There is no such thing as "light pollution". That's not to say that shining a floodlight through a neighbours window isn't inconsiderate, but it's not "pollution".
I don't know what your definition of pollution is, but excess outdoor lighting is ugly, it's unwanted, it can cause adverse change (everything from sleepness nights to wildlife deaths to increased levels of vandalism and other crime. And it has detrimental effects on health including a carcinogenic effect. I call it pollution, you call it light trespass or whatever you like but I suspect there is a level of excess light that you would call pollution. Can your neighbor shine floodlights into your window? How about stroboscopic flashing lights tuned to disorient and possibly trigger seizures? How about lasers? I'm not joking, given the fact that running a laser advertisement is now practically free, expect to see the night sky filled with McDonalds ads and other annoyances. If we continue to treat light pollution as a non-issue, our beautiful night sky will be replaced with pop-up ads.
The proper solution to the OP's problem is to:
1) Stop shining your lights in the direction of your neighbour 2) Use a motion-sensing light so that it at least only turns on when it needs to be
I agree with you here. This is a very good start. Ask yourself, "Is the light necessary? Is it necessary to run continuously? Would I like it if all of my neighbors had the same light? What if millions of people did exactly what you are doing, would the environmental impact be worth it? Does it provide even and useful illumination of an important area or does it provide glare and deepen shadows?"
If you do need lights, LED lights provide many advantages over older outdoor lighting technology. They are smaller than discharge tubes so can be focused better. They can be placed where you need them and they consume far less power than incandescent lights. They can be PWM dimmed, they can be cycled instantaneously (opposed to the 10-20 minute warm-up of sodium/mercury discharge lights) without significant reduction in life. Rural areas could turn off streetlights unless they detect someone (a car or a mobile phone) in the area.
This smacks of intellectual dishonesty. When you hear a politician describe themselves as "pro-choice" do you actually find yourself confused as to what issue they're referring?
No. But by using a word that is a mirror image of the acceptable newspeak, I'm drawing attention to the use of language to reframe thinking (brainwash?) about abortion. It looks like it worked.
It's also interesting that my use of this term has caused so many to jump to irrational conclusions about where I fall on the spectrum of beliefs about this issue.
There is debate about this, and at least here in Europe, those with it are more and more living their own lives. The 17-year old daughter of a colleague has it - and she is not only learning the trade of a baker: she is preparing to live alone, in an apartment in the middle of the city. She already manages her own money and her own relationship with various administrative bodies. With her father's support, but still - this would have been unthinkable even ten years ago.
This is also happening in Australia. They are teaching people with disabilities to live on their own, not just in halfway houses but on their own, managing most of their own affairs. Some are down to 1 hour a week with social workers, stuff the cant take care of on their own they know to save for that time...
Exactly. The US is cleansing itself and future generations of people who suffer DS at the same time that services and support for these people to live productive and happy lives are better than they've ever been.
ortunately we did the tests merely to inform ourselves of what special preparation we might need to make. Abortion for eugenic purposes is not legal here in Ireland as it is in the US.
Eugenics? Really? It's not like these people are aborting fetuses because they don't have blue eyes, or aren't going to be tall enough to play in the NBA. This is a serious health condition.
Eugenics (\yü-je-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.
Eugenics needn't be about the NBA or eye color. Down syndrome tests and abortions have cleansed future generations of a particular kind of people. People who are typically gentle, loving and incapable of lying.
A child with Down Syndrome will not only be a terrible burden on their parents, it's also a child that will never have the opportunity to lead a normal life. I absolutely love my parents, and was lucky to have a great childhood under their love and care. Still, the happiest days of my life involved leaving them...
The happiest days of your life. Surely you don't believe you have the only valid kind of happiness?
Why bring someone into the world that will never be able to experience life to the fullest?
Frankly, in my position, a 1 in 40 chance would be more than enough to justify an abortion, if that was all the information that could be gotten...
What about the 1 chance in 80 of giving birth to a child with autistic spectrum disorder or 1 chance in 25 of giving birth to a child with bipolar disorder? Both of these conditions can be a more severe disability than DS But as there is no accurate per-natal test for these, wouldn't sterilization be the sensible thing be to do... for everyone?
we may all owe a debt of gratitude to people with Down Syndrome. Studying the characteristics of this syndrome may help us understand Alzheimers and studying the fact that cancer is much rarer in people Down Syndrome may help us understand and cure this terrible disease.
And we owe the holocaust for a great many medical advances, thanks to the unethical experiments done on the Jewish prisoners. It doesn't justify the suffering. Similarly, I don't think the gains you are speaking of justifies the burden on the parents or the child that has to live with Down Syndrome.
Have you ever met anyone with Down Syndrome or Mosaic Down Syndrome? Are you really saying that allowing them to live is comparable to experimenting on Jews in concentration camps? This is the sad thing about the fact that Americans have virtually cleansed future generations of a kind of person who someone decided is undesirable. Too few of these people and their loved ones are here to correct your generation's terribly negative assumptions about the value of their human lives. Yes, Down syndrome is a burden but any parent who isn't prepared to care for a child for at least 1/3rd of their lives should not have children of any sort. There are a number of disorders which are much more of a burden. In my neighborhood there are several people with Down syndrome, two of my friends were born blind as were other, another was born with MD and countless other friends have a disposition to bipolar disorders. These good people are able to think, create, love and enjoy their lives which in many cases are more independent and just as as the lives of others.
A virus-delivered multicell cure for single-gene disorders is a real possiblity given experiments with colorblindness. We should celebrate this, but I shudder to think of a world where a 1 chance in 40 of a disorder causes us to ignore the humanity of the person with the disorder.
The take no prisoners battle between the anti-life and anti-choice people have left us in a state of anti-science, anti-compassion and anti-love.
And there it is. "Anti-life"? You've started this post under the pretense of talking statistics, but I don't think this is about statistics at all. 1 in 40 isn't enough in your eyes to justify an abortion, but is there any number that would be sufficient? If you knew with 100% certainty that a child would have Down Syndrome, I suspect you would still think it's wrong to perform an abortion. So who exactly is being anti-science? And do you not lack compassion for the parents with your position?
I'm glad I used the political wordplay "newspeak" mirror image of anti-choice because it obviously made you think.
Would 100% certainty that an unborn child would have Down Syndrome be enough to justify an abortion? That is a decision I'm thankful I haven't had to make. My answer is no and while I respect another's ability to make this decision, you won't stop me from trying to make it an informed decision.
Anti-Life? Seriously?! Could you use a more charged term? Try Pro-Choice. Just because someone believes in the right to choose doesn't mean they will use it and they certainly don't try to force it on others unlike the group trying to ban abortion.
Yes I deliberately used a term that was just as charged as the common "anti-choice" term that you've heard so much on news media and in pop political-culture, you're immune to the fact that it's an equally charged term.
The phrase "Pro Choice" is not descriptive. (Pro choice about what? iPod vs Android, Republican vs Democrat?, Beans vs Carrots?) Nor does the phrase "Pro Choice" accurately describe the plight of women in places where abortion is not only permissible, it is mandatory. It also ignores the fact that there are pro-abortion individuals (abusive boyfriends/husbands/parents) who are decidedly against giving a woman the choice to let her unborn child live.
But we already have a treatment: The prenatal test for downs is reliable, usually noninvasive (Amniocentris is used only to confirm an ultrasound result) and early in pregnancy. If you get a dud, discard and try again.
The only problem comes from the religious people who believe everything with a human genome is magical or sacred.
See my OP. No the neuchal ultrasound evaluation is not particularly reliable. Combined with a maternal blood test it becomes somewhat more reliable but anyone who would use either of these to justify life/death decisions is an idiot, whatever their eugenic good intentions are. Even if these tests were 100% accurate, we have the problem of medical incompetence. A nurse read our son's neuchal/blood test results of 1/40 (2.5%) chance of Down Syndrome and presented it as a 40% chance. This nurse previously worked in well respected Boston hospital and heaven knows how many aborted babies were the result of her mathematical illiteracy. Thankfully the country where she now works (Ireland) doesn't allow abortion for eugenics as the US does.
Well, if you'll put on your cyncial hat, the in-utero treatment you wish for already exists: plannedparenthood.com
In America, about 90% of diagnosed DS fetuses are aborted. That is an interesting percentage, since polls indicate that more that 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
Since we're talking statistics, amniocentesis, the invasive test for Down Syndrome, has a 0.75% chance of ending the pregnancy so we opted for a lower risk combination of an ultrasound scan and blood test. The results (along with our age and other factors) gave a 1 in 40 (2.5%) chance of a baby with Down Syndrome. But the nurse who read the results to us didn't say once chance in 40 and she didn't say 2.5% chance. She said 40% chance! (Is mathematic literacy a medical training requirement.) Fortunately we did the tests merely to inform ourselves of what special preparation we might need to make. Abortion for eugenic purposes is not legal here in Ireland as it is in the US. Unfortunately this same nurse trained in Boston. Heaven only knows how many pregnancies were ended based on this. We're thankful for a healthy little boy who doesn't have Down Syndrome but we may all owe a debt of gratitude to people with Down Syndrome. Studying the characteristics of this syndrome may help us understand Alzheimers and studying the fact that cancer is much rarer in people Down Syndrome may help us understand and cure this terrible disease.
The take no prisoners battle between the anti-life and anti-choice people have left us in a state of anti-science, anti-compassion and anti-love.
What does Oracle even do anymore? All they've been doing lately is killing off products/projects. Same with HP.
Yes, and IBM and Apple and Google... US tax, SEC and patent law as well as Fed/Obama helicopter drops assures that Goliath companies grow by absorbing smaller companies, not by innovation. And the overhead of a Goliath company assures that anything that doesn't add half a billion or more to the balance sheet will be killed. The good news is that this leaves huge holes in the market which can be filled by smaller companies. Sun Ray has been around for more than a decade and if you've seen it in action, you might wonder whether like so many other computer technologies, it was ahead of its time. For a decade it has been ready to save millions of dollars in energy and IT support costs and it would be a perfect fit healthcare, education, government and many corporate uses. Lets hope that bad corporate decisions and bad government policy are not enough to bury a good idea forever.
Posted on the cruisers forum:
Current from Australia Maritime Safety Information current at 300000 UTC JUN 13 Issued by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC Australia) Part 1. Distress, Urgency, CQ and Safety Messages: PAN PAN FM RCC AUSTRALIA 260143Z JUN 2013 AUSSAR 2013/4000 TASMAN SEA RCC AUSTRALIA REQUESTS INFORMATION REGARDING SIGHTINGS OR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WHITE AND GREEN 60FT SCHOONER RIGGED VESESL 'NINA'. THE VESSEL HAS 7 POB, AND WAS ON A VOYAGE FROM OPUA NEW ZEALAND TO NEWCASTLE AUSTRALIA, LAST KNOWN POSITION 33-50S 169-41E 04 JUNE 2013. REPORTS TO THIS STATION OR RCC AUSTRALIA VIA TELEPHONE +61262306811 INMARSAT THROUGH LES BURUM (POR 212,IOR 312), SPECIAL ACCESS CODE (SAC) 39, HF DSC 005030001, EMAIL: rccaus@amsa.gov.au OR BY FAX +61262306868. NNNN
So this is why they're still looking in NZ. Last known position was north of the center of the storm which means she would have been initially blown east if she'd been dis-masted or her crew was otherwise set adrift on June 3-4th. One thing I don't understand is given this position, why would they have been guided to sail south, towards the center of the storm in order to "get out of this nasty weather"?
Notice that they aren't too far from an intense white spot (thunderhead?) in this photo. Could they have been guided from inside a relatively localized thunderstorm towards the eye of the storm?
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.