
I really can't think of many invasions in the last 30 years, unless you count the ones done by members of the security council. (And the 5 permanent members of the security council are immune to UN resolutions, since they can just veto them.)
Apart from Iraq vs. Kuwait, which invasions do you think of?
Slashdot Mirror
If 911 on the fixed lines doesn't work, you just grab a random cell phone.
Gold is not a particularly useful metal. Why would you want to hoard it? You could use it for bullets I suppose, but lead is much cheaper and probably not much worse.
(All billions in this post are 10^9.)
I'm sure I could live with the horrible feeling of having wasted money if it meant that I was alive rather than dead.
Incidentally, a 10km comet of CO2 would have a mass of around 10^16kg. Yearly CO2 emissions by humans are around 10^13kg. So that comet would only contribute a thousand years extra of CO2 emissions. Surely you are not suggesting that a thousand years of CO2 emissions will make the atmosphere unbreathable?
You can possibly argue that CO2 does not cause global warming (presumably because some other process offsets it), but you cannot at this point argue that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere comes from non-manmade sources.
I'm sure the Chinese government is quite nasty. However, you are specifically complaining about UNFPA, which is anything but shady. And that you are being "moved" by testimony is all well and good for you, but it doesn't convince me. For one thing, I haven't heard/read the testimony.
I think that is a very compelling argument for doing what we can to avoid that. Frankly, I don't care about the environment. I care about my survival and my quality of life.
If I starve to death because farming failed because of global warming, am I really going to die happy if I know it was a perfectly natural process? If the Earth's climate looked like it was going to change rapidly due to entirely natural processes, I sure hope that mankind would unite in an attempt to terraform. The obvious way to counteract global warming is to reduce the levels of greenhouse gasses. Other options include increasing albedo by painting dark areas light. Unfortunately parts of the ocean that used to be frozen (and white) are now open water (and darker).
So argue about that, instead of name-calling without evidence.
You will have to provide some evidence rather than just assertions. I tried to research the issue myself. The only actual information I found was that the British investigated and found no evidence that there were forced abortions supported by UNFPA. A pitifully small investigation, admittedly. The only actual evidence the other way is a couple of interviews that I find very unconvincing.
I find it horrible that anyone can sink so low in debate. This is like saying "Operation Iraqi Freedom (a US genocide in the Middle East)" when debating the Iraq war.
This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."
What does that have to do with being pro-life or not? I don't see anything about abortions in there.
No, if NASA had been properly optimistic, they would have included a pump/sprinkler system that could use the discovered water. As well as a way to lubricate the stuck wheels with oil made from discovered plants.
Consequently it continues to deliver more fuel and less air (burns richer than needed for premium fuel). The result is no added performance or fuel economy and increased carbon/particulates.
The carbon/particulates should be neither better nor worse than what you get with a lower octane fuel. In a different engine you could get better results, of course.
Incidentally, modern cars do have octane sensors. They will detect if you run them on fuel that is rated less than what they normally require, and adjust to compensate. You will get lower performance though. The adjustment doesn't go in the other direction; they don't improve on higher rated fuel.
One good reason for not using high octane fuel is the nasty additives which are often used. Particularly in countries which haven't figured out that ethanol is great for increasing octane. (Like Denmark, unfortunately.)
How soon does that happen? If you get your brakes hot you will soon find that they lose some effect. If you hit them hard then they will still work effectively for quite a while before they truly stop working. However, if you're going 200km/h and you feel the brakes working less than perfectly, you may get frightened enough to only use them when you absolutely have to. I bet that he could have stopped anytime if he had stomped on the brakes and kept the pressure up -- but if it failed he would be stuck at 200km/h with no brakes at all.
The big question is -- how much wear does it put on the brakes to brake all the way from 200km/h? I suppose it is at this point I should start calculating power radiated from brakes, heat capacity... Hmm, the car probably has a kinetic energy of 50000J or so, and braking should take around 10s. Brakes on such a car definitely cannot radiate away 5000W, so most of the energy (plus whatever the engine contributes) probably ends up heating the brakes. If whatever brakes are made of has a heat capacity of 1J/gK, 50000J is enough to heat 250g 200K. How much do brakes weigh, anyway?
In conclusion, you are probably right. The brakes would have crystallized.
True. I was being stupid. What my confused mind tried to say was that you can probably only go to neutral from first gear.
That sounds highly unlikely. Can you suggest an explanation for that?
The third option is that the driver did try the brakes, but found that they heated rapidly and became useless. This happens surprisingly rapidly in many cars by the way, as anyone who has driven inexpensive cars on mountain roads can attest. (Of course, this problem can usually be avoided by using the engine for braking -- not an option in this case, unfortunately.)
The report was that the pads heated quickly and the brakes lost effectiveness so the driver decided to stop using them. Whether that ought to show itself as significant wear I don't know.
I doubt that there is a neutral on a semi-automatic shift.
True, the bug kept itself nicely contained in the download directory. Unfortunately the default download directory is often the desktop. chroot would at least stop that. Anyway, you are right.
Offensive and malicious perhaps, but true.
Why would it not have helped?
As far as I can tell, the UN is very successful in deterring invasions except when done by those who are immune to repercussions from it.
Apart from Iraq vs. Kuwait, which invasions do you think of?