Humans can engineer around anything that gives them centuries to do it.
Only if there's a source of funding and a societal structure (i.e. other humans) providing the engineers with food and other things.
I think you underestimate the Permian event. There are competing theories but the most plausible one I've seen says a giant asteroid (bigger than the Cretaceous one) hit, and the antipodal side of earth ruptured out, forming the Siberian traps. It functioned basically like a super volcano, but instead of one brief eruption, it kept going and going for centuries. Result was that it rained sulfuric acid all over the world, nonstop. The very air you breathe became a poisonous fume (to paraphrase Boromir).
I do not see human species surviving this. The initial impact would pretty much wipe out governments and civilization so it wouldn't be possible to put together a large expensive engineering project. The remaining survivors would gradually die out in the following decades of acid rain and poisonous fumes.
But I think a large self-sustaining underground colony can be built that can survive it, for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Mars colony. Any of the big tech billionaires could fund it solo.
Actually no, microbes are far better suited to survive catastrophic events than large animals like apes or theropods. For instance, there is no way human species survives the Permian extinction event if it were to happen today. The Cretaceous asteroid, maybe. Those luxury survival bunkers built inside missile silos might make it, depending on how much food they stored and how good their water supply is.
Anyways the "species survival depends on getting to Mars" trope is getting old. I'm all in favor of going to Mars but honestly it would be so much easier and cheaper to build bunkers. Costwise you're looking at around $1 trillion for a self-sustaining Mars colony, and maybe like 0.01 percent of that for building that same colony underground.
You don't even need nuclear power (although it would be nice to have it). You can build the bunker near a reliable geothermal source.
I mean, if you have to break the window of the car or jimmy the door open, and then physically insert a flash drive into the USB port on the dashboard, that's a pretty loose definition of "hack".
If you were willing to go this far and risk burglary rap, might as well just drive off with the car and sell it to the chop shop rather than simply leaving a malware on the infotainment system.
Mars atmosphere is at 6 mBar. The energy requirements to pump the space (which will leak) will greatly exceed anything you'll be getting from solar. With unlimited nuclear energy then this becomes practical, but if the pumps break then you're fucked. Pumps break all the time. We can't even keep pumps on ship and oil rigs running reliably, how on earth are you going to manage to do it on Mars???????
No, if a pump breaks I'm not fucked. The habitat is not like a helicopter where if the motor dies you fall and die. It's more like a scuba tank, you pump it up once and it stays pressurized without any intervention on your part. You would only need to run the pump to replace air lost through airlock operation. If you have a problem with the pump, stop using the airlock until it's fixed.
And you would have more than one pump obviously.
People have been living in airtight pressurized vessels in orbit for decades. They're called "space stations". Why do you think it can't be done on Mars?
It would actually be easier to build on Mars in some respects because you can just dig a bunker into the side of a mountain and you'll be surrounded by earthen walls that provide immense structural support.
Chances are those who are far more educated than you or I on this topic have done a lot more than simply assume what design is more efficient, to include the long-term financial aspect.
You would think so, but in the real world there is a vast history of government projects that demonstrate a lack of foresight and dumb thinking (or no thinking). Especially on the local/state level.
I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago either. Just last year in 2016 the state of California decided to cover up the surface of a large reservoir to reduce evaporation (they were in the middle of a big drought). They decided on floating thousands of plastic balls on the water since it was easier and cheaper than covering up the lake with a tarp. Well and good.
So the day came and they released all those plastic balls and the TV cameras were rolling and what did we see? BLACK BALLS. Black plastic balls rolling into the water.
No one involved with the project had the foresight to consider the color of the balls. Black balls absorb a lot more sunlight and get hotter and increase water temperature, leading to more water evaporation. It would've been trivial to add white pigment to the plastic balls and the cost difference would've been negligible.
You must be one of those "jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, 9-11 was a controlled demolition" guys.
Power line went down. Police found the charred remains of a drone at the site. Witnesses (plural) living in the area said they saw a guy flying a drone in the area. Therefore the conclusion that a drone caused the event.
Sounds like a simple, rational explanation to me. But please feel free to indulge in fanciful far-fetching conspiracies all you want. Just don't share it with normal people.
Anyone who says : "We've centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg," is a clueless fool.
And another thing a clueless fool might say is,
"At its inception, the internet was a beautifully idealistic and equal place."
You could sort of say it was kind of like that during a brief period in the mid 90's when the general public first started getting on it. But before that there was nothing "equal" about it.
Republican Party as we know it didn't come into existence until 1858 (I would say 1960 is more like it), so you don't get to pretend that they had anything to do with the White House, The US Capital Building, or the Rotunda at UofV.
You have a serious misunderstanding there bro. I never said White House, etc. were built by Republicans, I simply said they were not built by Democrats because the Democratic Party didn't exist back then.
You are parsing text that reads "not Democrat" and automatically substituting it with "Republican".
Let me summarize this thread for you, in clear words so you don't get confused:
THREAD STARTER: Nice buildings are only built in Democrat-run cities.
ME: Like Detroit? No, many nice things were built before Democrats even existed.
YOU: Name three.
ME: Anything built before 1850's, that's when the "Democratic-Republican" party broke up into two and became "Democrats" and another one called "Republicans". Such as white house, capitol, etc.
Um... you do realize Democratic party as we know it only came into existence in the 1850's? Before that it was known as Democratic-Republicans (yeah hard to believe Dems and Rs used to be the same party) but the anti-slavery faction of the party split off from the group with the name "Republican" in the mid 1850's. So anything built before 1850 would not have been made by "Democrats".
Example would be, i dunno, the White House? The US Capitol building? Rotunda at University of Virginia? Lot of famous buildings that are old.
Central Park in NYC was built just before the Civil War. I dunno what the political makeup of NYC at that time was, but since NY was a free state I would tend to think they were Republican, they certainly voted for Lincoln.
Griffith Park in LA was built in the 1890's, most likely not by Democrats since the city didn't turn progressive or Democrat until well into the 20th century. Los Angeles Times for example was a heavily Republican newspaper at the time.
Now you can run old custom 32 bit programs in a newer 64 bit OS and mostly it will run fine, but why replace "100% guaranteed to run" with "most likely will run"? Especially with old funky device drivers that were fine-tuned for the old setup?
This probably means you'll have to live in a city run by Democrats
You mean like Detroit?
Quips aside, pretty much every big(ish) city in US is run by Democrats these days... you have to go to rural areas to find non-Dems.
But please be aware that some of the nicest and most iconic features in our major cities were built decades or centuries ago when the cities weren't completely saturated with Democrat voters.
Of course many of the most beautiful structures in the world were made eons ago when Democrats or even liberalism didn't exist. Hagia Sophia anyone?
Not sure if we needed studies to figure this out, but:
One of Ellard's most consistent findings is that people are strongly affected by building facades. If the facade is complex and interesting, it affects people in a positive way; negatively if it is simple and monotonous. For example, when he walked a group of subjects past the long, smoked-glass frontage of a Whole Foods store in Lower Manhattan, their arousal and mood states took a dive
I could've told them this, for free. Here in southern Calif, there are strip malls built in the (prosperous) 90's in faux Mediterranean style, with complex gables, fake man-made (but realistic-looking) stonework on the facade, red clay barrel tiles on the roof, curvy wrought-iron railings. I love going to these, makes me feel good to be there.
As opposed to the strip malls built in the lame 70's... usually with a plain monotonous stucco exterior, all square everything, flat roofs coated with a grey tar-like substance, straight unadorned industrial-looking railings. I believe they call this "modern" style. I dislike going to these places.
Unfortunately, complex interesting-looking buildings cost more to make than the "modern" style buildings.
Unaccountable, untraceable way to fund their black ops. Much better than selling drugs and running guns (which they used to do in the primitive old days)
Prison guards' Union, for some weird reason, wields great power in California state legislature and the politicians generally just give them whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans can engineer around anything that gives them centuries to do it.
Only if there's a source of funding and a societal structure (i.e. other humans) providing the engineers with food and other things.
I think you underestimate the Permian event. There are competing theories but the most plausible one I've seen says a giant asteroid (bigger than the Cretaceous one) hit, and the antipodal side of earth ruptured out, forming the Siberian traps. It functioned basically like a super volcano, but instead of one brief eruption, it kept going and going for centuries. Result was that it rained sulfuric acid all over the world, nonstop. The very air you breathe became a poisonous fume (to paraphrase Boromir).
I do not see human species surviving this. The initial impact would pretty much wipe out governments and civilization so it wouldn't be possible to put together a large expensive engineering project. The remaining survivors would gradually die out in the following decades of acid rain and poisonous fumes.
But I think a large self-sustaining underground colony can be built that can survive it, for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Mars colony. Any of the big tech billionaires could fund it solo.
Actually no, microbes are far better suited to survive catastrophic events than large animals like apes or theropods. For instance, there is no way human species survives the Permian extinction event if it were to happen today. The Cretaceous asteroid, maybe. Those luxury survival bunkers built inside missile silos might make it, depending on how much food they stored and how good their water supply is.
Anyways the "species survival depends on getting to Mars" trope is getting old. I'm all in favor of going to Mars but honestly it would be so much easier and cheaper to build bunkers. Costwise you're looking at around $1 trillion for a self-sustaining Mars colony, and maybe like 0.01 percent of that for building that same colony underground.
You don't even need nuclear power (although it would be nice to have it). You can build the bunker near a reliable geothermal source.
I mean, if you have to break the window of the car or jimmy the door open, and then physically insert a flash drive into the USB port on the dashboard, that's a pretty loose definition of "hack".
If you were willing to go this far and risk burglary rap, might as well just drive off with the car and sell it to the chop shop rather than simply leaving a malware on the infotainment system.
Mars atmosphere is at 6 mBar. The energy requirements to pump the space (which will leak) will greatly exceed anything you'll be getting from solar. With unlimited nuclear energy then this becomes practical, but if the pumps break then you're fucked. Pumps break all the time. We can't even keep pumps on ship and oil rigs running reliably, how on earth are you going to manage to do it on Mars???????
No, if a pump breaks I'm not fucked. The habitat is not like a helicopter where if the motor dies you fall and die. It's more like a scuba tank, you pump it up once and it stays pressurized without any intervention on your part. You would only need to run the pump to replace air lost through airlock operation. If you have a problem with the pump, stop using the airlock until it's fixed.
And you would have more than one pump obviously.
People have been living in airtight pressurized vessels in orbit for decades. They're called "space stations". Why do you think it can't be done on Mars?
It would actually be easier to build on Mars in some respects because you can just dig a bunker into the side of a mountain and you'll be surrounded by earthen walls that provide immense structural support.
*ahem* reasons not to fly on commercial airliners
None of them apply if you fly general aviation aircraft.
therefore, buy IBM
if (comment contains 'Trump') mod down -1
You assume wrong. Nothing for XP in any of the 4 pages.
and before that, the conficker manual patch for XP.
But I guess you could say it's "unprecedented" since the beginning of this month...
Chances are those who are far more educated than you or I on this topic have done a lot more than simply assume what design is more efficient, to include the long-term financial aspect.
You would think so, but in the real world there is a vast history of government projects that demonstrate a lack of foresight and dumb thinking (or no thinking). Especially on the local/state level.
I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago either. Just last year in 2016 the state of California decided to cover up the surface of a large reservoir to reduce evaporation (they were in the middle of a big drought). They decided on floating thousands of plastic balls on the water since it was easier and cheaper than covering up the lake with a tarp. Well and good.
So the day came and they released all those plastic balls and the TV cameras were rolling and what did we see? BLACK BALLS. Black plastic balls rolling into the water.
No one involved with the project had the foresight to consider the color of the balls. Black balls absorb a lot more sunlight and get hotter and increase water temperature, leading to more water evaporation. It would've been trivial to add white pigment to the plastic balls and the cost difference would've been negligible.
You must be one of those "jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, 9-11 was a controlled demolition" guys.
Power line went down. Police found the charred remains of a drone at the site. Witnesses (plural) living in the area said they saw a guy flying a drone in the area. Therefore the conclusion that a drone caused the event.
Sounds like a simple, rational explanation to me. But please feel free to indulge in fanciful far-fetching conspiracies all you want. Just don't share it with normal people.
Facebook Amazon Netflix Google
After some shuffling around and a name change, now FAAAM
Don't worry, they went up so much lately, a little pullback and profit-taking was bound to happen. Nothing goes up forever.
Anyone who says : "We've centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg," is a clueless fool.
And another thing a clueless fool might say is,
"At its inception, the internet was a beautifully idealistic and equal place."
You could sort of say it was kind of like that during a brief period in the mid 90's when the general public first started getting on it. But before that there was nothing "equal" about it.
Republican Party as we know it didn't come into existence until 1858 (I would say 1960 is more like it), so you don't get to pretend that they had anything to do with the White House, The US Capital Building, or the Rotunda at UofV.
You have a serious misunderstanding there bro. I never said White House, etc. were built by Republicans, I simply said they were not built by Democrats because the Democratic Party didn't exist back then.
You are parsing text that reads "not Democrat" and automatically substituting it with "Republican".
Let me summarize this thread for you, in clear words so you don't get confused:
THREAD STARTER: Nice buildings are only built in Democrat-run cities.
ME: Like Detroit? No, many nice things were built before Democrats even existed.
YOU: Name three.
ME: Anything built before 1850's, that's when the "Democratic-Republican" party broke up into two and became "Democrats" and another one called "Republicans". Such as white house, capitol, etc.
YOU: Republicans didn't build the white house!
Give three examples, please.
Um... you do realize Democratic party as we know it only came into existence in the 1850's? Before that it was known as Democratic-Republicans (yeah hard to believe Dems and Rs used to be the same party) but the anti-slavery faction of the party split off from the group with the name "Republican" in the mid 1850's. So anything built before 1850 would not have been made by "Democrats".
Example would be, i dunno, the White House? The US Capitol building? Rotunda at University of Virginia? Lot of famous buildings that are old.
Central Park in NYC was built just before the Civil War. I dunno what the political makeup of NYC at that time was, but since NY was a free state I would tend to think they were Republican, they certainly voted for Lincoln.
Griffith Park in LA was built in the 1890's, most likely not by Democrats since the city didn't turn progressive or Democrat until well into the 20th century. Los Angeles Times for example was a heavily Republican newspaper at the time.
and Apple doesn't.
Now you can run old custom 32 bit programs in a newer 64 bit OS and mostly it will run fine, but why replace "100% guaranteed to run" with "most likely will run"? Especially with old funky device drivers that were fine-tuned for the old setup?
This probably means you'll have to live in a city run by Democrats
You mean like Detroit?
Quips aside, pretty much every big(ish) city in US is run by Democrats these days... you have to go to rural areas to find non-Dems.
But please be aware that some of the nicest and most iconic features in our major cities were built decades or centuries ago when the cities weren't completely saturated with Democrat voters.
Of course many of the most beautiful structures in the world were made eons ago when Democrats or even liberalism didn't exist. Hagia Sophia anyone?
Not sure if we needed studies to figure this out, but:
One of Ellard's most consistent findings is that people are strongly affected by building facades. If the facade is complex and interesting, it affects people in a positive way; negatively if it is simple and monotonous. For example, when he walked a group of subjects past the long, smoked-glass frontage of a Whole Foods store in Lower Manhattan, their arousal and mood states took a dive
I could've told them this, for free. Here in southern Calif, there are strip malls built in the (prosperous) 90's in faux Mediterranean style, with complex gables, fake man-made (but realistic-looking) stonework on the facade, red clay barrel tiles on the roof, curvy wrought-iron railings. I love going to these, makes me feel good to be there.
As opposed to the strip malls built in the lame 70's... usually with a plain monotonous stucco exterior, all square everything, flat roofs coated with a grey tar-like substance, straight unadorned industrial-looking railings. I believe they call this "modern" style. I dislike going to these places.
Unfortunately, complex interesting-looking buildings cost more to make than the "modern" style buildings.
Founder of Lowes is a Hillary supporter and contributed money to her campaign.
Founder of Home Depot is a Trump supporter and contributed money to his campaign.
These two companies form a duopoly in the home improvement stores in the US, and the Republican/Democrat parties are a duopoly in government.
Bitcoin was created by CIA
Unaccountable, untraceable way to fund their black ops. Much better than selling drugs and running guns (which they used to do in the primitive old days)
Pak breeders. They are the missing link.
300,000 years ago is the correct time frame for their arrival, new science from Morocco has proven it
Planet of the Apps, ha ha I get it.
You can skip the rest of it.
That's nice. How about looking at some real world data:
http://gawker.com/5797381/spoi...
"One sergeant with a base salary of $81,683 collected $114,334 in overtime and $8,648 in bonuses last year, and he's not even the highest paid."
$81k base + $114k overtime + $8k bonus = $203k
Oh and not every prison guard lives in Bay area.
Prison guards' Union, for some weird reason, wields great power in California state legislature and the politicians generally just give them whatever they want.
Yeah I mean, Soviet Union was good because of income equality. Liberal artists used to sing "Russians love their children too!"
But now Russia is bad bad bad, they've abandoned socialism so now they are teh evil.