I'm not sure I learned it "in school", I only remember I had talks about it close to my end of school, 1985/1987 as my basketball team mates were concerned that the hot water in our competing teams sport halls was not hot enough:D
Later my father was concerned about that topic, too. Not about our house, but me leaving home and he assumed I would go and live in a student dorm, but I had my own small apartment instead.
Tell me something, "angel", what is a greater threat to humanity? Obviously gloabl waming. But your question is a "suggestive question", not a honest one.
Because the solution to global warming is cutting CO2 emissions. And that has not necessarily anything to do with nuclear power, or its dangers or complications.
The predictions of CO2 induced gloom and doom have failed over and over again, year after year. How do you know that? There are no predictions about anything before roughly 2100.... how do you know the predictions will fail? Do you have a secret time travel machine?
I've seen these predictions for a long time now, ever since I was able to read, No you haven't. There weren't any predictions predicting anything in the past about global warming. There were only two kinds of idiots, a) concerned media guys pulling idiotic stuff out of her hats (probably already on the payroll or at least influenced by big oil etc. to make the climate scientists look like idiots) and b) idiots like you who failed for it, and think now they remember "predictions" from scientist. There are no predictions of scientists claiming that we already would be under water.
And repeating this "all predictions I ever heard did not come true" myth, only makes you look like an idiot.
The only predictions we have are "if's". If the ice on greenland will melt completely, then the sea levels will rise by 7m. If the ice in antarctica will melt completely, then the sea level will rise another 60m.
Those are predictions. Pretty simple predictions. No one in his right mind made any time scales for such rises. Might the ice on greenland melt till 2100? Unlikely. But the ice is pretty fragile already. It is no longer a "solid" ice shield. Meanwhile it is extremely dangerous to travel in greenland on the ice during summer.
So if push comes to shove, it is thinkable that the ice is collapsing rapidly into the sea, without melting. And that can happen very quickly. With sea level rices of a meter or more during a singe summer. Add an earthquake and we are already in trouble. Is that a prediction? No. It is just a plausible scenario.
I'm not sure if that is a language barrier problem. But in my language the word "flood" implies it is happening rapidly, to quick to seek higher ground for most people.
The other thing would be "water level rise", which you usually can handle. However in german we also call it a "flood" if water stays a long time on a high level e.g. when after rain or snow melting the rivers go over their dams/coasts.
Morse code is one of the first "lemple ziv (welch)" compression systems. That means, often used characters have a short sequence of "sounds". Or a short sequence of short sounds. The more rare a letter is, the longer its sound sequence is.
I have heard that 50 words per minute is achievable, it only need to go as fast as I can think (which is not that fast) you easy think 500 - 1000 words per minute.
I did switch to emacs way back, to do column blocks;) that is kinda like switching a keyboard. emacs is different (alien) those who know, know. No worries! Rescue is on the way!! Emacs has a superb vi/m mode: https://www.emacswiki.org/emac... or you could go really evil: https://www.emacswiki.org/emac...
Emacs is still a decent operation system, and with the vim and evil mods it now does no longer lack a decent editor!
Creating a really great cycle of slash and burn because of poor soil quality, so as the system is depleted they engage in more slash and burning. Slash and burn is not a bad system. It worked for mankind very long times: because they only did it to farm food, and later the jungle took over again. It indeed was a cycle.
Modern times they burn absurd big amounts of areas, that can not recover quickly by themselves. To plant: palm oil. Or other "useless" stuff.
They simply should tackle the problem like _capitalist_ asia does: a single human can only own X acres of land. A corporation only 10X... The result is a patchwork of land, and if one wants to have more he has to involve family or rent the land surrounding himself. Bottom line: world destroying food corporations or cotton corporations like in the US, who own half of south america and try to "buy" Asia: don't exist e.g. in Thailand.
And when the late King Rama IX pointed out: it is not wise to cut down all the trees to have bigger rice fields, keep the trees to regulate the water, the population bowed and said: "Thank you great teacher!"
Unfortunately the western world has no figure heads that are "wise" and have positive influence to the better of the world. The only "figure heads" are rich bastards that go into politics to become more rich... and I was so dumb in 1987, when I went to university to think and even proclaim: "we are living in the true golden age! Every problem the plant has is close to be solved: poverty, starvation, education, peace."
Nothing has really changed. American agriculture companies try to keep former third world agricultures in poverty, mainly with patents and seeds and loans on the land of the farmers, see India. Or by had having the "luck" to buy most of the land in south america, before or around WWII.
As the dominant world player we all have to thank America that the planet has only marginally changed.
If you have a climate model that is accurate, you should be proud to show how accurate it has been over time. That is actually what every population does. Did you read any so far?
Sadly, this may just be what ends up killing civilization. Not their fault, this type of threat is unique in human history. Yes and no. Considering the "flood myths" all over the planet, and that during the last "ice age" the sea level rose (min.) three times about 10m "over night", and that the total sea level rise was over 100m and happened during less than 1000 years, it is not that unique. We just don't know anything about mankind before the "ice age".
(Sorry, can not find the site where I found this the first time. There they had a side by side comparission of the current world with that picture)
If the world was settled at that time with a high level civilization, lets say on the level of UK around 1800, and mostly living around the costs and lower level areas, 99% of the world population would have died due to the melting ice.
Do you see how much bigger India is, Australia is, Indonesia connected with Australia and a "continent" and not a chain of islands? Japan connected with China, China expanding to the south east, South America dramatically bigger. England connected with Europe. You nearly could walk over to Iceland:D Thousands more islands in the pacific. What is not visible, the Mediterranean sea is dry land, likely the red sea, too.
Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports. Yeah, and the actual true development is always extremely close to the upper edge of the projection cone.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections The IPCC bases a report on the input of dozens if not hundreds of scientific institutes. The raw predictions of those instituted are usually available as download. So everyone can make up his mind, how "glorified" the IPCC projections are.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate. That is true.
They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem. True.
I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. Blame the US anti global warming campaign... which they started in the early 1990s. Who in his right mind would have expected that scientists suddenly have to justify their findings and projections and get called "alarmists" or "payed of/bribed by renewable industry" etc.
I learned about global warming from 1975 on...but I'm 51. No idea why third world countries like the US only learn about "world impacting" stuff since 1995, and then first reject is and now blame the rest of the world.
If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years Why should that be the case?
I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. If you hear that, you must not only be a blindseer but also a deafhearer... I never heard about such "rumors"...
You are not only misinformed but a lier I pointed now out dozens of times, particularly to you in persons: " we are shutting down Nuclear power plants and what is Germany replacing them with? COAL. this is wrong. As you perfectly know that it is wrong. you are a lier.
On the graphs you can clearly see that coal power is continuously declining and that both nuclear power and coal power is replaced by renewables. Asshole!
while emissions in Germany, the blocâ(TM)s largest economy and still dependent on coal for 40 percent of its electricity, was little changed. Actually it changed, the CO2 increase is due to the hard winter and house heating, transportation, not due to electricity, because even in 2017 coal got educed by another percent point.
For that there need to be glaciers... and there need to be snow in summer... or more snow in winter. In other words: it would need to be much much colder in winter at places where glaciers are, as it was the last 10 years.
They pointed out the oceans were like 5-10m higher in the past than we have now. Yeah, but the oceans in the past also have been 100m lower than today, so what is your point?
Now, can man speed up some of the change? Probably so, the debate is just how much.:) About the current situation: there is no debate.
(like, "quiet zones" required around any new or modernised wind generators mean you can't put them pretty much anywhere). That is either nonsense or a law with idiotic boundaries. 1 or 2 miles quite distance hardly affect any installations.
In Soccer, the top women's teams regularly lose to barely post pubescent boys. Sure, a boy scout group will defeat the US or the German women's soccer team... you have point there I guess.
Trans athlets are not allowed in women's competitions...
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there. That was not a LOTR reference that was a reference how the movie was made... the actors are female.
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
That changes quickly when people actually do hard work or exercise.
Bottom line the strength difference with males and females of same weight is pretty low. Females have it harder to gain muscles. Absolute strength is often lower, so is speed. But the differences are not that big. E.g. as soon as skills come into account, e.g. in martial arts, underestimating a woman is a big mistake. Same in archery or horsemanship. Sure, if I was sailing on a an cup america race, I would prefer heavy muscled men.
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
Not legally supported and illegal are two different things. I doubt you have any trouble if you e.g. marry in Germany and come back to China as a married couple. Would you be eligible for any tax benefits? I doubt so however...
Peoples' reactions are much more informative (and sometimes unintentionally so and funny) than anything in the article. I added the funny part, but perhaps silly would nail it better.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I learned it "in school", I only remember I had talks about it close to my end of school, 1985/1987 as my basketball team mates were concerned that the hot water in our competing teams sport halls was not hot enough :D
Later my father was concerned about that topic, too. Not about our house, but me leaving home and he assumed I would go and live in a student dorm, but I had my own small apartment instead.
Tell me something, "angel", what is a greater threat to humanity?
Obviously gloabl waming. But your question is a "suggestive question", not a honest one.
Because the solution to global warming is cutting CO2 emissions. And that has not necessarily anything to do with nuclear power, or its dangers or complications.
The predictions of CO2 induced gloom and doom have failed over and over again, year after year. .... how do you know the predictions will fail? Do you have a secret time travel machine?
How do you know that? There are no predictions about anything before roughly 2100
I've seen these predictions for a long time now, ever since I was able to read,
No you haven't. There weren't any predictions predicting anything in the past about global warming. There were only two kinds of idiots, a) concerned media guys pulling idiotic stuff out of her hats (probably already on the payroll or at least influenced by big oil etc. to make the climate scientists look like idiots) and b) idiots like you who failed for it, and think now they remember "predictions" from scientist. There are no predictions of scientists claiming that we already would be under water.
And repeating this "all predictions I ever heard did not come true" myth, only makes you look like an idiot.
The only predictions we have are "if's". If the ice on greenland will melt completely, then the sea levels will rise by 7m. If the ice in antarctica will melt completely, then the sea level will rise another 60m.
Those are predictions. Pretty simple predictions. No one in his right mind made any time scales for such rises. Might the ice on greenland melt till 2100? Unlikely. But the ice is pretty fragile already. It is no longer a "solid" ice shield. Meanwhile it is extremely dangerous to travel in greenland on the ice during summer.
So if push comes to shove, it is thinkable that the ice is collapsing rapidly into the sea, without melting. And that can happen very quickly. With sea level rices of a meter or more during a singe summer. Add an earthquake and we are already in trouble. Is that a prediction? No. It is just a plausible scenario.
I'm not sure if that is a language barrier problem. But in my language the word "flood" implies it is happening rapidly, to quick to seek higher ground for most people.
The other thing would be "water level rise", which you usually can handle. However in german we also call it a "flood" if water stays a long time on a high level e.g. when after rain or snow melting the rivers go over their dams/coasts.
Voice is extremely slow.
Typing is much faster.
Really though,,,, I am wondering when voice-recognition typing died?
...
If you are on a Mac or Windows, voice recognition is built in, on Macs since nearly 30 years
Morse code is one of the first "lemple ziv (welch)" compression systems. That means, often used characters have a short sequence of "sounds". Or a short sequence of short sounds. The more rare a letter is, the longer its sound sequence is.
I have heard that 50 words per minute is achievable, it only need to go as fast as I can think (which is not that fast) you easy think 500 - 1000 words per minute.
I did switch to emacs way back, to do column blocks ;) that is kinda like switching a keyboard. emacs is different (alien) those who know, know.
No worries! Rescue is on the way!!
Emacs has a superb vi/m mode: https://www.emacswiki.org/emac... or you could go really evil: https://www.emacswiki.org/emac...
Emacs is still a decent operation system, and with the vim and evil mods it now does no longer lack a decent editor!
Creating a really great cycle of slash and burn because of poor soil quality, so as the system is depleted they engage in more slash and burning.
Slash and burn is not a bad system. It worked for mankind very long times: because they only did it to farm food, and later the jungle took over again. It indeed was a cycle.
Modern times they burn absurd big amounts of areas, that can not recover quickly by themselves. To plant: palm oil. Or other "useless" stuff.
They simply should tackle the problem like _capitalist_ asia does: a single human can only own X acres of land. A corporation only 10X ... The result is a patchwork of land, and if one wants to have more he has to involve family or rent the land surrounding himself. Bottom line: world destroying food corporations or cotton corporations like in the US, who own half of south america and try to "buy" Asia: don't exist e.g. in Thailand.
And when the late King Rama IX pointed out: it is not wise to cut down all the trees to have bigger rice fields, keep the trees to regulate the water, the population bowed and said: "Thank you great teacher!"
Unfortunately the western world has no figure heads that are "wise" and have positive influence to the better of the world. The only "figure heads" are rich bastards that go into politics to become more rich ... and I was so dumb in 1987, when I went to university to think and even proclaim: "we are living in the true golden age! Every problem the plant has is close to be solved: poverty, starvation, education, peace."
Nothing has really changed. American agriculture companies try to keep former third world agricultures in poverty, mainly with patents and seeds and loans on the land of the farmers, see India. Or by had having the "luck" to buy most of the land in south america, before or around WWII.
As the dominant world player we all have to thank America that the planet has only marginally changed.
You are an idiot.
If you have a climate model that is accurate, you should be proud to show how accurate it has been over time.
That is actually what every population does. Did you read any so far?
Sadly, this may just be what ends up killing civilization. Not their fault, this type of threat is unique in human history.
Yes and no. Considering the "flood myths" all over the planet, and that during the last "ice age" the sea level rose (min.) three times about 10m "over night", and that the total sea level rise was over 100m and happened during less than 1000 years, it is not that unique. We just don't know anything about mankind before the "ice age".
Look at this map: https://static.wixstatic.com/m...
(Sorry, can not find the site where I found this the first time. There they had a side by side comparission of the current world with that picture)
If the world was settled at that time with a high level civilization, lets say on the level of UK around 1800, and mostly living around the costs and lower level areas, 99% of the world population would have died due to the melting ice.
Do you see how much bigger India is, Australia is, Indonesia connected with Australia and a "continent" and not a chain of islands? Japan connected with China, China expanding to the south east, South America dramatically bigger. England connected with Europe. You nearly could walk over to Iceland :D
Thousands more islands in the pacific. What is not visible, the Mediterranean sea is dry land, likely the red sea, too.
Or check this: https://www.donsmaps.com/icema...
Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
Yeah, and the actual true development is always extremely close to the upper edge of the projection cone.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections
The IPCC bases a report on the input of dozens if not hundreds of scientific institutes. The raw predictions of those instituted are usually available as download. So everyone can make up his mind, how "glorified" the IPCC projections are.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate.
That is true.
They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem.
True.
I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. ... which they started in the early 1990s. Who in his right mind would have expected that scientists suddenly have to justify their findings and projections and get called "alarmists" or "payed of/bribed by renewable industry" etc.
Blame the US anti global warming campaign
I learned about global warming from 1975 on ...but I'm 51. No idea why third world countries like the US only learn about "world impacting" stuff since 1995, and then first reject is and now blame the rest of the world.
If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years
Why should that be the case?
I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. ... I never heard about such "rumors" ...
If you hear that, you must not only be a blindseer but also a deafhearer
You are not only misinformed but a lier
I pointed now out dozens of times, particularly to you in persons: " we are shutting down Nuclear power plants and what is Germany replacing them with? COAL. this is wrong. As you perfectly know that it is wrong. you are a lier.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/ge...
On the graphs you can clearly see that coal power is continuously declining and that both nuclear power and coal power is replaced by renewables. Asshole!
Strange that other reports simply contradict it: https://reneweconomy.com.au/ge...
However https://energy-charts.de/energ... confirms that Germany is still at 39% Coal in energy production.
while emissions in Germany, the blocâ(TM)s largest economy and still dependent on coal for 40 percent of its electricity, was little changed.
Actually it changed, the CO2 increase is due to the hard winter and house heating, transportation, not due to electricity, because even in 2017 coal got educed by another percent point.
For that there need to be glaciers ... and there need to be snow in summer ... or more snow in winter.
In other words: it would need to be much much colder in winter at places where glaciers are, as it was the last 10 years.
They pointed out the oceans were like 5-10m higher in the past than we have now.
Yeah, but the oceans in the past also have been 100m lower than today, so what is your point?
Now, can man speed up some of the change? Probably so, the debate is just how much. :)
About the current situation: there is no debate.
(like, "quiet zones" required around any new or modernised wind generators mean you can't put them pretty much anywhere).
That is either nonsense or a law with idiotic boundaries. 1 or 2 miles quite distance hardly affect any installations.
You tell me that, after I just got shaved?
Sure, in your world they got sold anyway, in my world: no.
In Soccer, the top women's teams regularly lose to barely post pubescent boys. ... you have point there I guess.
Sure, a boy scout group will defeat the US or the German women's soccer team
Trans athlets are not allowed in women's competitions ...
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there. ... the actors are female.
That was not a LOTR reference that was a reference how the movie was made
Interesting, I learned during school something different.
I'm a bit over 50 now.
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love ... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
Not sure if that is fun for any of us ...
That changes quickly when people actually do hard work or exercise.
Bottom line the strength difference with males and females of same weight is pretty low. Females have it harder to gain muscles. Absolute strength is often lower, so is speed. But the differences are not that big. E.g. as soon as skills come into account, e.g. in martial arts, underestimating a woman is a big mistake. Same in archery or horsemanship. Sure, if I was sailing on a an cup america race, I would prefer heavy muscled men.
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
Not legally supported and illegal are two different things. ...
I doubt you have any trouble if you e.g. marry in Germany and come back to China as a married couple.
Would you be eligible for any tax benefits? I doubt so however
That is why I read /.
Peoples' reactions are much more informative (and sometimes unintentionally so and funny) than anything in the article. I added the funny part, but perhaps silly would nail it better.