First off, you don't make the problem I brought up go away by changing the subject. The sexualization and dehumanization of women *remains* a problem whether you change the subject or not. Seconly, are you honestly trying to claim that men don't treat women as disposable objects? Really?
According to US crime statistics, 99% of sexual assault perpetrators are men. 91% of sexual assault victims are female. That is, to put it bluntly, even when a man is a victim, the perpetrator is still overwhelmingly likely to be a man. And if you want to fall back to the "guys aren't as likely to report being raped by a woman because it'd be embarrassing" canard, you really think that it would be any less embarrassing for them to report being raped by a guy, given the male taboo about anything homosexual?
The simple fact is, statitically, it's almost exclusively men who rape. Not 100% exclusively - given the vast number of rapes, even 1% is still a large number. But, statistically, the percentage of perpetrators that are women is very small.
And let's get out of the BS denial mode. The simple fact is that about 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifespan, and polls of college-age men show that approximataely one in 10 have already raped, and of those, about a third are serial rapists. These numbers aren't appearing in a vaccuum; you need to stand up and deal with the elements in male culture that treat it as fine to treat women as objects, conquests, and makes sexual consent out as optional. I find it incredibly disturbing the percentage of men who don't even know what consent *is* or that they have to get it ("If she passes out she's fair game", "She's my girlfriend so it can't be rape", "She didn't physically fight me when I forced myself on her, she only *told me* not to", "If she didn't want it she wouldn't have dressed like that", etc).
These are your friends, your family members. Stop turning a blind eye to the problem, admit it exists, and if you see these sort of attitudes expressed, F*'in say something. Your silence or friendly laugh gets interpreted as agreement.
If you actually believe that, you do not understand people, much less women.
Because, of course, women are not people?
FYI, the statistical psychological differences between men and women are generally quite small. Blaming your lack of understanding of someone on their gender is not almost certainly wrong, but it's a defeatest attitude - it's blaming your failure on something you cannot change so why even bother, "They" are just un-understandable!
Right, so women sexualize men as much as men sexualize women? That's why... oh, let's just pick an example... there's at least 10 clubs where women strip for every one where men strip - and at least half of those are for gay men? That's why we have words like "booth babes" but not "booth dudes", because the former has to be at least an order of magnitude more common, even in fields where men and women are represented in roughly even numbers? I could keep going if you'd like. Heck, do I even need to go into the ultimate example of sexualization/dehumanization of an individual, sexual molestation and assault?
Don't give me this false equivalency BS. There's a serious problem with men - not all men, far from it, but a huge percent - treating women as though they're simply things to sleep with rather than people like themselves, and it is NOT anywhere near on the same scale in the other direction.
The first step to remedying a problem is admitting that it exists.
Dead on. In a corporate environment, the misoygynistic BS is more likely to be reigned in.
I've seen different maps define it differently, but most maps of Reykjanes include all the way up to Mosfellsbær (to go any further is to be on Kjalarnes). But then again, when most people want to talk about closer to Reykjavík they talk about either Reykjavík or Höfuðborgarsvæði... so I'm not sure if technically it's part. Either way, it's close. There are known magma chambers that are considered a threat to Reykjavík if they went off.
These eruptions aren't little point effects. As the fact that they've poured out hundreds of square kilometers of lava fields should be pointed out.
Snæfellsjökull's melting should make it easier to find the entrance!
Energy from magma chambers only works... wait for it... in places with magma chambers.
Any more easy questions?
If you want a "works everywhere" tech to watch, watch EGS. My favorite variety is a no-fracking variety where they branch off the well in the hot zone and use a conductive grout, turning the well into a giant heat exchanger. Totally closed, so it's non-corrosive and strata-indifferent - needs only heat. But of course, in the end it's going to be whatever's most economic that will take off.
So you think cooling down the magma (boiling water) increases the likelihood of an eruption? Do you think water will go through the pipe with enough pressure to break the pipe and rupture the surrounding rock, when they're controlling how much water they send down the pipe in the first place? You think dissolved gasses will come out faster somehow when they're doing nothing to reduce the pressure on the magma?
There's no logical reason why such a borehole should trigger an eruption. It should overall decrease the risk by taking heat out of it, making the magma more viscous if not outright solidifying it.
RTFA. The "deadly chemicals" used were precisely one chemical: that deadly dihydrogen monoxide stuff.
Fracking is not all a single process. At its most basic level, it's simply water injection. You *can* inject all sorts of other stuff in for various reasons (most of them oil-specific and totally unrelated to geothermal power prouction), but they're not fundamentally required for all fracking.
Haha, actually it was accidental. When they broke through into a magma chamber, that wasn't the goal - they didn't realize they were that close, they were just trying to tap the hot rock near it. But after magma filled up the borehole a couple dozen meters, they decided to try to turn lemons into lemonade and produce steam... and it actually worked.
But yeah, I think a lot of people have a gross misunderstanding how drilling works. You're not creating some big open hole that magma can just shoot up. If you tried that, the hole would collapse before you got very deep at all. Your hole is full of "mud" that is at least as high pressure as the surrounding rock. The gas isn't going to suddenly come out of solution and trigger an eruption when you drill into magma, you're not reducing the pressure on it.
And I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere below, but whoever wrote this article is an idiot. The mantle isn't full of magma, it's solid. The crust is where magma is found They did not drill to the mantle, they drilled into a magma chamber.
The only thing I learned from the article was that they plan to try the same thing in Reykjanes. I fully expect people to freak out, given that's where three quarters of our population lives
Except that even that isn't largely true. Yes, it's true that the US heavily relied on German rocket scientists to build up its space program. What's *not* true is the concept that the Soviets did the same. The US actively sought out and brought to the US almost all high-level German rocket scientists after the war during Operation Paperclip, as well as over 100 V2s. The Soviets got almost nobody of significance (Helmut Gröttrup being the only noteworthy exception), and mainly only got line technicians and captured papers/drawings. What's more, for the most part, they didn't actively involve them in their programs - they interrogated them heavily, and once they were satisfied that they knew everything that they knew, they sent them back. Most were dismissed within a year, and by 1951, there were no longer any Germans at all within Soviet rocketry program (although the remaining ones were held for a few years after that to avoid intelligence transfer).
The real quote should be, "Our German rocket scientists are better than your Soviet scientists whose non-domestic contribution is largely limited to data from old documents and lower-level Germans involved in rocketry."
Couldn't one use super-resolution techniques from a video or series of images to increase the effective resolution?
The issue is, you deal with the system you're with, not the situation you wish you had.
We can't change a transmission protocol or route data over arbitrary connections. This is a collection of everything from very old hardware to brand new, protocols from very old to brand new, in every country in the world, and you can't just arbitrarily rework them. It's the same in the air, too. And when new protocols are made, they're generally in addition to existing ones, not replacing them. I'm not aware of any with error correcting codes or the like (there could be, I just haven't worked with them), but some of them (not all) use checksums (though that's a whole 'nother story... the documentation on how one common type of checksum, that used in datalink messages, is a big fat lie, caused by a screwup in whoever implmented the code the first time that everyone else now has to imitate... but it works, so...).
In the long run, the goal is to move as much traffic as possible to the more automated, more reliable newer protocols. But this is something that's invariably going to happen at a snail's pace.
As I've never messed with them directly, I can't decribe to you the protocols used for physical data transmission at every point over the FARICE and DANICE links - just the message layer on top of them, which is plaintext except for the header marker characters. I've never worked at anything more than the endpoints. But I can tell you this, there's no way we could just go in and replace all of the hardware along the way (you should see the graph of all of the hardware that exists just between Iceland and Britain). It would be an expensive long-term international effort with major potential for disruption in its own right. And it would only help for that particular link anyway. What you really want is how all of air traffic control messages are transmitted - aircraft, atc, tower, etc - everywhere in the world to be switched over to a single, reliable mechanism and a standardized set of international routing hardware. Well, great, join the club, I'd love that too! But it's just not going to happen any time soon without a massive funding surge.
You work with the systems that you have, not the systems you wish you had. Yes, we're working to modernize everything, just like everyone else. For example, in the past year I've spent a good bit of time working on adding in capabilities to one system to help take a sort of "middleman" server that it talks to out of the loop to improve reliability and error logging. But these things don't happen fast. And how many programmers / hardware engineers do you think we have, really? We're no Microsoft here.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the voice communication systems problem. That one didn't affect me directly but I did get a memo about it.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
