The terms of the vote made pretty clear what the people of Greenland want. It was to terminate Danish subsidy, remove Danish as an official language, take full control of Greenland and Greenlandic waters (even foreign policy), take control of the majority of the mineral royalties, etc. So even they don't end up with, say, a UN seat, it's still pretty hard to say that's not "independence".

And there are Danish politicians who have made clear that they don't think Greenland should be let loose.

Macroscopic analogies help people envision what one's talking about, though. Saying "an electron does its own thing" doesn't really help people conceive just what that "thing" is.

I think the basic macroscopic analogy for particle/wave duality is to just go with the pilot wave theory and have them picture a boat bobbing along on a frictionless lake, where its wake is so powerful and so fast-responding that it steers the boat, and it never dies out - the boat creates the wake but is governed by it. There's even an experiment to visualize it involving bouncing a silicone droplet on a vibrating fluid bath, where you can even roughly reproduce a (non-quantized) version of the double slit experiment - the wake goes through both slits, then steers the droplet on the other side.

Of course, the analogy fails when you add quantum effects like virtual particles, uncertainty, etc....

Told kid about nano-cam dust today. He's only 4 years old, so he didn't know about them yet, and I'm trying to teach him basic hygiene. I explained for that for nearly a a hundred years we have all lived in an environment where other peoples' cameras are always in our homes. We track them in, on our shoes. The AC intake blows them in. The servers the cameras send video too, aren't owned by people who are practicing subterfuge. It's not like they snuck "spy" dust onto our porches in the hopes we'd track them in. It just happens; it's an inevitable consequence of the stuff blowing around everywhere.

My great grandparents complained about it. They thought they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, because nanotech was new. They didn't see the dust, so they didn't know it was there. In the absence of sensual confirmation, the default expectation (at least to the layman) was that it wasn't there. That was naive, but my grandparents didn't work with nanotech or even use consumer models themselves, so perhaps their ignorance could be forgiven. (Just as my own ignorance of hyperspace can perhaps be forgiven, since I'm not a miner.)

My grandparents, though, grew up with the stuff, though it was still a bit expensive, so it wasn't totally ubiquitous yet. By their time, almost everyone at least knew about it, and if in a gathering of any five people you were to say "nobody sees me inside my home," chances were there would have been a few guffaws and someone would likely point out that the statement was likely incorrect. Sometimes the stuff got innocently tracked into your house, and sometimes it was manipulated into getting there, through subterfuge. The law and social norms lagged, though, and people debated privacy a lot.

By the time their children (my parents) grew up, though, it was all over. Everyone knew about nano-cam dust, and unless you did a rad-flash a few minutes earlier, fucking in your own bed was just as public as doing it in Times Square.

And now my kid knows too. It's just something everyone is expected to know about and deal with. If I were to write a story about it, I think I would set the story in the time of my grandparents, back when society was truly conflicted and in the midst of change. I bet those were interesting times.

That's not how international law about exclusive economic zones works, because there's not a convenient pole between every disputed area in the world (and why the pole anyway, what not say the center of the arctic ocean?). One doesn't carve out a brand new approach just for this one dispute. As much as I'm sure Russia would want them too, since they'd get half of the arctic ocean.

They are claimed by big ass oil companies.

Obligatory.

No, sorry, I've been too busy learning about archaeology from reading papers published in the 1800s and reading about how physics works by reading the works of the ancient Greeks.

... honestly think that they can keep Greenland under their thumb for that long? Greenland already doesn't want to be part of Denmark - 75% voted for independence in a nonbinding referrendum in 2008 with a 72% turnout. The wealthier they become and the greater the percentage of the wealth that Denmark siphons away, the more they're going to want it. If Greenland and its EEZ start raking in trillions of dollars annually (which is the sort of mineral wealth up for grabs), how low in the single-digits do you think the popularity of remaining part of Denmark will be? For every trillion of GDP that'd be nearly $17M per capita, at Greenland's current population.

Is Denmark going to force Greenland to stay with them by the gun?

What gets me is that unless they've lived elsewhere, most Americans don't even realize that they're in the banking dark ages. They assume that everyone else still has the same stupid broken kind of system that they manage their money with.

Iceland, but you'll find that other parts of Europe are pretty similar.

I think the problem is just misconceptualized. Think of read-only memory, like say DVDs. They're not *100* read-only. Data is written to them once in an irreversible manner before their operational life begins using an alternative write mechanism, and then during their design life they're read-only. If you apply the same paradigm to write-only memory, it's perfectly reasonable for, say, a datalogger: data is written during the operation of the device, then when the device has completed its task, the memory is retrieved and read in an irreversible manner.

This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.

Nope sorry the issue here is very specifically the science of tropical storm formation. As you admit your citation does not go to that issue and is out for want of relevance.

A bit of searching on the site you quote, got me from a page entitled What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?. This page does not claim that global warming will increase frequency of tropical storm formation, it claims the jury is still out on that question. I note this page is more than ten years old so it really doesn't go to what current science says either.

Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy [sic] ones luke Mann, Cook, Hansen and the UN political agenda.

Do you have any interview from the last 5 years with Mann, Cook, Hansen or any publishing climate scientist who contributed to the recent IPCC process in which they predict that global warming will lead to increased frequency of hurricane formation (as opposed to hurricane intensity, as opposed to any other extreme weather event or any other irrlevancies)? You made the claim these exist ... now's the showdown, show me the cards or muck your hand.

If you're only tallying hurricanes of Katrina level events or worse and exclude anything less, then models can very well show an *increase* (as stated by the OP)

Sure, but I don't agree that is what OP had in mind. After all moving from a once a century event to a twice in a century event might constitute OP's "drastic[] increase in frequency," but that hardly sits well with the observation that "we're still waiting on this one."

So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?

Are they?

Who? Actual climate scientists or environmental activists?

When? Since (sceptic) Dr Landsea blew out of the water any suggestion that the historical record showed an increasing frequency of hurricane activity (and compelled the climate science community to accept his finding by showing the damn maths)?

Are you able to cite an interview from recent years (say the last 5 or so) in which a climate scientist of any note is predicting increasing frequency (as opposed to intensity) of tropical storm activity? What is the empirical basis for their scepticism of the (now) orthodox position (and the paper I cited above which includes as authors both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea (ie. both sides of the debate) has to come close to expressing the orthodoxy)?

I feel that if you restricted yourself more to reading the published science (in the reputable journals) and shied away from blogs and interviews, you should be much better informed on matters of science. That's terribly conservative of me, I know.

Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.

That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.

To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about.

Solomon at least (and most likely David too) was (were) clearly polytheistic. Judaism, as opposed to ancient Hebrew religion, requires monotheism and it requires the Torah, which did not exist at that time.

You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?

No trolling no, I'm quite serious about biblical scholarship.

Abram is said to have "called out the 318 trained men born in his household." That makes him a warlord. Elsewhere the figure of Abram/Abraham that emerges from the text appears at times like a defenceless refugee, however, in Gen 14 he is explicitly described as a warlord (i.e. having a retinue of trained men).