our government is probably too corruptible nowadays to reliably enforce such standards
You clearly are not a student of history if you think the government is any more corrupt than it was in times past. Ever heard of Reconstruction? I'm a fan of ol' General Grant; even visited his tomb uptown, but he was an awful president. Let's see, how about Warren Harding's administration. Let's see, how about Tammany Hall? Sorry to let you down, but as bad as congress and the pres are, it's not like this is without precedent in American history. Power corrupts, the more you have the worse you usually are. Exceptions do exist, but they are rare.
At least you know what folks who are out to make money are trying to do. I know what their motivation is. It's the people who claim to acting out of altruism that scare me. While I believe in the concept, and trust in on the small level, I fear it when people try to implement it on a large scale. Usually, that's simply self aggrandizement, or worse. I'll trust the Gordon Gecko's over the George Clooney's any day.
Why does the glowing night sky have to be caused by "magnetic fluctuations in the upper atmosphere"? That is a very loose description of the Aurora Borealis. Why couldn't the glowing skies be caused by something much more mundane, repeatable, and something witnessed in modern times; say dust. An areal explosion would put tons of dust in the upper atmosphere which would catch the sun long after the ground was plunged into night. That alone could cause the effect, and is triggered by large volcanic eruptions, areal explosions, etc. A explosion like that, in a heavily wooded area as that was, would cause enormous fires, which would also cause glowing night skies; as shown as recently as the California fires a few weeks ago. Anyone around that survived the great firestorms created by WWII bombing raids would be able to attest to that. The fact that you called it magnetic fluctuations alone proves that you don't even understand what they are. Harsh, yes, but honestly, you can't magnetize air. You can ionize it, but the effects of ionization in the atmosphere are short-lived outside of an external stimulus; ie the fluctuating solar wind causing the ever changing Aurora Borealis being a correct and real example of what you are talking about.
Even then, "apparently well known phenomenon," come on man. Are you serious? Yes, we light reflecting off of soot or dust is a well documented, but unfortunately mundane, effect.
Well, thanks for giving me the chance to rant, which I seriously hope was in response to a bit of trolling on your part. I'm having a rough day, and this was a great release.
The RIAA is even worse, in many cases they ARE music. The have become almost a legal power like the tax offices, they can collect their music tax for any music they like even if the original owner doesn't want them too. This would be roughly the same as the police ticketing people for driving to fast on private property (they can't and don't do this, this is why racetracks can operate).
That is an outstanding point that I haven't heard before. Technically, they are a monopoly; granted it's not like Big Oil or Big Sugar was when good ol' TR (President Teddy Roosevelt) busted up those monopolies, but I think it's close enough. The record companies, via the RIAA, are a cartel, and by controlling the whole market, they are a monopoly of sorts. Perhaps it's time for another breakup; it's been a while since they broke up the last one(1980); MA Bell (aka AT&T). I think we're due.
Embargo's work, even against semi-goverment organisations, but the "people" need a lot of will power to pull it off. Often the answer is that somebody equally powerfull takes up the fight, in recent years that have been popstars, who through their fame could pull the people into a single group to raise a voice. Bit of a pity that popstars and the RIAA are in the same bed eh?
The first and best example we had over here was TR, and he was a rich man with a desire to help those less fortunate; and make himself famous in the process.
Uh, maybe it's painfully obvious, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with nuclear power production. Nice spin!
you know, I'll bet, and it's admittedly a bet here, that if you add up all the folks who died world wide in coal mining since 1945, that they would be less than the two bombs; including those who died after the fact from cancers they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. In the 40s - 60s, even in the US, there were still quite a few deaths each year; much as they still have in China now.
Admittedly, my opinion is a pure guess, and of course, I agree with you that the two bombing attacks had absolutely nothing to do with electricity production from fission reactors.
So did they managed to crack the codes or did they spy on the US and somehow obtain the codes? I read TFA and still can't figure out which.
I expect it was they cracked the codes as seeing as "Americans knew what the Australians were doing and were intrigued by the progress they made.". I don't imagine the seppos would feel "intrigued" about being spied on. They would have used radar antennas to "listen" to our aircraft; F-18s from one of our carriers probably during joint training maneuvers; while they used those modes. They didn't "pick a lock". They "listened to us speaking gibberish," and figured out that the gibberish was actually a coded message; so to speak.
No doubt the higher levels of bureaucracy said "NO! Don't give it to them", and the low level folks actually watching this occur during a training mission didn't care; knowing they should be given the damn stuff in the first place. That's my guess.
The codes in question enable you to use the radar to figure out who the other guy is. Think of it as shining a flashlight on a surface, and blinking it on and off in a special way enabling you to figure out what the thing is by the funny reflections. Granted that's a bit of a simplification, but close enough to the truth.
You can, and the Auzzies did/do have the active system; known as IFF Mode 4, so the implication that the radars/jets were useless is far from the truth. The active system would have enabled them to determine Auzzie jets from non-Auzzie jets; just as all NATO aircraft do with Mode 4. They just didn't have the better stuff that augments the active system. God forbid reporters, or politicians for that matter, get a technical question right.
Does that answer your question? I was a IFF engineer at the place (NAIC then now NASIC) that they would have gotten the data from in the late 90s. I can go into greater detail, without getting myself in trouble, but I fear I may bore you.
I have to admit that I find the AT&T GSM phones to be the scariest when it comes to interference. In our office full of computers you can tell when someones GSM phone is going to ring. They actually interfere with the speakers on the PCs!. CDMA phones don't seem to have that problem. I wonder if it has more to do with the frequencies or the communications method?
I have the same issue with our pc and IP phones. It's wierd, and I am a EE, but one too lazy to figure out exactly what's the trigger.
Unless said plane had crashed into a dense suburban neighborhood. Then the presence of radiactive materials on the plane would no longer be a mere inconvenience.
Probably not. They're designed to take a hell of a beating, and we know this not only from tests, but from accidents that have happened in the past. We've lost several nukes, one off Georgia thanks to a mid-air collision between a B-52(i think) and a tanker, and they can't find it. If there was radiation, they would be able to find it. Ironic, but the point is that the danger is less than you think. That's not to say that what happened wasn't wrong, but that's not the point of my comment.
That's some selective reading syndrome you've got there. He also said "Defense, Police, Disaster relief, public safety. These are the business of government."
Well, that's certainly not a libertarian ideal. A libertarian government would leave those things to private enterprise. There in lies your mistake. You think libertarian means that you hold the beliefs as Libertarianism is described in a dictionary. Just as it's true that we have modified, not Laissez-faire capitalism, in the US, Libertarianism in the real world does not support the idea of privatizing everything. That would be just as bad as saying to call our selves capitalists that we need to have Laissez-faire capitalism. As I'm sure you'll agree, extreme beliefs in the real world are dangerous, whatever topic we're talking about. Taking Libertarianism to the extreme is shortsighted and foolish, which is why his statement is correct.
but that's already happened quickly... remember those things have been around for over 500 MILLION years. in the last 2 million, we've had several supervolcanoe eruptions cooling things off, and they survived; the caldera that more or less is under all of yellowstone national park alone has exploded 3 times in that timeframe.
either way, i still say you're blind to what i believe are much more tangible, and more obvious, causes of their problems. i'll admit that the heat changes are a stress for the corals, but it's one I believe they can handle; even over 5 years let alone 100. My concern for them, and honestly the thing that I think humans are responsible for their decline, is the the effect of run-off on the oceans; particularly farm runoff. The pesticides, fertalizers, and even simply the extra soil via erosion from deep tilling farming, while great for increased food production, are bad for the environment. Let's force our farmers to use the no-till techniques, which has shown; several large farms along the Cheseapeake bay have done this; significantly lower all 3 of those things. Phase 2 would be to prohibit all the raw, untreated sewage from being allowed into the oceans; the Great Lakes get it too, so let's protect them while we're at it. Lastly, and not least of all, let's stop all the dumping of garbage into the oceans. All of these things have shown to be causing definite stress to the corals, and the rest of the oceans. It's cheaper, easier, and there is no question that it will help. Besides, you said the 2 degree change that "happens in less than a century." Well, the corals are under stress now, and the temperature increase has only been a fraction of a single degree in a century and a half. If you ask me, it sounds less like heating that's the problem, and more like our waste. Here's the kicker, while many argue the the causes of GW, no one can argue that the garbage isn't bad. Even ol' GB knows the value of the oceans, he did sign the law making the largest marine sanctuary in the world. Granted, I am not defending him, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. That was right, and there is no question that cleaning up our garbage would help. Want proof; look at the Hudson river as one example. People can swim in it again even as far south as NYC; that was not true when I was born 30 years ago; mind you I still wouldn't, but it's no longer illegal.
there is still no guarantee that the 2 degree rise will happen in the next 100 years; there is no agreement in the models; it could be more or less, and the latest IPCC report lowered it. If they can't get the next year hurricane model more accurate than it has been the last few years, I'm having trouble believing the climatologists, who have their own agenda; funding; are any better.
Its a complex issue. Fertilizer feeds algae which then grows on and kills coral. Fishing reduces populations needed for healthy reefs. Murky water and dirt landing on the coral block sunlight. Water temperature affects density, currents, and salinity so it isn't just the direct effect of what the coral like. There are many factors, but the main thing it comes down to is that researchers can get to spend time diving in the Bahamas.
too true on all points; maybe i should switch careers! either way, i still say that doing things cleaner is a good thing; ie no more raw sewage to the oceans, no more garbage, and better farming techniques to reduce runoff, fertilizer usage, and pesticide usage. No matter what, doing those things will help, and I'd be willing to pay more to do it.
"WE" "WE" "WE". That's where I have a philosophically different view point. I agree that there can be many natural causes of global warming, and over the long run, yes, many species may suffer. However, this time around, my problem is that, according to the data, WE are the cause of the changes to the environment. So sure, maybe a short term human blip is not much considering the history of the Earth. BUT, the problem is humans aren't going anywhere, we're probably here to stay and will continue to change our environment. This will, unfortunately, not just be a "blip" in the grand scheme of things. Also, on the topic of species constantly emerging and dying: Frankly, I like the coral.
none of that, I am arguing. What I'm arguing is that it seems less likely that heat or added CO2 is the problem. I think the problem is our chemicals and agriculture runoff; hell even the extra soil erosion we're doing could be adding more silt to situation for corals near the river deltas; or downwind from our farms. I remember an event where they sprayed some chemical here on long island to kill the mosquitoes that spread west nile, not DDT, that ended up in the Long Island Sound, and ended up killing a lot of the lobsters there.
I think we should be push our efforts into no-till farming which lessens the need for fertilizers and pesticides. I think we should not be dumping garbage and raw sewage into the oceans and, well, any part of the environment for that matter. The point is that those things will DEFINITELY help every species in the oceans, corals, fish, and even humans. The warming is probably an irritant, but not one they can't cope with. This raw sewage and garbage is the stuff that they can't deal with. Even if I'm wrong, it's still a good thing for everyone and everything, because that crap; pun intended; is not something out of mother nature's handbook; like the CO2(volcanos) and the warming(you pick the cause) is.
Corals are slow, human pollution is fast.
If climate change is slow enough, corals will die off at one end and expand at the other, essentially moving as the niche is displaced. If the change is very fast, say two degrees per 100 years or so, the coral won't be able to catch up with the displacement of its niche.
aaah, but they say that climate change, human caused or not, can and does happen fast. They say most of the retreat from the last ice age; ie 200 foot rise in sea levels; took only a few hundred years; or less. A supervolcano eruption certainly would have that effect, and it's been proven that the Yellowstone Park Caldera exploded 3 times in the last 1.5 to 1.8 million years or so. So, those Caribbean corals seemed to have survived that; which would have cooled the atmosphere dramatically for 10s of years, at minimum, over the course of a few weeks.
I was in the Bahamas last year measuring water temperature, beach erosion and doing population counts to provide data on why coral is dying off all over the world. Its a complex topic but one of the leading culprits is ocean warming. Coral is adapted to a narrow range. Once the coral reefs are gone, which will be soon, say goodbye to fish diversity and sandy beaches.
I've heard this before, and I'd like to ask you an honest question. Coral has been around for a long time; according to this link on wikipedia, over 500 million years. Average global climate temperature has been both significantly warmer and cooler in that time. My question is why would warming be the thing that's hurting them? I am not a biologist, nor an expert in this in any way; you are; that's why I'm asking you. To me, and again I'm a radar engineer, it seems more likely that the thing that's different now, and hurting them is us; runoff from our farms; the increased nitrogen and fertilizer in the water, or some other group of chemicals we're putting into the environment. Even CO2, as in the form of making the oceans more acidic, doesn't seem to me to be the problem; since again that too has been higher in coral's history.
Also, beach erosion; how is that bad at all; except for the idiots who build houses or hotels on beaches? Isn't that simply a natural process? I think beaches communities should reverse development, and build back the dunes between the towns and the water. Screw the beach front hotels; it's bad for the environment, and we can still enjoy the beach without having a house or hotel on it!
As for your comment about west nile virus, hell, we had malaria here too; but back before you or I were born, we defeated it. DDT being a big help there; amongst other things. West Nile is not a biggie. If we can stop malaria in Cuba and the South, we can stop it here when it gets warmer. People can adapt.
The global warming deniers are going to take this and rant on it endlessly.
I don't like your choice of words. GW is a theory. Granted it's one supported by evidence, but it's still a theory. Deniers is religious talk.
Let me explain my concern, as it relates to another much less contravercial theory; what killed the dinosaurs. I was born in 1976. In those days, and I can remember roughly back to 80 or 81, the new hot theory was the asteroid impact; the one that caused the iridium layer at the K-T boundary. Later, as more evidence was found, it was supported and became mainstream. In the last 5-10 years or so, the hot theory questions that very well supported theory. Now they think it was a series of effects, from climate change to increased volcanism and changes in the biosphere; the rise of flowering plants; that worked together to have this effect. The KT impact on the Yucatan peninsula, was just another insult to them. Even today, I'm not sure where the consensus is. Still, no one was called a denier. Stupid, wrong, amongst other things, but never a denier.
What frightens me is the fact that your choice of words makes you sound like anyone who disagrees with you is questioning your faith. The fact is that a reasonable person could doubt the existence of global warming, or even have the opinion that global warming is caused by means other than enhanced CO2 output. The increasingly acidic tone of folks on both sides of the issue is taking away from the discussion; it's a simple fact that it's harder to convince people to agree with you when you attack the very folks you are trying to convince. The viciousness of both sides, but lately so much so the GW supporters, is troubling to me.
For the record, and I'm sure you'll want to know this. I don't believe that CO2 is causing the warming that I do believe is happening; I'm currently convinced by the evidence of those who say it's from solar activity. I have recently been convinced of that, but I'm willing to change my mind again. Granted, a strong argument would have to be made for that to happen. That being said, living in Manhattan as I do, I don't have a car and use mass transit. I also buy my power, at a 30% premium, from a supplier that generates electricity from wind and hydro. I think that everything that gets into the air when you burn fossil fuels, aside from CO2, are nasty things that I would be happier didn't get into the air.
Mode A and C are what's primarily used. The actual radar echo is only used relatively close in; within a hundred miles or so; I forget the exact distance. Still, my point being that most of the US and the world doesn't use a radar echo, so this would be an improvement.
I was a radar engineer working for the USAF with these types of systems, but admittedly focused on the military use of them.
I'd think it would be more likely that they could just jam the signals. Come to think of it, if the enemy gets their hands on a few iphones it could wreak havoc on this squadron.
Even then, it's not like we haven't been dealing with the "enemy" jamming our signals since WWII. There are simple ways around it; like only point your antenna up. Then the only way to jam it is to have either an enemy aircraft or a enemy satellite overhead to do the jamming. Both of which would be spotted by our air defense radars, and then you could do things about it. One idea would be to send information to the aircraft in UWB pulses; something already proven to be a good counter measure to jamming of certain kinds.
Russia could invade. They do have generals that have publically stated that they want to take back the lands they use to control in the 1800s; mostly Alaska and some parts of Canada.
Not that I'm suggesting they would or have any real intention to do it, but they could.
Slashdot Mirror
At least you know what folks who are out to make money are trying to do. I know what their motivation is. It's the people who claim to acting out of altruism that scare me. While I believe in the concept, and trust in on the small level, I fear it when people try to implement it on a large scale. Usually, that's simply self aggrandizement, or worse. I'll trust the Gordon Gecko's over the George Clooney's any day.
Why does the glowing night sky have to be caused by "magnetic fluctuations in the upper atmosphere"? That is a very loose description of the Aurora Borealis. Why couldn't the glowing skies be caused by something much more mundane, repeatable, and something witnessed in modern times; say dust. An areal explosion would put tons of dust in the upper atmosphere which would catch the sun long after the ground was plunged into night. That alone could cause the effect, and is triggered by large volcanic eruptions, areal explosions, etc. A explosion like that, in a heavily wooded area as that was, would cause enormous fires, which would also cause glowing night skies; as shown as recently as the California fires a few weeks ago. Anyone around that survived the great firestorms created by WWII bombing raids would be able to attest to that. The fact that you called it magnetic fluctuations alone proves that you don't even understand what they are. Harsh, yes, but honestly, you can't magnetize air. You can ionize it, but the effects of ionization in the atmosphere are short-lived outside of an external stimulus; ie the fluctuating solar wind causing the ever changing Aurora Borealis being a correct and real example of what you are talking about.
Even then, "apparently well known phenomenon," come on man. Are you serious? Yes, we light reflecting off of soot or dust is a well documented, but unfortunately mundane, effect.
Well, thanks for giving me the chance to rant, which I seriously hope was in response to a bit of trolling on your part. I'm having a rough day, and this was a great release.
Admittedly, my opinion is a pure guess, and of course, I agree with you that the two bombing attacks had absolutely nothing to do with electricity production from fission reactors.
No doubt the higher levels of bureaucracy said "NO! Don't give it to them", and the low level folks actually watching this occur during a training mission didn't care; knowing they should be given the damn stuff in the first place. That's my guess.
The codes in question enable you to use the radar to figure out who the other guy is. Think of it as shining a flashlight on a surface, and blinking it on and off in a special way enabling you to figure out what the thing is by the funny reflections. Granted that's a bit of a simplification, but close enough to the truth.
You can, and the Auzzies did/do have the active system; known as IFF Mode 4, so the implication that the radars/jets were useless is far from the truth. The active system would have enabled them to determine Auzzie jets from non-Auzzie jets; just as all NATO aircraft do with Mode 4. They just didn't have the better stuff that augments the active system. God forbid reporters, or politicians for that matter, get a technical question right.
Does that answer your question? I was a IFF engineer at the place (NAIC then now NASIC) that they would have gotten the data from in the late 90s. I can go into greater detail, without getting myself in trouble, but I fear I may bore you.
thanks for the tip. i appreciate it.
um are you saying that Nazca was a spaceport? Riiiight, keep watching your X-Files re-runs!
but that's already happened quickly... remember those things have been around for over 500 MILLION years. in the last 2 million, we've had several supervolcanoe eruptions cooling things off, and they survived; the caldera that more or less is under all of yellowstone national park alone has exploded 3 times in that timeframe.
either way, i still say you're blind to what i believe are much more tangible, and more obvious, causes of their problems. i'll admit that the heat changes are a stress for the corals, but it's one I believe they can handle; even over 5 years let alone 100. My concern for them, and honestly the thing that I think humans are responsible for their decline, is the the effect of run-off on the oceans; particularly farm runoff. The pesticides, fertalizers, and even simply the extra soil via erosion from deep tilling farming, while great for increased food production, are bad for the environment. Let's force our farmers to use the no-till techniques, which has shown; several large farms along the Cheseapeake bay have done this; significantly lower all 3 of those things. Phase 2 would be to prohibit all the raw, untreated sewage from being allowed into the oceans; the Great Lakes get it too, so let's protect them while we're at it. Lastly, and not least of all, let's stop all the dumping of garbage into the oceans. All of these things have shown to be causing definite stress to the corals, and the rest of the oceans. It's cheaper, easier, and there is no question that it will help. Besides, you said the 2 degree change that "happens in less than a century." Well, the corals are under stress now, and the temperature increase has only been a fraction of a single degree in a century and a half. If you ask me, it sounds less like heating that's the problem, and more like our waste. Here's the kicker, while many argue the the causes of GW, no one can argue that the garbage isn't bad. Even ol' GB knows the value of the oceans, he did sign the law making the largest marine sanctuary in the world. Granted, I am not defending him, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. That was right, and there is no question that cleaning up our garbage would help. Want proof; look at the Hudson river as one example. People can swim in it again even as far south as NYC; that was not true when I was born 30 years ago; mind you I still wouldn't, but it's no longer illegal.
there is still no guarantee that the 2 degree rise will happen in the next 100 years; there is no agreement in the models; it could be more or less, and the latest IPCC report lowered it. If they can't get the next year hurricane model more accurate than it has been the last few years, I'm having trouble believing the climatologists, who have their own agenda; funding; are any better.
I think we should be push our efforts into no-till farming which lessens the need for fertilizers and pesticides. I think we should not be dumping garbage and raw sewage into the oceans and, well, any part of the environment for that matter. The point is that those things will DEFINITELY help every species in the oceans, corals, fish, and even humans. The warming is probably an irritant, but not one they can't cope with. This raw sewage and garbage is the stuff that they can't deal with. Even if I'm wrong, it's still a good thing for everyone and everything, because that crap; pun intended; is not something out of mother nature's handbook; like the CO2(volcanos) and the warming(you pick the cause) is.
yes, die offs, and there have been mass extinctions too, but unlike the dinos, sabretooths, and mammoths, the corals are still alive.
Also, beach erosion; how is that bad at all; except for the idiots who build houses or hotels on beaches? Isn't that simply a natural process? I think beaches communities should reverse development, and build back the dunes between the towns and the water. Screw the beach front hotels; it's bad for the environment, and we can still enjoy the beach without having a house or hotel on it!
As for your comment about west nile virus, hell, we had malaria here too; but back before you or I were born, we defeated it. DDT being a big help there; amongst other things. West Nile is not a biggie. If we can stop malaria in Cuba and the South, we can stop it here when it gets warmer. People can adapt.
Let me explain my concern, as it relates to another much less contravercial theory; what killed the dinosaurs. I was born in 1976. In those days, and I can remember roughly back to 80 or 81, the new hot theory was the asteroid impact; the one that caused the iridium layer at the K-T boundary. Later, as more evidence was found, it was supported and became mainstream. In the last 5-10 years or so, the hot theory questions that very well supported theory. Now they think it was a series of effects, from climate change to increased volcanism and changes in the biosphere; the rise of flowering plants; that worked together to have this effect. The KT impact on the Yucatan peninsula, was just another insult to them. Even today, I'm not sure where the consensus is. Still, no one was called a denier. Stupid, wrong, amongst other things, but never a denier.
What frightens me is the fact that your choice of words makes you sound like anyone who disagrees with you is questioning your faith. The fact is that a reasonable person could doubt the existence of global warming, or even have the opinion that global warming is caused by means other than enhanced CO2 output. The increasingly acidic tone of folks on both sides of the issue is taking away from the discussion; it's a simple fact that it's harder to convince people to agree with you when you attack the very folks you are trying to convince. The viciousness of both sides, but lately so much so the GW supporters, is troubling to me.
For the record, and I'm sure you'll want to know this. I don't believe that CO2 is causing the warming that I do believe is happening; I'm currently convinced by the evidence of those who say it's from solar activity. I have recently been convinced of that, but I'm willing to change my mind again. Granted, a strong argument would have to be made for that to happen. That being said, living in Manhattan as I do, I don't have a car and use mass transit. I also buy my power, at a 30% premium, from a supplier that generates electricity from wind and hydro. I think that everything that gets into the air when you burn fossil fuels, aside from CO2, are nasty things that I would be happier didn't get into the air.
Mode A and C are what's primarily used. The actual radar echo is only used relatively close in; within a hundred miles or so; I forget the exact distance. Still, my point being that most of the US and the world doesn't use a radar echo, so this would be an improvement.
I was a radar engineer working for the USAF with these types of systems, but admittedly focused on the military use of them.
Russia could invade. They do have generals that have publically stated that they want to take back the lands they use to control in the 1800s; mostly Alaska and some parts of Canada.
Not that I'm suggesting they would or have any real intention to do it, but they could.
now that's funny... Thanks for the laugh... having a rough day with bugs!
sure playing Doom in an Imax theater at a gajjillion frames a second.
;)
... bah ... stay off my grass kiddies...
duh, i mean isn't that obvious?
I know I'm dating myself saying Doom instead of the latest hot RPG, but