The average soldier in 1864 weighed 141 pounds, the average soldier in 2000 weighed 178 pounds. "AHA!", I hear, "that just shows Americans getting fatter!" Well, the average soldier in 1864 was 67.2 inches tall, the average soldier in 2000 was 69.6 inches tall. Americans are not just getting heavier, they are getting taller. Without some measure of the height and general fitness of a population the weight, and the food consumed, is relatively meaningless.
Now that my car is approaching 15 years old, and my commute is getting more "interesting" (since the car is making some interesting noises, has developed an interesting wobble, and leaves interesting spots in the parking lot) so I am now forced to go "try on" some cars. I was the taller than average, and heavier than average, soldier. I don't waddle up to the buffet (more of a limp really but that's the price I paid for joining the military). I *WISH* I could find those "personal locomotives" that people claim are so prevalent. Even a "mid-size" truck will not allow me to sit upright. I don't want a full size truck since they are a bitch to maneuver through a parking lot but that is what I will probably end up getting since these micro-sized econo-boxes will only fit your average American Civil War era soldier, not the 2010 variety.
Also, living in a place where we get this thing called "snow" for a good portion of the year it would be nice to have a vehicle that can navigate through the crap. Those lightweight front wheel drive tin cans will not get up even a little hill around here once a quarter inch of snow and slush has accumulated. I'd love to work from home on those days, and sometimes I can, but that is not practical all the time.
As a do-it-yerself kind of guy I need something that can carry the occasional sheet of drywall or plywood. As a guy that enjoys the outdoors I would like something that can get to those out of the way places once in a while, and carry a few rifles, targets, a tent, food, water, and whatever else a guy might need to go on a hunt and still have room to bring the game back home to eat.
The government keeps raising the bar on fuel economy while ignoring some basics of physics and economics. There is a certain point where mandates on fuel economy, safety features, cost of materials, etc. results in your slightly larger than average guy like me just won't be able to obtain a suitable non-commercial vehicle. If this non-sense over fuel economy continues then my next vehicle (likely another ten years from now) will have to be a GMC Topkick since all "consumer" vehicles will by then be mandated into Matchbox cars.
All you anorexic midgets out there on the sunny coast can have your tiny little tin cans to drive to the beach, to the shopping mall, or to your air conditioned cubicle. Out here in the Midwest, where we have four seasons, need our "personal locomotives" just so we can get some work done.
I think I see the problem with California after reading the article you linked to. The public initiative power granted by the government allows the people to get spending and taxing bills on the ballot. This allows a simple majority vote in the budget process. Democracy at it's finest. The problem is that once people find out they can vote themselves a paycheck, and tax someone else for it, then your economy is doomed to fail.
A democracy is not a stable form of government and the California government has too many properties of a democracy. Democracies cannot stand since it allows a small majority to push a minority around. The fact that a minority can hold up a majority is a feature, not a bug. A minority capable of keeping a majority at bay is a feature of a republic. Needing a super majority for certain things to happen in a government is a simple and expedient means to prevent a democracy from being created and running out of control. A super majority is not a perfect means to preserve a republic but it's the best we've come up with yet.
He wanted to be a terrorist, he just did not do a good job of it.
Not only did he not do a good job of it he completely failed at being a terrorist.
Terrorists have an agenda. They go to great lengths to induce fear in others to reach that agenda. It's difficult to induce fear any more when you are dead. There are suicidal terrorists out there, obviously, but those are members of a larger organization of people. They induce fear by proving to others that they are willing to die, and kill, to reach their agenda. Their agenda cannot be reached if they kill themselves off in the process. For terrorism to succeed there must be the threat of another suicidal idiot willing to die and kill for the cause.
In my mind there is no such thing as a terrorist. For terrorism to exist one must choose to be terrorized. I choose to not live in fear by knowing there are much greater dangers in my life than suicidal idiots with an agenda. There are no terrorists, only criminals. I don't know if my philosophy would improve our lives if more people believed as I do but it works for me. It would certainly be quite the end for the "war on terror", simply declare victory by declaring that we will not be terrorized.
There is more than one way to reduce the carbon output from our modern society. I agree that nuclear power would reduce both the CO2 and radiation output from electricity generation but it does not appear that it is high on the list of things the government wants to do to reduce our impact on the climate.
The problem I have with so many of the proposed solutions to the problem of carbon output is the impact it has on my standard of living. Just about every proposal requires an increase in taxation and/or an increase in the government dictating what I can or cannot do. California wants to ban the use of incandescent bulbs. My experience with them have not been pleasant. They do not meet the advertised life span (not lasting even as long as the incandescent bulbs I bought recently), take longer to get to full brightness, and interferes with my TV remote. So, instead of mandating the use of nuclear power (which has a proven track record of performance and does not inconvenience me) they want to mandate the use of CFL bulbs (mandating that I choose between darkness or hanging mercury filled glass bulbs over my bed and kitchen table).
The lengths that the government will go to in order to "save me from myself" is reaching the absurd. Offering tax incentives to insulate my house is one thing, taking control of my thermostat is another. There are people in the government debating if we should be allowed to have a black car because the black paint would absorb more sun which requires more air conditioning.
I have come to the conclusion that the "green movement" in government is not about freeing the nation from foreign oil, or saving the whales (or is it polar bears we're supposed to save this week?), or improving my chances of survival, or keeping the sea levels from rising. All they want to do is grow government. By using the scare of "climate change" they can make the growth of government seem not only pleasing but absolutely necessary. If they truly wanted to reduce the CO2 output they'd doing everything they can to see nuclear power plants getting built.
By opening domestic drilling for oil we'd see jobs get created, a reduction in our nation's wealth getting shipped out of the borders, a reduction in the influence foreign nations have on us, and the reduction of the potential for oil spills in our, and other nation's, waters. (Domestic oil is largely brought to shore with underwater pipes. These pipes rarely have leaks on the scale of even the smallest oil tanker spill.)
I'm OK with trying to save the planet. The problem I see is the government is only getting in the way of many trying to do so. This is like so many "war on ???" plans the government has. If the war is won then the government agency created to fight that war has no more reason to exist. I feel too many in the government don't actually want to win any of these "wars" they've declared cause if they did that could mean a congresscritter would have less federal money flowing into their constituent's pockets.
It's also more than just $/mile for fuel. If it takes 15 minutes to fill up a hydrocarbon tank and 15 hours to fill up a lithium-ion battery then a vehicle's effective range is quite limited. The limited range might not be much of a concern for 90% of commuters but if one is in the business of long distance trucking then the downtime for refuel is going to become an issue.
Some of the issues of lengthy recharge times can be addressed by swapping batteries but that would require an infrastructure to exist.
To anyone that want to point out that one could merely recharge the battery at a faster rate so that it is comparable to dumping gasoline into a tank I suggest you do some math first. My car, for example has a 16 gallon as tank. I timed the refueling time at a gas station at about five minutes. Compute that power in megawatts and then compute the voltage and current required to match that. Consider such minutia as the breakdown voltage of air and the NEC recommendations for the sizing of conductors.
Pure electric vehicles will remain in the realm of curiosities, luxuries, and niches unless we find some unobtainium to recharge the batteries. I see a brighter future in synthesized hydrocarbons than for electric vehicles.
It's more than just a limitation of our own equipment but the fact that the universe is already full of radio emitters we call "stars". Our radio transmissions would have to be above the noise level to be detected. That noise floor will vary depending on the type of signal transmitted and what the noise emitters relative distance and power output are. Once an observer gets a certain distance from Earth the radio transmissions we have created will very likely be indistinguishable from noise. Then the observer will have to deal with the noise from other nearby sources of radio energy. If that observer is on a planet with radio transmitters of their own, and near a sun of their own, the radio energy we transmit will fade into the noise very quickly.
I've heard one astronomer claim that our radio emissions will have faded into the noise of our own sun even before they have left the solar system. If that is true an observer would have to pass through the solar system and be listening for a radio transmission in order to know we are here.
I used to believe that we'd be heard by some far away alien civilization but my current knowledge of physics tells me that just will not come to be. I suppose in some distant time frame humans will travel off into space and make use of radio communications far from our sun, with a regularity and power output so as to appear as unquestionably artificial, we might raise awareness of an alien civilization but then again being able to detect such is quite different than the capability to respond.
Imagine that if we, sometime in our lives, find what is believed to be the radio transmissions from another planet. How long would it take to verify the existence of that civilization? How much longer would it take to develop the technology and infrastructure to respond in kind? It could take centuries just to do a proper radio "handshake".
Blindly throwing arms into an armed conflict rarelly solves it.
Arming commercial shipping is not blindly doing anything. Arming the "good guys" is a good tactic against the armed "bad guys". It seems the few ships in the area were able to repel pirate attacks. The only successful pirate attacks were on unarmed vessels. It would seem that, despite your claim, arming commercial shipping does solve the problem.
Incandescent bulbs : + Cheap, we're used to the light - terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat
You say that as if it's a bad thing. I live in the American Midwest. A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.
In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent. I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home. I don't know what the deal is but the CFLs I've had don't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.
Living in a place that has four seasons it's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero. I don't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and don't light up once I flip the light switch. Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one doesn't help either.
I'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent. I have seen prices come down from the obscene, to the merely profane, to expensive novelties, to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint.
It's not quite that simple. Putting bigger guns on the ships will only mean the pirates use bigger guns, too. They don't have many other choices. What other job opportunities are there for them?
So we should just bend over and take it? I don't think anyone likes that solution. Except the pirates of course.
I suppose if commercial shipping starts putting 25mm cannons on the deck the pirates then show up with 5 inch cannons? And if the commercial shippers start using 8 inch cannons to beat their firepower the pirates will just pull an Iowa class battleship out of a hat?
The pirates are getting these weapons from shipping companies (and their insurance companies) paying the ransom to buy the weapons from someone willing to give them business. It's easy to sneak a few machine guns and shoulder fired rockets on ships and across borders but not so easy to transport artillery. If they had the resources to build that stuff themselves then perhaps using that ability to build something worthy of sale to foreign markets might be a safer and more profitable venture than using it to steal from others.
What else are they to do besides piracy you ask? That is what my brother calls an "NMP". It's Not My Problem. They did something before piracy, I suggest they return to it. Perhaps they could build a few schools with all that energy they have to climb onto ships they shouldn't be boarding. They could form a viable government while they are at it.
Consider the armed shipping vessels killing a few pirates a "teachable moment" to the pirates that survive.
Whoa there! Slow down for a minute. I do not advocate retribution. Do not fire unless fired upon. I don't think that raping the cattle and stampeding the women is going to win many hearts on the global stage.
Is it possible that they just dried up? Have you ever seen ice cubes in your freezer shrink after being there for a long time? There is more than one way for a glacier to shrink, it doesn't have to melt. It could have simply sublimated into the cold dry air that blew over it.
I don't know if this is the case but it certainly is a possibility.
So they had water cannons, noise makers, and now a flippin' rope cannon? Give those ships real guns with real bullets already! These pirates mean business. Any resistance these pirates meet is often returned with lethal force. Giving in to them and paying ransom is just calling for more of the same. Pay the Danegeld and you don't get rid of the Dane.
These ships need to have weapons that can match or surpass what the pirates have. Bolt a 25 mike mike to the deck if you must. Some little ship comes screaming up to your ship with guys carrying machine guns and rocket launchers shooting at you then its weapons free. They understand return fire. Make it too difficult to be worth their time and the piracy will stop.
All of this less than lethal crap has got to end. Give those ships real guns with real bullets!
Yep, I'm a bit perturbed over this. All this politically correct crap is getting people killed.
Once the world decides our dollars are worthless since we can no longer provide useful goods for those paper dollars, we are screwed.
The USA still provides vast amounts of food to other nations. While our ability to produce real tangible goods has largely been exported to China we can still feed ourselves and many others. If the fit hits the shan and trade with other nations drops to nil people in the USA will not starve. One thing that concerns me is our reliance on foreign energy, not the manufacturing capacity we have. People need food, water, shelter, heat, etc. to live and we have all that. Problem is that we only produce about 1/3 the oil we consume. If our dollars can't buy the oil we need then domestic sources will have to be developed. More corn will be turned into fuel, more oil fields will be drilled and tapped, and so on. That will take time.
I don't think we'll be "screwed" if other countries stop taking our dollars. It will certainly suck until we can rebuild our energy infrastructure and our manufacturing base. I feel much of this is self correcting. As the dollar falls the manufacturing we have will look more appealing. For example the USA still produces much of the aircraft for the world. There is still the shipbuilding, construction and agricultural equipment, and weapons that we make and other countries want to buy. Hopefully the Progressives that have taken power in the fedgov will lose that power and enable us to rebuild our independence, both political and economic.
Please explain to me the "costs" of carbon dioxide emissions? Considering that the Earth has been cooling for ten years now the "theory" of human induced global warming has been proven false so, therefore, you must be referring to some other cost that I am not yet aware of.
If Consumer Reports does not rate highly with you then perhaps another entity that rates the quality of goods will. People know, and seem to trust for the most part, Consumer Reports. If they don't keep up their own quality control then I suspect another entity will fill their place soon enough.
No, we are not a democracy. We are a republic. The government cannot simply round up minorities if it wanted to. I agree that the limits of government is what we are willing to put up with, but that is not a democracy, that is the rule of law as enforced by the people.
A democracy can only devolve into oligarchy. The minorities will be silenced one by one until a ruling class develops. We don't want a democracy. The government needs to stay out of our homes and dictate such minute details of our lives. I don't care if the majority want me to use energy efficient appliances, that should be my choice. Every thing is a compromise. The trade off to efficient CFL bulbs over incandescent is reduced warm-up time, differing color, among others. One thing that bothers me is that with a CFL bulb I am bringing a glass vessel filled with mercury. People talk about the mercury in the air from coal fired plants but there is a big difference between the mercury "out there" and the mercury "in here". Of course the obvious solution to the air borne mercury issue (obvious to me at least) is to abandon coal power, and replace it with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. Oh, and get rid of those stupid CFL bulbs.
I'm reminded of the war on drugs. The majority decided that people cannot be trusted with certain mind altering substances and so those were banned. People still got them and so the government spent billions in keeping people from doing so. Of all that money spent the most effective means of reducing the use of drugs was not the machine gun toting jack booted thugs kicking down granny's door to... oops, wrong house. The most effective means of reducing drug use has been TV public service announcements. If the government wants people to reduce their electricity use then I propose educating the people on how reducing electricity use will help everyone.
It seems too many in government don't miss an opportunity to expand it's power, you know, the "never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality. I don't care how the majority has ruled, show me where in the state or federal constitution that the government is granted the power to tell me what kind of TV, toilet, light bulb, or car I can own. The government has been granted certain powers, I suggest they stick to them. Perhaps they should start with maintaining the roads. (Having bridges falling into rivers makes them really look bad, along with all the pot holes I have to dodge on my drive to work.) Once they show competence in that then perhaps they should move on to the postal service.
Recycling policies can be changed, physics cannot. Once people are faced with the choices of freezing to death or recycling that fuel I'm quit certain that people will allow the recycling of the fuel. Also, while the recycling of spent uranium fuel is disallowed in the USA it is common practice in other countries. Seeing countries successfully recycle and breed their own fuel, without the expense of uranium refinement, will change minds.... or we all freeze to death.
Algae plants take all kinds of resources to make it work. Many of which compete with our own ability to eat. Algae needs light, water, and area. All the things we need to grow food. Algae cannot compete with the power output of an oil well or a nuclear power plant when it comes to area or water used. The physics are against it. It is limited by the amount of sunlight it can absorb. Sun light is very powerful but also dispersed over a very large area. You cannot just "grow more" algae since it is competing for sunlight with so many other things, food is the primary one.
Using once through (not recycled) light water reactors we have enough uranium to last decades. Using recycled uranium we have enough fuel to last hundreds of years. Using breeder reactors the supply of uranium will last thousands of years. Using known technologies in converting fertile elements, like thorium, into usable fissionable fuels there is enough known fuel on this planet to last millions of years.
We are not going to run out of fission fuels for a very long time.
Slashdot Mirror
The average soldier in 1864 weighed 141 pounds, the average soldier in 2000 weighed 178 pounds. "AHA!", I hear, "that just shows Americans getting fatter!" Well, the average soldier in 1864 was 67.2 inches tall, the average soldier in 2000 was 69.6 inches tall. Americans are not just getting heavier, they are getting taller. Without some measure of the height and general fitness of a population the weight, and the food consumed, is relatively meaningless.
Now that my car is approaching 15 years old, and my commute is getting more "interesting" (since the car is making some interesting noises, has developed an interesting wobble, and leaves interesting spots in the parking lot) so I am now forced to go "try on" some cars. I was the taller than average, and heavier than average, soldier. I don't waddle up to the buffet (more of a limp really but that's the price I paid for joining the military). I *WISH* I could find those "personal locomotives" that people claim are so prevalent. Even a "mid-size" truck will not allow me to sit upright. I don't want a full size truck since they are a bitch to maneuver through a parking lot but that is what I will probably end up getting since these micro-sized econo-boxes will only fit your average American Civil War era soldier, not the 2010 variety.
Also, living in a place where we get this thing called "snow" for a good portion of the year it would be nice to have a vehicle that can navigate through the crap. Those lightweight front wheel drive tin cans will not get up even a little hill around here once a quarter inch of snow and slush has accumulated. I'd love to work from home on those days, and sometimes I can, but that is not practical all the time.
As a do-it-yerself kind of guy I need something that can carry the occasional sheet of drywall or plywood. As a guy that enjoys the outdoors I would like something that can get to those out of the way places once in a while, and carry a few rifles, targets, a tent, food, water, and whatever else a guy might need to go on a hunt and still have room to bring the game back home to eat.
The government keeps raising the bar on fuel economy while ignoring some basics of physics and economics. There is a certain point where mandates on fuel economy, safety features, cost of materials, etc. results in your slightly larger than average guy like me just won't be able to obtain a suitable non-commercial vehicle. If this non-sense over fuel economy continues then my next vehicle (likely another ten years from now) will have to be a GMC Topkick since all "consumer" vehicles will by then be mandated into Matchbox cars.
All you anorexic midgets out there on the sunny coast can have your tiny little tin cans to drive to the beach, to the shopping mall, or to your air conditioned cubicle. Out here in the Midwest, where we have four seasons, need our "personal locomotives" just so we can get some work done.
I think I see the problem with California after reading the article you linked to. The public initiative power granted by the government allows the people to get spending and taxing bills on the ballot. This allows a simple majority vote in the budget process. Democracy at it's finest. The problem is that once people find out they can vote themselves a paycheck, and tax someone else for it, then your economy is doomed to fail.
A democracy is not a stable form of government and the California government has too many properties of a democracy. Democracies cannot stand since it allows a small majority to push a minority around. The fact that a minority can hold up a majority is a feature, not a bug. A minority capable of keeping a majority at bay is a feature of a republic. Needing a super majority for certain things to happen in a government is a simple and expedient means to prevent a democracy from being created and running out of control. A super majority is not a perfect means to preserve a republic but it's the best we've come up with yet.
He wanted to be a terrorist, he just did not do a good job of it.
Not only did he not do a good job of it he completely failed at being a terrorist.
Terrorists have an agenda. They go to great lengths to induce fear in others to reach that agenda. It's difficult to induce fear any more when you are dead. There are suicidal terrorists out there, obviously, but those are members of a larger organization of people. They induce fear by proving to others that they are willing to die, and kill, to reach their agenda. Their agenda cannot be reached if they kill themselves off in the process. For terrorism to succeed there must be the threat of another suicidal idiot willing to die and kill for the cause.
In my mind there is no such thing as a terrorist. For terrorism to exist one must choose to be terrorized. I choose to not live in fear by knowing there are much greater dangers in my life than suicidal idiots with an agenda. There are no terrorists, only criminals. I don't know if my philosophy would improve our lives if more people believed as I do but it works for me. It would certainly be quite the end for the "war on terror", simply declare victory by declaring that we will not be terrorized.
There is more than one way to reduce the carbon output from our modern society. I agree that nuclear power would reduce both the CO2 and radiation output from electricity generation but it does not appear that it is high on the list of things the government wants to do to reduce our impact on the climate.
The problem I have with so many of the proposed solutions to the problem of carbon output is the impact it has on my standard of living. Just about every proposal requires an increase in taxation and/or an increase in the government dictating what I can or cannot do. California wants to ban the use of incandescent bulbs. My experience with them have not been pleasant. They do not meet the advertised life span (not lasting even as long as the incandescent bulbs I bought recently), take longer to get to full brightness, and interferes with my TV remote. So, instead of mandating the use of nuclear power (which has a proven track record of performance and does not inconvenience me) they want to mandate the use of CFL bulbs (mandating that I choose between darkness or hanging mercury filled glass bulbs over my bed and kitchen table).
The lengths that the government will go to in order to "save me from myself" is reaching the absurd. Offering tax incentives to insulate my house is one thing, taking control of my thermostat is another. There are people in the government debating if we should be allowed to have a black car because the black paint would absorb more sun which requires more air conditioning.
I have come to the conclusion that the "green movement" in government is not about freeing the nation from foreign oil, or saving the whales (or is it polar bears we're supposed to save this week?), or improving my chances of survival, or keeping the sea levels from rising. All they want to do is grow government. By using the scare of "climate change" they can make the growth of government seem not only pleasing but absolutely necessary. If they truly wanted to reduce the CO2 output they'd doing everything they can to see nuclear power plants getting built.
By opening domestic drilling for oil we'd see jobs get created, a reduction in our nation's wealth getting shipped out of the borders, a reduction in the influence foreign nations have on us, and the reduction of the potential for oil spills in our, and other nation's, waters. (Domestic oil is largely brought to shore with underwater pipes. These pipes rarely have leaks on the scale of even the smallest oil tanker spill.)
I'm OK with trying to save the planet. The problem I see is the government is only getting in the way of many trying to do so. This is like so many "war on ???" plans the government has. If the war is won then the government agency created to fight that war has no more reason to exist. I feel too many in the government don't actually want to win any of these "wars" they've declared cause if they did that could mean a congresscritter would have less federal money flowing into their constituent's pockets.
After all, what else would they be doing on a saturday night
Posting on Slashdot?
Since I am about 6 inches taller than the typical American male I'd have to wonder how you'd define "eye level".
It's also more than just $/mile for fuel. If it takes 15 minutes to fill up a hydrocarbon tank and 15 hours to fill up a lithium-ion battery then a vehicle's effective range is quite limited. The limited range might not be much of a concern for 90% of commuters but if one is in the business of long distance trucking then the downtime for refuel is going to become an issue.
Some of the issues of lengthy recharge times can be addressed by swapping batteries but that would require an infrastructure to exist.
To anyone that want to point out that one could merely recharge the battery at a faster rate so that it is comparable to dumping gasoline into a tank I suggest you do some math first. My car, for example has a 16 gallon as tank. I timed the refueling time at a gas station at about five minutes. Compute that power in megawatts and then compute the voltage and current required to match that. Consider such minutia as the breakdown voltage of air and the NEC recommendations for the sizing of conductors.
Pure electric vehicles will remain in the realm of curiosities, luxuries, and niches unless we find some unobtainium to recharge the batteries. I see a brighter future in synthesized hydrocarbons than for electric vehicles.
It's more than just a limitation of our own equipment but the fact that the universe is already full of radio emitters we call "stars". Our radio transmissions would have to be above the noise level to be detected. That noise floor will vary depending on the type of signal transmitted and what the noise emitters relative distance and power output are. Once an observer gets a certain distance from Earth the radio transmissions we have created will very likely be indistinguishable from noise. Then the observer will have to deal with the noise from other nearby sources of radio energy. If that observer is on a planet with radio transmitters of their own, and near a sun of their own, the radio energy we transmit will fade into the noise very quickly.
I've heard one astronomer claim that our radio emissions will have faded into the noise of our own sun even before they have left the solar system. If that is true an observer would have to pass through the solar system and be listening for a radio transmission in order to know we are here.
I used to believe that we'd be heard by some far away alien civilization but my current knowledge of physics tells me that just will not come to be. I suppose in some distant time frame humans will travel off into space and make use of radio communications far from our sun, with a regularity and power output so as to appear as unquestionably artificial, we might raise awareness of an alien civilization but then again being able to detect such is quite different than the capability to respond.
Imagine that if we, sometime in our lives, find what is believed to be the radio transmissions from another planet. How long would it take to verify the existence of that civilization? How much longer would it take to develop the technology and infrastructure to respond in kind? It could take centuries just to do a proper radio "handshake".
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving...
If you have food and I have a gun I'd shoot the nearest four legged critter and ask if I could borrow your knife and stove for a share of the meat.
Regardless, This is a garanteed FCC violation for civilians to try. :D
Right, because that is my primary concern as I attempt to disable a police helicopter.
Blindly throwing arms into an armed conflict rarelly solves it.
Arming commercial shipping is not blindly doing anything. Arming the "good guys" is a good tactic against the armed "bad guys". It seems the few ships in the area were able to repel pirate attacks. The only successful pirate attacks were on unarmed vessels. It would seem that, despite your claim, arming commercial shipping does solve the problem.
What color is the sky in your world?
Incandescent bulbs :
+ Cheap, we're used to the light
- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat
You say that as if it's a bad thing. I live in the American Midwest. A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.
In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent. I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home. I don't know what the deal is but the CFLs I've had don't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.
Living in a place that has four seasons it's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero. I don't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and don't light up once I flip the light switch. Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one doesn't help either.
I'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent. I have seen prices come down from the obscene, to the merely profane, to expensive novelties, to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint.
It's not quite that simple. Putting bigger guns on the ships will only mean the pirates use bigger guns, too. They don't have many other choices. What other job opportunities are there for them?
So we should just bend over and take it? I don't think anyone likes that solution. Except the pirates of course.
I suppose if commercial shipping starts putting 25mm cannons on the deck the pirates then show up with 5 inch cannons? And if the commercial shippers start using 8 inch cannons to beat their firepower the pirates will just pull an Iowa class battleship out of a hat?
The pirates are getting these weapons from shipping companies (and their insurance companies) paying the ransom to buy the weapons from someone willing to give them business. It's easy to sneak a few machine guns and shoulder fired rockets on ships and across borders but not so easy to transport artillery. If they had the resources to build that stuff themselves then perhaps using that ability to build something worthy of sale to foreign markets might be a safer and more profitable venture than using it to steal from others.
What else are they to do besides piracy you ask? That is what my brother calls an "NMP". It's Not My Problem. They did something before piracy, I suggest they return to it. Perhaps they could build a few schools with all that energy they have to climb onto ships they shouldn't be boarding. They could form a viable government while they are at it.
Consider the armed shipping vessels killing a few pirates a "teachable moment" to the pirates that survive.
Think I'll be buying a double barrel in the next five years...
Why wait? You need one now, don't you?
Oh, and don't forget ammo. You'll need ammo, plenty of it.
Whoa there! Slow down for a minute. I do not advocate retribution. Do not fire unless fired upon. I don't think that raping the cattle and stampeding the women is going to win many hearts on the global stage.
Where have the glaciers gone?
Is it possible that they just dried up? Have you ever seen ice cubes in your freezer shrink after being there for a long time? There is more than one way for a glacier to shrink, it doesn't have to melt. It could have simply sublimated into the cold dry air that blew over it.
I don't know if this is the case but it certainly is a possibility.
So they had water cannons, noise makers, and now a flippin' rope cannon? Give those ships real guns with real bullets already! These pirates mean business. Any resistance these pirates meet is often returned with lethal force. Giving in to them and paying ransom is just calling for more of the same. Pay the Danegeld and you don't get rid of the Dane.
These ships need to have weapons that can match or surpass what the pirates have. Bolt a 25 mike mike to the deck if you must. Some little ship comes screaming up to your ship with guys carrying machine guns and rocket launchers shooting at you then its weapons free. They understand return fire. Make it too difficult to be worth their time and the piracy will stop.
All of this less than lethal crap has got to end. Give those ships real guns with real bullets!
Yep, I'm a bit perturbed over this. All this politically correct crap is getting people killed.
Once the world decides our dollars are worthless since we can no longer provide useful goods for those paper dollars, we are screwed.
The USA still provides vast amounts of food to other nations. While our ability to produce real tangible goods has largely been exported to China we can still feed ourselves and many others. If the fit hits the shan and trade with other nations drops to nil people in the USA will not starve. One thing that concerns me is our reliance on foreign energy, not the manufacturing capacity we have. People need food, water, shelter, heat, etc. to live and we have all that. Problem is that we only produce about 1/3 the oil we consume. If our dollars can't buy the oil we need then domestic sources will have to be developed. More corn will be turned into fuel, more oil fields will be drilled and tapped, and so on. That will take time.
I don't think we'll be "screwed" if other countries stop taking our dollars. It will certainly suck until we can rebuild our energy infrastructure and our manufacturing base. I feel much of this is self correcting. As the dollar falls the manufacturing we have will look more appealing. For example the USA still produces much of the aircraft for the world. There is still the shipbuilding, construction and agricultural equipment, and weapons that we make and other countries want to buy. Hopefully the Progressives that have taken power in the fedgov will lose that power and enable us to rebuild our independence, both political and economic.
Or so the bartender can tell the ambulance driver where next of kin is most likely to be found.
Please explain to me the "costs" of carbon dioxide emissions? Considering that the Earth has been cooling for ten years now the "theory" of human induced global warming has been proven false so, therefore, you must be referring to some other cost that I am not yet aware of.
If Consumer Reports does not rate highly with you then perhaps another entity that rates the quality of goods will. People know, and seem to trust for the most part, Consumer Reports. If they don't keep up their own quality control then I suspect another entity will fill their place soon enough.
No, we are not a democracy. We are a republic. The government cannot simply round up minorities if it wanted to. I agree that the limits of government is what we are willing to put up with, but that is not a democracy, that is the rule of law as enforced by the people.
A democracy can only devolve into oligarchy. The minorities will be silenced one by one until a ruling class develops. We don't want a democracy. The government needs to stay out of our homes and dictate such minute details of our lives. I don't care if the majority want me to use energy efficient appliances, that should be my choice. Every thing is a compromise. The trade off to efficient CFL bulbs over incandescent is reduced warm-up time, differing color, among others. One thing that bothers me is that with a CFL bulb I am bringing a glass vessel filled with mercury. People talk about the mercury in the air from coal fired plants but there is a big difference between the mercury "out there" and the mercury "in here". Of course the obvious solution to the air borne mercury issue (obvious to me at least) is to abandon coal power, and replace it with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. Oh, and get rid of those stupid CFL bulbs.
I'm reminded of the war on drugs. The majority decided that people cannot be trusted with certain mind altering substances and so those were banned. People still got them and so the government spent billions in keeping people from doing so. Of all that money spent the most effective means of reducing the use of drugs was not the machine gun toting jack booted thugs kicking down granny's door to... oops, wrong house. The most effective means of reducing drug use has been TV public service announcements. If the government wants people to reduce their electricity use then I propose educating the people on how reducing electricity use will help everyone.
It seems too many in government don't miss an opportunity to expand it's power, you know, the "never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality. I don't care how the majority has ruled, show me where in the state or federal constitution that the government is granted the power to tell me what kind of TV, toilet, light bulb, or car I can own. The government has been granted certain powers, I suggest they stick to them. Perhaps they should start with maintaining the roads. (Having bridges falling into rivers makes them really look bad, along with all the pot holes I have to dodge on my drive to work.) Once they show competence in that then perhaps they should move on to the postal service.
"At least you can't send anthrax over teh intertubes."
Not to worry, I'm working on that.
Recycling policies can be changed, physics cannot. Once people are faced with the choices of freezing to death or recycling that fuel I'm quit certain that people will allow the recycling of the fuel. Also, while the recycling of spent uranium fuel is disallowed in the USA it is common practice in other countries. Seeing countries successfully recycle and breed their own fuel, without the expense of uranium refinement, will change minds.... or we all freeze to death.
Algae plants take all kinds of resources to make it work. Many of which compete with our own ability to eat. Algae needs light, water, and area. All the things we need to grow food. Algae cannot compete with the power output of an oil well or a nuclear power plant when it comes to area or water used. The physics are against it. It is limited by the amount of sunlight it can absorb. Sun light is very powerful but also dispersed over a very large area. You cannot just "grow more" algae since it is competing for sunlight with so many other things, food is the primary one.
Using once through (not recycled) light water reactors we have enough uranium to last decades. Using recycled uranium we have enough fuel to last hundreds of years. Using breeder reactors the supply of uranium will last thousands of years. Using known technologies in converting fertile elements, like thorium, into usable fissionable fuels there is enough known fuel on this planet to last millions of years.
We are not going to run out of fission fuels for a very long time.