Politifact points to a Pew report that without immigration the USA would see a 4% growth in population in 50 years. My claim was that the population in the USA would not grow if it weren't for immigration. I'd think that 4% growth over 50 years would be considered a very stable population. I didn't say the USA population would shrink, I said the only real population growth in the world comes from immigration from Africa. There are many European nations that would be experiencing a shrinking population if it weren't for immigration.
Depending on who you ask the birth rate needs to be above 2.1 or 2.2 per woman to have a stable population. That's one to replace the mother, one to replace the father, and a bit extra for the Darwin Award winners. Look at the list of nations and regions below the map and you'll find that much of the Americas, Europe, and Asia have fertility rates below 2.2. Sub-Sahara Africa has a fertility rate above 4.
I also claim that if CO2 output from human activity is a problem then population growth must be contained, especially in high CO2 producing nations in Europe and the Americas. To contain growth in Europe and the Americas is simple and, as best I can tell also politically viable, by restricting immigration. That doesn't mean put a stop to it, but it does mean not taking in everyone that jumps the border. Entering a nation without permission is a crime everywhere in the world. Contain this crime. Those in need of sanctuary should be allowed a means to get it by seeking permission at a legal port of entry. I cannot fathom a nation allowing someone that violated their border still being allowed to claim asylum after being caught. That's like someone breaking into a home and then asking to rent a room after being caught.
If you're so bothered by that, then why aren't you more bothered by the gutting of species protection under Trump?
I'm not bothered by dead birds. Birds are jerks.
Or are you just playing games?
The Democrats are playing games. They've screamed and yelled about saving the birds but said nothing when Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion. If Democrats were honest about saving the birds then they'd not allowed for more kill permits on eagles and would have allowed for more nuclear power plants to be built.
The gray wolf population is doing fine, and I don't much care about an insect. Let's at least be consistent here. If the killing of protected species is wrong then Obama deserves "credit" for killing them as much as Trump. If energy is important enough to the national security of America then we can relax some rules on protected species for windmills, oil drilling, and uranium mining.
I've seen a lot of games played in the media. Homelessness has always been a problem, but nothing is said about it when there is a Democrat in the White House. When unemployment insurance collections are up this is the government helping the disadvantaged when Democrats are in charge, but a sign of a government failing the people to find work when Republicans are in a majority. We saw Trump get drilled before the election on if he'd honor the results of the election. When Clinton loses then the election was rigged and Trump is in office illegitimately. Where's the consistency? The election was honest because Obama assured us it would be. If it wasn't honest, as Democrats now claim, then who is at fault? Trump? He wasn't in any political office at the time.
The Democrats are playing games and I'm tired of the Jurassic media covering for them.
How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total?
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers. What did you find?
A quick look on the internet tells me that the population of protected eagles is in the hundreds of thousands. The federal government is willing to issue permits to kill up to 4,200 eagles per year per wind power company. How many wind power companies are there? Ten of them? That's 42,000 eagles they can kill per year without having to pay any fines. There's only about 40,000 golden eagles in the USA.
Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.
That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures. If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.
This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear. Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow. Gas turbines are half as efficient in turning natural gas to electricity compared to combined cycle natural gas plants. The gas is burned half as often with the windmills, but twice as much gas is burned when they are running. There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway. Maybe in the future with more batteries or something we'll actually see a reduction.
Should I care if birds are killed by windmills? I don't know. I don't much care. Birds are jerks. If you want me to get behind wind and solar power then stop lying to me. Stop lying to yourself. Nuclear power is safe and we should be using much more of it. Again, if the goal is to reduce the deaths of protected species of eagles then which should we choose? Coal? Wind? Nuclear? Something else? If the goal is to save the lives of people then which should we choose? Turns out the answer is the same for both.
Bald and golden eagles may be legally killed or injured in the thousands by high-speed turbines (reaching speeds up to 170 miles per hour), under new regulations released Wednesday by the Obama administration. The rules, which affect individual wind-energy companies that plan to operate the technology for up to 30 years, allows up to 4,200 of the birds to perish.
Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species.
Oh, I've brought up the problems of windmills killing birds before and a common reply is the far greater number of birds killed by domestic cats. If your "domestic cat" is hunting bald eagles then I suspect your "domestic cat" is also on the endangered species list.
The NG that comes into your house is barely above atmospheric pressure.
Then tap off the NG for the cars before the regulator, the street service line is likely 200 PSI.
The NG tank for a vehicle is above 2000 psi.
A quick Google search tells me it's more like 3000 PSI.
You have to compress that which takes a very specialized compressor.which is VERY inefficient and power hungry.
Then build filling stations that can take advantage of economies of scale, and can tap off a feeder line that runs as high as 1500 PSI. The choices people have now for cars in the USA are limited to gasoline and electric. People aren't buying electric because they don't like the idea of having to take hours for a recharge, they don't have quick charge stations available to them, and/or they can't have a car charger at home (such as for people that rent or have an older home with substandard electrical service).
CNG is not perfect, but it's better than gasoline or diesel fuel.
I recall someone talking about people protesting the importation of endangered species to a ranch in the USA. The rancher was going to breed the animals in a large fenced off ranch and sell tickets for people to go on a "safari" to hunt them. The alternative was to leave the animals in Africa where they would likely go extinct from poachers and predators. They brought the protesters on TV to interview them and they looked like idiots, arguing that the animals should stay where they are. They didn't want them hunted, because hunting is "bad". The rancher explained that unless he could make money off the animals then he could not afford to breed them, and the ones he already imported would have to be euthanized or set out in the wild to die. Nope, they argued, can't have that, there must be no hunting.
These kind of people will get us all killed trying to save the environment.
Children are of value. In moderation, as with anything.
I agree, but the GPP expressed anger (for lack of a better word) at anyone having children.
But this is reality, and we all know that shit is just going to hit the fan. There will be no moderation of 7+ billion people.
The only place experiencing population growth from children born in the country are nations in Africa and some parts of Asia. Europe and the American continents are seeing growth only due to immigration. You want to moderate that growth? You want to see humanity's impact on the environment reduced? I'd suggest restricting immigration.
When an immigrant from Africa comes to Europe or the American continents they then adopt the lifestyle of the area. In Africa they don't burn fuel for heat like those of us in colder climates. They cook with renewable fuels like wood and cattle dung. They walk or ride bicycles where they need to go, maybe ride beasts of burden in rural areas and take public transportation in the cities. They use natural light most of the time, and I understand that solar power and batteries are popular for lighting at night. Should they immigrate to America or somewhere in Europe then they heat their homes with natural gas, cook on electric stoves, move around with cars and motorcycles, and buy piles of cheap plastic trinkets like their neighbors.
I suggest we keep immigration to a minimum, for the sake of saving the planet.
Do you believe it cruel to restrict people from fleeing oppression and war? That assumes the only way for these people to end their suffering is to flee from it. Evil is not stopped by fleeing from it. These people flee seeking an education for their children, work, and freedom. They can have that in Africa. I am not opposed to bringing it to them. I saw an interesting talk, a TED Talk as I recall, on how bringing people electricity means children getting an education from their mothers because the mothers aren't washing clothes by hand, giving them time to read to their children, and they get light to read by. With education comes smaller families, that was a different TED Talk.
Bring Africa wind, solar, and nuclear power so they can have electricity, then we can see the population growth moderate itself. Make their lives better where they are so they don't have anything to flee.
many people outside the US live that way, and it works well.
Then why do so many of them come here? Why do they protest so much if denied entry at the border? Why do people risk their lives, and the lives of their children, to cross deserts, rivers, and seas, in hopes to put their feet on American soil?
My guess is that it doesn't work so well for them.
Don't they know that they are supposed to drink the wine? Not reduce it to ash? There's more than one way to abuse alcohol. You can drink too much of it, or waste it by not drinking it at all.
I'm surprised that the California health bored hasn't demanded that there be a warning on the labels that Cesium-137 may be present in the wines and is known to cause cancer.
Few NATO members carrying their share of mutual defense obligations, Germany is leading in this trend.
And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments.
I was going to post more but it was depressing to see the land of my ancestors in such a sorry condition. If you want me to believe that Europe has enough mineral oil and erdgas for Germany on top of what they produce for themselves then I need to see that. I'm not finding it, they are buying erdgas from Russia too. Russia doesn't just provide 40% of erdgas that Germany burns, they supply 40% of erdgas that all of Europe burns.
You think the USA will provide you erdgas? Our Democrat Party blocked the Keystone XL pipeline that was supposed to expand our ability to export oil and gas. Like the democrats in Germany they think we should stop drilling for erdgas and use windmills to power heat pumps for warming our homes and heating our water.
You can prove me wrong by finding data counter to my own. If you bothered to actually look for data instead of making unsubstantiated claims then you'd find articles like what I linked to above and articles with data showing nuclear power to be very safe. Like this one: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
If you have so many wind mill fires in the US, then there is obviously something wrong with the mills.
We do have a lot of windmill fires, as they do in Germany. If you want to claim that German windmills are safer than those made in the USA then I'm not going to believe you without data.
If you want to split hairs on me not finding a specific combination of fire, death, Germany, and wind turbine, then go look for yourself. I got sickened from trying to sort through all the dead from wind power accidents I found.
There are 50 windmill fires per year, killing about a dozen people per year, and wind produces only 2% of total energy consumed. What happens when/if that's 20% of the energy produced? We'll be seeing multiple such fires everyday and hundreds of workers and bystanders killed as a result. We get 20% of our power from nuclear, no fires, no people dead.
Do you really want to go down that path of calling wind power "safe"?
If you doubt my claims then look it up, and post a link proving me wrong. It's quite possible I'm wrong but unless someone posts proof then I can pull numbers out of my ass like anyone else.
I did not say that Germany can not build nuclear powered ships. I said the contracts imposed on us after the lost wars prohibit us to build big ships.
I said that unless you can point to something to back that claim up then I think you are mistaken or lying. You keep telling me to look it up myself and I did, I found nothing. Therefore I conclude you are deliberately lying to me because I would assume you did your own research before posting such a claim.
Small difference. And it makes not much sense to power a destroyer with nuclear power. Unless it gets equipped with a rail gun or several lasers perhaps.
Of course it makes sense, the USA had a fleet of nuclear powered cruisers up until 1998, and none of them were equipped with lasers or rail guns. They were deemed redundant with the large fleet of nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers. A decision made with more politics than actual military readiness in mind.
If you want to argue the distinctions among "cruiser", "frigate", or "destroyer" (or even "battleship") then don't bother. The terms are often arbitrary, change definition over time, and our "cruisers" built in the 1960s are of similar size and capability of the "destroyers" we have today as well as similar to the "frigates" the German navy owns now. A WW1 battleship would be no match for a modern frigate, and both would have similar displacement.
Germany has reduced it naval forces drastically
We noticed.
None of your submarines are operational. Half of your surface fleet is in port for repairs or limping along at sea with inoperable equipment. Your helicopter fleet is in such bad repair that the pilots can't maintain even the minimum flight time required to keep their flight certification. Half of your jet fighters are grounded because of poor repair, and the half that are operational are mostly obsolete air frames from the USA. German Army tanks are being sold off for scrap because they can't afford to even change the oil.
Russia doesn't need an army to invade Germany, a boy scout with a BB gun on horseback could stride in and take over.
And how would Russia do that? Perhaps you want to read one of your own recent posts again: nuclear power in Germany is about 10%, coal is about 40%, perhaps 45%. So: they only could shut down 50%, not 75% if we would get all our Uranium and Coal from Russia. Which we don't.
They don't have to do anything, Germany is shutting them down all their own. Russia can wage an economic war by playing with the energy markets. OPEC did similar things to the USA in decades past but with the USA being energy independent now, or sufficiently so to put the nation in a position to negotiate, they can't play these games any more.
Why do you always want citations for "common knowledge"?
Because "common knowledge" is not always correct.
With the issue of homelessness it's "common knowledge" that it is used as a political club against Republican Presidents. Homelessness today is the same as it was in 2009, but in 2009 we had a Democrat in the White House. Now that it crept up the tiniest amount it's now a "crisis". The homelessness problem in the USA is no better or worse than it is in Germany or the rest of Europe, you are in no position to call homelessness in the USA "scary".
(No idea on what base you define them 200% efficient, though;D )
It's called "coefficient of performance" when used to describe a heat pump even though the term "efficiency" would be used for any other device that performed the same function. I was also mistaken on my claiming a heat pump being "200% efficient" because a modern heat pump can bring 350% more energy into the home than resistance heat for the same energy used. I suspect you know that but you just want to be an ass.
Germany is restricted by international treaties, after WWI ans WWII to build no ship bigger than a big destroyer.
First, without a citation I don't believe you. Second, that's provably false.
The USA built 10,000 ton nuclear powered warships from 1960 to 1980. Russia operates 20,000 ton nuclear powered icebreakers today. There are nuclear powered submarines and surface warships operated by navies all over the world today and as small as 6000 tons displacement. Germany has a half dozen 6000 ton warships (more or less) and a half dozen military supply ships displacing 20,000 tons. Sauce for the Russian goose is sauce for the German gander.
Saying Germany can't build nuclear powered ships is bullshit unless I see something to back that up. Saying they don't need nuclear powered warships is bullshit because their buddies in NATO found a need for them and Germany is treaty bound to come to their aid. Saying that they don't want them is irrelevant, if they don't want nuclear powered warships to keep up with their end of the deal then they should leave NATO.
In Germany no one wants nuclear power, and if a government is so stupid to reintroduce it, the riots will look very small in comparision with a Russian invasion;)
That just makes them ignorant and/or stupid. Japan got over their fear of nuclear power, and they have much greater reason to fear it than Germany.
Perhaps you want to look on a map, and point out where you could safely build one?
I'm an electrical engineer, not a geologist. Go ask a geologist. I'm guessing that your nuclear powered neighbors of France and Russia could help you out.
So, we could place some into the north sea... alas, for what? We place off shore wind plants there already.
Putting them in or near the north sea is an excellent idea. Russia has been building floating nuclear power plants for a long time now, maybe if you ask nice they will sell you some. I keep hearing how we can put solar panels under the windmills, it would seem possible to put nuclear reactors under the windmills too. Maybe put nuclear reactors under the solar panels, with the solar panels under the windmills, and get all kinds of low CO2 power.
Neither Germany nor Japan used nuclear power for heating in a meaningful amount. People don't live close to nuclear plants, so direct heating with waste heat is not an option. Electricity is only very rarely used for heating.
How did you plan on getting heat from all those windmills if there was no electric heat? I believe you didn't think this through.
It makes much more sense to use wind power and produce H2 as replacement for natural gas (which we are actually already doing, the H2 is mixed into the gas grid)
Now I know you didn't think this through. Electricity to hydrogen to heat is far less efficient than resistance heat (in all practical terms it's 100%) or heat pumps (effectively 200% efficient). What you describe with mixing hydrogen in natural gas is a nice transition measure but in the long run there will have to be a switch to electric heat in some form to be free from natural gas.
Your concerns about Russia are just because of the stupid fear mongering news in the US. Russia, as a "Putin led government" is playing out its strength in Syria and Ukraine. However Russia as a nation is a capitalist country, and its corporations want to make money.
Oh, they are capitalists? How does that make things better? They can create a false scarcity by limiting exports, drive up prices, and make more money. A good capitalist will want to be on good terms for negotiating price. Shutting down 3/4 of your electricity production (coal and nuclear), relying heavily on imported erdgas and mineral oil for heat and industry, does not put Germany in any place
I'm trying to understand the problem here. One is looking for a laptop that runs their favorite flavor of Linux, has long battery life, USB-A ports, SD card slot, go out and spend many kilobux on an Apple, then complain it does nothing what they wanted it to do and cost too much money. At what point in this did it become anyone's fault but their own?
I didn't watch the entire video you linked to but the guy started out with saying he wanted to run MacOS but was experimenting with Linux. He also said he's had some success in running Linux inside a virtual machine on that same Apple. But when he tries running Linux on the metal he gets sub-optimal video and poor battery life. That's a very glass half empty version of events. Maybe he should be happy it works as well as it does.
Again, he's loading an unsupported OS on his hardware, and found out all the hardware works except one of the two GPUs. That's sounds rather successful to me for someone that wants to run MacOS and Linux on the same hardware. What would happen if he tried dual booting a laptop that came supported by Linux and tried installing MacOS on it? I'm guessing the results would be similar.
Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal.
To be fair the Kim family could have disarmed NK at any time in the last 50-60 years. Doesn't seem like there's been much progress on this until recently. What changed? Maybe a visit from USPOTUS? Retired presidents have visited NK, sitting presidents have been to the south side of the DMZ and looked into NK. Trump was the first sitting POTUS to visit NK and speak to their "dear leader".
I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.
I can see why he's dragging his feet too, we are seeing the Democrat Party electing socialists to appear on election ballots in their primaries. The UN is helping the Kim family stay in power too by making Israel the "bad guy" on human rights while ignoring what's happening in China, Russia, Cuba, and of course in North Korea.
Trump should get some credit for making things move for once in getting North Korea to play nice in the international playground. So should a lot of people. I'm not sure how much credit should really go towards Kim on this, he's the reason NK is a shit hole to begin with.
Since you are allowed to sleep in the cockpit, when you are not flying or at the Airport you dont need to sleep.
Just how restful of sleep could a pilot get in a flying airplane when they get woken up every couple hours to do a takeoff or landing?
There's saying the FAA could allow it then there's getting people to actually do it.
Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week and get paid far less than pilots so boohoo
Yep, they do that. And if I could choose between being able to sleep in my own bed every night, even if it's just 4 or 5 hours straight, vs. the same pay as a pilot where I'm expected to get my sleep in a series of "catnaps" while strapped in a chair in a noisy airplane, then I'd choose to sleep in my own bed.
Would this fix the shortage by doubling the availability of the pilots? Or, make it worse because pilots find out they can get the same pay, see their families in the daylight, and get 8 hours of sleep in their own bed, working at a desk somewhere?
What would you have to pay people to fly 2000 hours per year to keep their job? If that annual wage is twice what it would take to get two people to fly 1000 hours per year then there is nothing gained.
There's already a shortage when pilots know the airlines cannot force them to fly more than 1000 hours per year, and put other limits to prevent fatigue. "But you don't understand, they get to sleep on the plane!" I understand perfectly. They "get" to sleep strapped in a chair, with dehydrated air, with all kinds of noise, while placing their survival and the survival of dozens of passengers on the perfect functioning of an autopilot built by the lowest bidder.
This reminds me of a joke... I hope to die quietly in my sleep like my grandfather did, not crying and screaming like the passengers on his bus.
The US military has had a recruiting shortfall for a long time. I remember reading for years on how there's been problems finding recruits because applicants are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record. I also remember sitting in a recruiter's office and see it happen firsthand. A young man comes in with who I assume is his mother and talks to a recruiter and the conversation went something like this...
"Did you graduate high school?" "Yes." "Have you been arrested for anything?" "No." "Any traffic tickets?" "I had a DUI 4 months ago." "I can't take anyone with a DUI in the last 6 months. Talk to me in 2 months."
He leaves while quietly conversing with his mother about something. Given how quickly the recruiter went through the questions, and the specificity of them, I'm thinking he's had some experience with other people coming in. He didn't even bother to ask what MOS he wanted, or even bother with getting the guy's name or something that might speed up the process if/when he came back. Given the guy looked a bit heavy I expected him to ask about his weight.
Then there's competition between the services and among the openings in each service. Someone coming in and looking for a job, and is officer material, will find all kinds of options. These people will also be thinking of what kind of work they could get after they get out. The Air Force may be looking for pilots but the people coming in have their own goals in mind. There's shortages in legal, medicine, security/police forces, and special operations. If you are fit and smart enough to be a pilot then there's a good chance you'll be recruited for pararescue and special operator too. People that don't much care which branch they join can play each recruiter off the other to see which wants them more, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, or National Guard.
Getting back to the problems of the military recruiting people that are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record, then flight schools and airlines will find problems finding people for the same reasons. There's FAA requirements on passing a medical exam and a background check. If one can't be a military pilot then they are likely ineligible to be a civilian pilot.
The US mil now understands the need to test for g force skills before giving away the "free" thousands of hours.
What is the standard for this g-force testing? I can understand such testing for fighter pilots but there are a lot of pilots that don't fly fighters. Maybe a pilot that flew a F-18, F-16, or F-22 would make a good airline pilot but then so would someone that flies a C-17 cargo plane, B-52 bomber, or KC-135 tanker. Someone that flew a tanker for the military would be perfect for the airlines and not need to be g-force tested, unless I'm missing something. Even a military helicopter pilot would be a good pick for an airline since they've had experience and training that would directly translate to flying fixed wing aircraft.
What did the military do with the people that failed the g-force test but passed all the other testing? I'm guessing they'd at least try to get some payback on that training by shifting them over to a "low-g" air frame like a helicopter or tanker. I'm thinking someone that had training on the F-16 but failed the g-force test would make great candidates for a KC-135 or other tanker, since they'd understand the F-16 they'd be tanking up. Flying a big fat four engine airplane that was derived from the Boeing 707 would later be perfect candidates to fly a 747 or 787 as a civilian, or at least I'd think so.
Just how many "extra" pilots that failed the g-force test did they have, and where did these pilots go? I cannot disagree with what you stated but I'm just curious of the scale this happened, why the military would not address this sooner, so as to understand better how airlines benefited from this.
The USA was also aware of what Communist nations did to try and create generations of pilots during the Cold War.
We need self flying planes. Oh wait we already do. Pilots work for 15 minutes at takeoff and 15 minutes at landing. The rest is autopilot.
Not even close, but let's assume that's true.
They are getting paid to be on call. Its very much like being a Fireman.
If you want me to be ready to put out those fires 30 minutes of every day then you have to pay me to sit on my thumbs for the rest of the day or I'll go find something else to do. My time is money. For someone with training as a pilot makes them very valuable for a lot of non-flying jobs. Airline pilots often have a college degree in mechanical engineering or something similar so they can get a jump on the technical training they'll see in flight school and look good on a resume for hiring. They'll speak English, because English is the language of international flying and other business. They will know weather patterns, mechanical systems, and just even knowing how to talk on a radio is a valuable skill. They don't have to fly a plane, they'll get a job doing something else if they think the pay is shit.
The FAA should easily allow 2000 hours flying time each year and also allow napping in cockpits while the autopilot is flying. Problem solved.
Do you even know how many hours are in a year? 24 * 365 = 8760. Let's go with 2500 hours of flying time, that's nearly 7 hours flying every day with no weekends, holidays, or vacation days, or sick days, off the clock. Or, that's nearly 30% of the year. A typical 9-to-5 job will have 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, 2000 hours.
Flying 1000 hours in a year, with all the dead time on the ground to wait for their next flight, weather delays, time off, and so forth, sounds about right.
I "appreciate" my time in airports too. The air is always bitterly cold and life sapping dry. There the vending machines are constantly empty, the coffee is overpriced, and if the shops have fruit for sale its over ripe. There's always a TV to watch for entertainment, where you can choose from CNN, Weather Channel, or Arrivals and Departures.
When the economy goes down the tubes, a lot of legacy pilots wind up back at the regionals and take a 70% pay cut to just keep flying. I'm considering going to Asia as a plan B.
I hope that you choose to stay but I wish you clear skies wherever the winds take you.
No, I'm not. Try to keep up. Is there a language barrier here? You're English is excellent, far better than my German, Spanish, or French. I can read some German but do not ask me to write it or speak it.
So what is your rant about germany importing gas and especially 40% from Russia about? Why do you care?
As an American I care because if Germany can't defend itself from Russia's aggression, whether that be economic or military, then treaties require the USA to come in and help. As a descendant of German immigrants I have concern for my distant cousins in Germany. Have you no concern for your cousins in America? You freed yourself from Soviet influence and restored a beautiful nation because of it, don't let that happen again.
Germany has no ships big enough to warant a nuclear reactor.
Then you should get some. France, UK, Russia, China, and India all have some. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
And as I said before, if Russia drops out as supplier - for what ever reason - we have enough fallback options, for natural gas.
Right, you have two years of reserve in storage and a natural gas pipeline from Norway. You might be able to get sufficient supply from other places, but what happens to the PRICE of that natural gas should Russia not decide to sell? Russia may not start shooting bullets your way but they can wage an economic war. Being able to provide for a large portion of your electricity from nuclear and/or hydro, and heat from coal and oil, like some of your neighbors allows you some freedom to negotiate and time to look for options. The USA was able to build nuclear reactors in two years in the 1980s, but only after much practice in the 1970s. We're having to relearn how to do that again. Can Germany afford to lose the option of domestic nuclear for electricity and heat? Japan tried that and found out they could not.
If Trump does not spoil it, there will never be another war in Europe anyway...
Maybe instead of having Trump speak to Russia on behalf of NATO and the EU, where he could screw things up, then maybe you need to speak softly to your neighbors on your own behalf. To be most effective in your speech you will need a big stick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
Politifact points to a Pew report that without immigration the USA would see a 4% growth in population in 50 years. My claim was that the population in the USA would not grow if it weren't for immigration. I'd think that 4% growth over 50 years would be considered a very stable population. I didn't say the USA population would shrink, I said the only real population growth in the world comes from immigration from Africa. There are many European nations that would be experiencing a shrinking population if it weren't for immigration.
Here's a map with fertility rate by nation.
https://data.worldbank.org/ind...
Depending on who you ask the birth rate needs to be above 2.1 or 2.2 per woman to have a stable population. That's one to replace the mother, one to replace the father, and a bit extra for the Darwin Award winners. Look at the list of nations and regions below the map and you'll find that much of the Americas, Europe, and Asia have fertility rates below 2.2. Sub-Sahara Africa has a fertility rate above 4.
I also claim that if CO2 output from human activity is a problem then population growth must be contained, especially in high CO2 producing nations in Europe and the Americas. To contain growth in Europe and the Americas is simple and, as best I can tell also politically viable, by restricting immigration. That doesn't mean put a stop to it, but it does mean not taking in everyone that jumps the border. Entering a nation without permission is a crime everywhere in the world. Contain this crime. Those in need of sanctuary should be allowed a means to get it by seeking permission at a legal port of entry. I cannot fathom a nation allowing someone that violated their border still being allowed to claim asylum after being caught. That's like someone breaking into a home and then asking to rent a room after being caught.
If you're so bothered by that, then why aren't you more bothered by the gutting of species protection under Trump?
I'm not bothered by dead birds. Birds are jerks.
Or are you just playing games?
The Democrats are playing games. They've screamed and yelled about saving the birds but said nothing when Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion. If Democrats were honest about saving the birds then they'd not allowed for more kill permits on eagles and would have allowed for more nuclear power plants to be built.
The gray wolf population is doing fine, and I don't much care about an insect. Let's at least be consistent here. If the killing of protected species is wrong then Obama deserves "credit" for killing them as much as Trump. If energy is important enough to the national security of America then we can relax some rules on protected species for windmills, oil drilling, and uranium mining.
I've seen a lot of games played in the media. Homelessness has always been a problem, but nothing is said about it when there is a Democrat in the White House. When unemployment insurance collections are up this is the government helping the disadvantaged when Democrats are in charge, but a sign of a government failing the people to find work when Republicans are in a majority. We saw Trump get drilled before the election on if he'd honor the results of the election. When Clinton loses then the election was rigged and Trump is in office illegitimately. Where's the consistency? The election was honest because Obama assured us it would be. If it wasn't honest, as Democrats now claim, then who is at fault? Trump? He wasn't in any political office at the time.
The Democrats are playing games and I'm tired of the Jurassic media covering for them.
Cats aren't hunting eagles. Eagles hunt cats. Windmills kill eagles. If you want cats killed then you don't want windmills.
How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total?
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers. What did you find?
A quick look on the internet tells me that the population of protected eagles is in the hundreds of thousands. The federal government is willing to issue permits to kill up to 4,200 eagles per year per wind power company. How many wind power companies are there? Ten of them? That's 42,000 eagles they can kill per year without having to pay any fines. There's only about 40,000 golden eagles in the USA.
Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.
That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures. If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.
This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear. Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow. Gas turbines are half as efficient in turning natural gas to electricity compared to combined cycle natural gas plants. The gas is burned half as often with the windmills, but twice as much gas is burned when they are running. There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway. Maybe in the future with more batteries or something we'll actually see a reduction.
Should I care if birds are killed by windmills? I don't know. I don't much care. Birds are jerks. If you want me to get behind wind and solar power then stop lying to me. Stop lying to yourself. Nuclear power is safe and we should be using much more of it. Again, if the goal is to reduce the deaths of protected species of eagles then which should we choose? Coal? Wind? Nuclear? Something else? If the goal is to save the lives of people then which should we choose? Turns out the answer is the same for both.
Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces
Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.
I agree.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
Bald and golden eagles may be legally killed or injured in the thousands by high-speed turbines (reaching speeds up to 170 miles per hour), under new regulations released Wednesday by the Obama administration. The rules, which affect individual wind-energy companies that plan to operate the technology for up to 30 years, allows up to 4,200 of the birds to perish.
Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species.
Oh, I've brought up the problems of windmills killing birds before and a common reply is the far greater number of birds killed by domestic cats. If your "domestic cat" is hunting bald eagles then I suspect your "domestic cat" is also on the endangered species list.
The NG that comes into your house is barely above atmospheric pressure.
Then tap off the NG for the cars before the regulator, the street service line is likely 200 PSI.
The NG tank for a vehicle is above 2000 psi.
A quick Google search tells me it's more like 3000 PSI.
You have to compress that which takes a very specialized compressor.which is VERY inefficient and power hungry.
Then build filling stations that can take advantage of economies of scale, and can tap off a feeder line that runs as high as 1500 PSI. The choices people have now for cars in the USA are limited to gasoline and electric. People aren't buying electric because they don't like the idea of having to take hours for a recharge, they don't have quick charge stations available to them, and/or they can't have a car charger at home (such as for people that rent or have an older home with substandard electrical service).
CNG is not perfect, but it's better than gasoline or diesel fuel.
I recall someone talking about people protesting the importation of endangered species to a ranch in the USA. The rancher was going to breed the animals in a large fenced off ranch and sell tickets for people to go on a "safari" to hunt them. The alternative was to leave the animals in Africa where they would likely go extinct from poachers and predators. They brought the protesters on TV to interview them and they looked like idiots, arguing that the animals should stay where they are. They didn't want them hunted, because hunting is "bad". The rancher explained that unless he could make money off the animals then he could not afford to breed them, and the ones he already imported would have to be euthanized or set out in the wild to die. Nope, they argued, can't have that, there must be no hunting.
These kind of people will get us all killed trying to save the environment.
Children are of value. In moderation, as with anything.
I agree, but the GPP expressed anger (for lack of a better word) at anyone having children.
But this is reality, and we all know that shit is just going to hit the fan. There will be no moderation of 7+ billion people.
The only place experiencing population growth from children born in the country are nations in Africa and some parts of Asia. Europe and the American continents are seeing growth only due to immigration. You want to moderate that growth? You want to see humanity's impact on the environment reduced? I'd suggest restricting immigration.
When an immigrant from Africa comes to Europe or the American continents they then adopt the lifestyle of the area. In Africa they don't burn fuel for heat like those of us in colder climates. They cook with renewable fuels like wood and cattle dung. They walk or ride bicycles where they need to go, maybe ride beasts of burden in rural areas and take public transportation in the cities. They use natural light most of the time, and I understand that solar power and batteries are popular for lighting at night. Should they immigrate to America or somewhere in Europe then they heat their homes with natural gas, cook on electric stoves, move around with cars and motorcycles, and buy piles of cheap plastic trinkets like their neighbors.
I suggest we keep immigration to a minimum, for the sake of saving the planet.
Do you believe it cruel to restrict people from fleeing oppression and war? That assumes the only way for these people to end their suffering is to flee from it. Evil is not stopped by fleeing from it. These people flee seeking an education for their children, work, and freedom. They can have that in Africa. I am not opposed to bringing it to them. I saw an interesting talk, a TED Talk as I recall, on how bringing people electricity means children getting an education from their mothers because the mothers aren't washing clothes by hand, giving them time to read to their children, and they get light to read by. With education comes smaller families, that was a different TED Talk.
Bring Africa wind, solar, and nuclear power so they can have electricity, then we can see the population growth moderate itself. Make their lives better where they are so they don't have anything to flee.
many people outside the US live that way, and it works well.
Then why do so many of them come here? Why do they protest so much if denied entry at the border? Why do people risk their lives, and the lives of their children, to cross deserts, rivers, and seas, in hopes to put their feet on American soil?
My guess is that it doesn't work so well for them.
Whooosh!!
Don't they know that they are supposed to drink the wine? Not reduce it to ash? There's more than one way to abuse alcohol. You can drink too much of it, or waste it by not drinking it at all.
I'm surprised that the California health bored hasn't demanded that there be a warning on the labels that Cesium-137 may be present in the wines and is known to cause cancer.
German Army trains with broomsticks instead of rifles and vans instead of tanks.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/...
German Air Force grounded.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018...
Few NATO members carrying their share of mutual defense obligations, Germany is leading in this trend.
And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments.
https://www.realclearpolitics....
I was going to post more but it was depressing to see the land of my ancestors in such a sorry condition. If you want me to believe that Europe has enough mineral oil and erdgas for Germany on top of what they produce for themselves then I need to see that. I'm not finding it, they are buying erdgas from Russia too. Russia doesn't just provide 40% of erdgas that Germany burns, they supply 40% of erdgas that all of Europe burns.
You think the USA will provide you erdgas? Our Democrat Party blocked the Keystone XL pipeline that was supposed to expand our ability to export oil and gas. Like the democrats in Germany they think we should stop drilling for erdgas and use windmills to power heat pumps for warming our homes and heating our water.
Three dead in German off shore windmill accident
https://www.thelocal.de/201204...
Two dead in windmill fire, multiple windmill fires reported worldwide
https://gineersnow.com/industr...
You can hardly proof something wrong.
You can prove me wrong by finding data counter to my own. If you bothered to actually look for data instead of making unsubstantiated claims then you'd find articles like what I linked to above and articles with data showing nuclear power to be very safe. Like this one:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
If you have so many wind mill fires in the US, then there is obviously something wrong with the mills.
We do have a lot of windmill fires, as they do in Germany. If you want to claim that German windmills are safer than those made in the USA then I'm not going to believe you without data.
If you want to split hairs on me not finding a specific combination of fire, death, Germany, and wind turbine, then go look for yourself. I got sickened from trying to sort through all the dead from wind power accidents I found.
There are 50 windmill fires per year, killing about a dozen people per year, and wind produces only 2% of total energy consumed. What happens when/if that's 20% of the energy produced? We'll be seeing multiple such fires everyday and hundreds of workers and bystanders killed as a result. We get 20% of our power from nuclear, no fires, no people dead.
Do you really want to go down that path of calling wind power "safe"?
If you doubt my claims then look it up, and post a link proving me wrong. It's quite possible I'm wrong but unless someone posts proof then I can pull numbers out of my ass like anyone else.
What do you have against people trying to keep their one remaining tooth clean?
Nothing, so long as they do it south of the Mason-Dixon line.
(My brother in law grew up in the South, he loves jokes like this.)
Right, because they couldn't call it "butter" they thought they'd call it "country crock". I guess that's truth in advertising.
I did not say that Germany can not build nuclear powered ships.
I said the contracts imposed on us after the lost wars prohibit us to build big ships.
I said that unless you can point to something to back that claim up then I think you are mistaken or lying. You keep telling me to look it up myself and I did, I found nothing. Therefore I conclude you are deliberately lying to me because I would assume you did your own research before posting such a claim.
Small difference. And it makes not much sense to power a destroyer with nuclear power. Unless it gets equipped with a rail gun or several lasers perhaps.
Of course it makes sense, the USA had a fleet of nuclear powered cruisers up until 1998, and none of them were equipped with lasers or rail guns. They were deemed redundant with the large fleet of nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers. A decision made with more politics than actual military readiness in mind.
If you want to argue the distinctions among "cruiser", "frigate", or "destroyer" (or even "battleship") then don't bother. The terms are often arbitrary, change definition over time, and our "cruisers" built in the 1960s are of similar size and capability of the "destroyers" we have today as well as similar to the "frigates" the German navy owns now. A WW1 battleship would be no match for a modern frigate, and both would have similar displacement.
Germany has reduced it naval forces drastically
We noticed.
None of your submarines are operational. Half of your surface fleet is in port for repairs or limping along at sea with inoperable equipment. Your helicopter fleet is in such bad repair that the pilots can't maintain even the minimum flight time required to keep their flight certification. Half of your jet fighters are grounded because of poor repair, and the half that are operational are mostly obsolete air frames from the USA. German Army tanks are being sold off for scrap because they can't afford to even change the oil.
Russia doesn't need an army to invade Germany, a boy scout with a BB gun on horseback could stride in and take over.
And how would Russia do that? Perhaps you want to read one of your own recent posts again: nuclear power in Germany is about 10%, coal is about 40%, perhaps 45%. So: they only could shut down 50%, not 75% if we would get all our Uranium and Coal from Russia. Which we don't.
They don't have to do anything, Germany is shutting them down all their own. Russia can wage an economic war by playing with the energy markets. OPEC did similar things to the USA in decades past but with the USA being energy independent now, or sufficiently so to put the nation in a position to negotiate, they can't play these games any more.
Why do you always want citations for "common knowledge"?
Because "common knowledge" is not always correct.
With the issue of homelessness it's "common knowledge" that it is used as a political club against Republican Presidents. Homelessness today is the same as it was in 2009, but in 2009 we had a Democrat in the White House. Now that it crept up the tiniest amount it's now a "crisis". The homelessness problem in the USA is no better or worse than it is in Germany or the rest of Europe, you are in no position to call homelessness in the USA "scary".
(No idea on what base you define them 200% efficient, though ;D )
It's called "coefficient of performance" when used to describe a heat pump even though the term "efficiency" would be used for any other device that performed the same function. I was also mistaken on my claiming a heat pump being "200% efficient" because a modern heat pump can bring 350% more energy into the home than resistance heat for the same energy used. I suspect you know that but you just want to be an ass.
It
Germany is restricted by international treaties, after WWI ans WWII to build no ship bigger than a big destroyer.
First, without a citation I don't believe you. Second, that's provably false.
The USA built 10,000 ton nuclear powered warships from 1960 to 1980. Russia operates 20,000 ton nuclear powered icebreakers today. There are nuclear powered submarines and surface warships operated by navies all over the world today and as small as 6000 tons displacement. Germany has a half dozen 6000 ton warships (more or less) and a half dozen military supply ships displacing 20,000 tons. Sauce for the Russian goose is sauce for the German gander.
Saying Germany can't build nuclear powered ships is bullshit unless I see something to back that up. Saying they don't need nuclear powered warships is bullshit because their buddies in NATO found a need for them and Germany is treaty bound to come to their aid. Saying that they don't want them is irrelevant, if they don't want nuclear powered warships to keep up with their end of the deal then they should leave NATO.
In Germany no one wants nuclear power, and if a government is so stupid to reintroduce it, the riots will look very small in comparision with a Russian invasion ;)
That just makes them ignorant and/or stupid. Japan got over their fear of nuclear power, and they have much greater reason to fear it than Germany.
Perhaps you want to look on a map, and point out where you could safely build one?
I'm an electrical engineer, not a geologist. Go ask a geologist. I'm guessing that your nuclear powered neighbors of France and Russia could help you out.
So, we could place some into the north sea ... alas, for what? We place off shore wind plants there already.
Putting them in or near the north sea is an excellent idea. Russia has been building floating nuclear power plants for a long time now, maybe if you ask nice they will sell you some. I keep hearing how we can put solar panels under the windmills, it would seem possible to put nuclear reactors under the windmills too. Maybe put nuclear reactors under the solar panels, with the solar panels under the windmills, and get all kinds of low CO2 power.
Neither Germany nor Japan used nuclear power for heating in a meaningful amount. People don't live close to nuclear plants, so direct heating with waste heat is not an option. Electricity is only very rarely used for heating.
How did you plan on getting heat from all those windmills if there was no electric heat? I believe you didn't think this through.
It makes much more sense to use wind power and produce H2 as replacement for natural gas (which we are actually already doing, the H2 is mixed into the gas grid)
Now I know you didn't think this through. Electricity to hydrogen to heat is far less efficient than resistance heat (in all practical terms it's 100%) or heat pumps (effectively 200% efficient). What you describe with mixing hydrogen in natural gas is a nice transition measure but in the long run there will have to be a switch to electric heat in some form to be free from natural gas.
Your concerns about Russia are just because of the stupid fear mongering news in the US. Russia, as a "Putin led government" is playing out its strength in Syria and Ukraine. However Russia as a nation is a capitalist country, and its corporations want to make money.
Oh, they are capitalists? How does that make things better? They can create a false scarcity by limiting exports, drive up prices, and make more money. A good capitalist will want to be on good terms for negotiating price. Shutting down 3/4 of your electricity production (coal and nuclear), relying heavily on imported erdgas and mineral oil for heat and industry, does not put Germany in any place
Then don't buy it.
I'm trying to understand the problem here. One is looking for a laptop that runs their favorite flavor of Linux, has long battery life, USB-A ports, SD card slot, go out and spend many kilobux on an Apple, then complain it does nothing what they wanted it to do and cost too much money. At what point in this did it become anyone's fault but their own?
I didn't watch the entire video you linked to but the guy started out with saying he wanted to run MacOS but was experimenting with Linux. He also said he's had some success in running Linux inside a virtual machine on that same Apple. But when he tries running Linux on the metal he gets sub-optimal video and poor battery life. That's a very glass half empty version of events. Maybe he should be happy it works as well as it does.
Again, he's loading an unsupported OS on his hardware, and found out all the hardware works except one of the two GPUs. That's sounds rather successful to me for someone that wants to run MacOS and Linux on the same hardware. What would happen if he tried dual booting a laptop that came supported by Linux and tried installing MacOS on it? I'm guessing the results would be similar.
Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal.
To be fair the Kim family could have disarmed NK at any time in the last 50-60 years. Doesn't seem like there's been much progress on this until recently. What changed? Maybe a visit from USPOTUS? Retired presidents have visited NK, sitting presidents have been to the south side of the DMZ and looked into NK. Trump was the first sitting POTUS to visit NK and speak to their "dear leader".
I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.
I can see why he's dragging his feet too, we are seeing the Democrat Party electing socialists to appear on election ballots in their primaries. The UN is helping the Kim family stay in power too by making Israel the "bad guy" on human rights while ignoring what's happening in China, Russia, Cuba, and of course in North Korea.
Trump should get some credit for making things move for once in getting North Korea to play nice in the international playground. So should a lot of people. I'm not sure how much credit should really go towards Kim on this, he's the reason NK is a shit hole to begin with.
Since you are allowed to sleep in the cockpit, when you are not flying or at the Airport you dont need to sleep.
Just how restful of sleep could a pilot get in a flying airplane when they get woken up every couple hours to do a takeoff or landing?
There's saying the FAA could allow it then there's getting people to actually do it.
Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week and get paid far less than pilots so boohoo
Yep, they do that. And if I could choose between being able to sleep in my own bed every night, even if it's just 4 or 5 hours straight, vs. the same pay as a pilot where I'm expected to get my sleep in a series of "catnaps" while strapped in a chair in a noisy airplane, then I'd choose to sleep in my own bed.
Would this fix the shortage by doubling the availability of the pilots? Or, make it worse because pilots find out they can get the same pay, see their families in the daylight, and get 8 hours of sleep in their own bed, working at a desk somewhere?
What would you have to pay people to fly 2000 hours per year to keep their job? If that annual wage is twice what it would take to get two people to fly 1000 hours per year then there is nothing gained.
There's already a shortage when pilots know the airlines cannot force them to fly more than 1000 hours per year, and put other limits to prevent fatigue. "But you don't understand, they get to sleep on the plane!" I understand perfectly. They "get" to sleep strapped in a chair, with dehydrated air, with all kinds of noise, while placing their survival and the survival of dozens of passengers on the perfect functioning of an autopilot built by the lowest bidder.
This reminds me of a joke... I hope to die quietly in my sleep like my grandfather did, not crying and screaming like the passengers on his bus.
The US military has had a recruiting shortfall for a long time. I remember reading for years on how there's been problems finding recruits because applicants are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record. I also remember sitting in a recruiter's office and see it happen firsthand. A young man comes in with who I assume is his mother and talks to a recruiter and the conversation went something like this...
"Did you graduate high school?"
"Yes."
"Have you been arrested for anything?"
"No."
"Any traffic tickets?"
"I had a DUI 4 months ago."
"I can't take anyone with a DUI in the last 6 months. Talk to me in 2 months."
He leaves while quietly conversing with his mother about something. Given how quickly the recruiter went through the questions, and the specificity of them, I'm thinking he's had some experience with other people coming in. He didn't even bother to ask what MOS he wanted, or even bother with getting the guy's name or something that might speed up the process if/when he came back. Given the guy looked a bit heavy I expected him to ask about his weight.
Then there's competition between the services and among the openings in each service. Someone coming in and looking for a job, and is officer material, will find all kinds of options. These people will also be thinking of what kind of work they could get after they get out. The Air Force may be looking for pilots but the people coming in have their own goals in mind. There's shortages in legal, medicine, security/police forces, and special operations. If you are fit and smart enough to be a pilot then there's a good chance you'll be recruited for pararescue and special operator too. People that don't much care which branch they join can play each recruiter off the other to see which wants them more, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, or National Guard.
Getting back to the problems of the military recruiting people that are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record, then flight schools and airlines will find problems finding people for the same reasons. There's FAA requirements on passing a medical exam and a background check. If one can't be a military pilot then they are likely ineligible to be a civilian pilot.
The US mil now understands the need to test for g force skills before giving away the "free" thousands of hours.
What is the standard for this g-force testing? I can understand such testing for fighter pilots but there are a lot of pilots that don't fly fighters. Maybe a pilot that flew a F-18, F-16, or F-22 would make a good airline pilot but then so would someone that flies a C-17 cargo plane, B-52 bomber, or KC-135 tanker. Someone that flew a tanker for the military would be perfect for the airlines and not need to be g-force tested, unless I'm missing something. Even a military helicopter pilot would be a good pick for an airline since they've had experience and training that would directly translate to flying fixed wing aircraft.
What did the military do with the people that failed the g-force test but passed all the other testing? I'm guessing they'd at least try to get some payback on that training by shifting them over to a "low-g" air frame like a helicopter or tanker. I'm thinking someone that had training on the F-16 but failed the g-force test would make great candidates for a KC-135 or other tanker, since they'd understand the F-16 they'd be tanking up. Flying a big fat four engine airplane that was derived from the Boeing 707 would later be perfect candidates to fly a 747 or 787 as a civilian, or at least I'd think so.
Just how many "extra" pilots that failed the g-force test did they have, and where did these pilots go? I cannot disagree with what you stated but I'm just curious of the scale this happened, why the military would not address this sooner, so as to understand better how airlines benefited from this.
The USA was also aware of what Communist nations did to try and create generations of pilots during the Cold War.
I'm not aware. What were the Communists doing?
We need self flying planes. Oh wait we already do. Pilots work for 15 minutes at takeoff and 15 minutes at landing. The rest is autopilot.
Not even close, but let's assume that's true.
They are getting paid to be on call. Its very much like being a Fireman.
If you want me to be ready to put out those fires 30 minutes of every day then you have to pay me to sit on my thumbs for the rest of the day or I'll go find something else to do. My time is money. For someone with training as a pilot makes them very valuable for a lot of non-flying jobs. Airline pilots often have a college degree in mechanical engineering or something similar so they can get a jump on the technical training they'll see in flight school and look good on a resume for hiring. They'll speak English, because English is the language of international flying and other business. They will know weather patterns, mechanical systems, and just even knowing how to talk on a radio is a valuable skill. They don't have to fly a plane, they'll get a job doing something else if they think the pay is shit.
The FAA should easily allow 2000 hours flying time each year and also allow napping in cockpits while the autopilot is flying. Problem solved.
Do you even know how many hours are in a year? 24 * 365 = 8760. Let's go with 2500 hours of flying time, that's nearly 7 hours flying every day with no weekends, holidays, or vacation days, or sick days, off the clock. Or, that's nearly 30% of the year. A typical 9-to-5 job will have 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, 2000 hours.
Flying 1000 hours in a year, with all the dead time on the ground to wait for their next flight, weather delays, time off, and so forth, sounds about right.
time between legs (airport appreciation)
I "appreciate" my time in airports too. The air is always bitterly cold and life sapping dry. There the vending machines are constantly empty, the coffee is overpriced, and if the shops have fruit for sale its over ripe. There's always a TV to watch for entertainment, where you can choose from CNN, Weather Channel, or Arrivals and Departures.
When the economy goes down the tubes, a lot of legacy pilots wind up back at the regionals and take a 70% pay cut to just keep flying. I'm considering going to Asia as a plan B.
I hope that you choose to stay but I wish you clear skies wherever the winds take you.
You are again mixing up energy with electricity.
No, I'm not. Try to keep up. Is there a language barrier here? You're English is excellent, far better than my German, Spanish, or French. I can read some German but do not ask me to write it or speak it.
So what is your rant about germany importing gas and especially 40% from Russia about? Why do you care?
As an American I care because if Germany can't defend itself from Russia's aggression, whether that be economic or military, then treaties require the USA to come in and help. As a descendant of German immigrants I have concern for my distant cousins in Germany. Have you no concern for your cousins in America? You freed yourself from Soviet influence and restored a beautiful nation because of it, don't let that happen again.
Germany has no ships big enough to warant a nuclear reactor.
Then you should get some. France, UK, Russia, China, and India all have some. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
And as I said before, if Russia drops out as supplier - for what ever reason - we have enough fallback options, for natural gas.
Right, you have two years of reserve in storage and a natural gas pipeline from Norway. You might be able to get sufficient supply from other places, but what happens to the PRICE of that natural gas should Russia not decide to sell? Russia may not start shooting bullets your way but they can wage an economic war. Being able to provide for a large portion of your electricity from nuclear and/or hydro, and heat from coal and oil, like some of your neighbors allows you some freedom to negotiate and time to look for options. The USA was able to build nuclear reactors in two years in the 1980s, but only after much practice in the 1970s. We're having to relearn how to do that again. Can Germany afford to lose the option of domestic nuclear for electricity and heat? Japan tried that and found out they could not.
If Trump does not spoil it, there will never be another war in Europe anyway ...
Maybe instead of having Trump speak to Russia on behalf of NATO and the EU, where he could screw things up, then maybe you need to speak softly to your neighbors on your own behalf. To be most effective in your speech you will need a big stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Something like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Russia seems to have plans for a big stick of their own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...