Comment Re:Will that be enough? (Score 1) 197
And much longer.
They want to protect 400 km of shoreline. You'll need 400 km of protection whether you use a wall or artificial island.
And much longer.
They want to protect 400 km of shoreline. You'll need 400 km of protection whether you use a wall or artificial island.
That the proposal is just bare concrete seems completely inexplicable to me; not only is concrete ugly as sin, it's also hugely unfriendly to the environment in terms of CO2 production.
I don't buy your claim of "hugely". The problem here is that while it's a substantial pile of concrete and while that concrete will generate a lot of CO2 as it solidifies, there is a vast amount of atmosphere. It's just not significant even if you do buy fully into catastrophic AGW.
Now, consider also the pollution from an unprotected coastline getting hit by a tsunami. Even if you ignore the various chemicals and debris washed into the ocean by the tsunami, there is a considerable amount of CO2 generated in rebuilding what was washed away. And how many tons of CO2 pollution is a human life worth? I think inhibiting a large tsunami or two would more than pay for the project in terms of CO2 emissions.
It's centuries of contrary vs millennia of confirming history.
No, it's not. First, jythie was speaking of modern history and just getting that wrong. Second, why expect a return to so-called "empire building" (which incidentally, didn't affect most people)?
Before the few centuries of the modern age, empire building has been the norm for thousands of years. Any "leap forward" did only benefit almost exclusively the few elites.
This is just another variation of "but this time is different". What makes it different from the last few centuries?
I work at a pretty representative tech company. I plan and control the budget for these types of activities. I think I would know.
And in the following sentence you indicate you don't
We're not talking about you hacking away in your mom's garage...
The "moonshot" is not just a thing that "pretty representative tech companies", that happen to be in the developed world, do.
That's what's important to you? Not having a country of happy people, healthy people, educated people, or good opportunity for all classes?
The odd thing here is that all of the examples given by AC were of countries with increasingly wealthier, happier, and better educated people. Maybe this issue isn't as important to you as you claim.
Each leap forward has generally resulted in more medium income jobs being replaced by low income ones than high income ones. Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
I really get annoyed with how many slashdotters there are complaining about this without even a rudimentary acknowledgement of the centuries of contrary history. You could at least claim that somehow it'll be different this time.
They are cutting themselves out of market reach by excluding consumers. Their success or failure depends entirely upon whether organizations, wealthy individuals, or municipalities will order large lots. People with deep pockets don't spend on impulse, and they're just as likely to create their own solution as invest in this one.
I don't know whether these guys are cutting themselves off from the market. But I do know that the deepest pockets, the Feds do buy on impulse. There's vast sums of money available for disaster recovery and piddling amounts available for disaster preparation (aside from terrorism, which does seem to consume an inordinate amount of disaster preparedness money). If these guys can store a large number of these units and ship them for a large scale disaster, then they could get a piece of that action, which might generate a profit.
But how often do Katrina scale disasters happen in the wealthier parts of the world? I'm not really seeing the need here.
100 years is relatively recent.
Last month is genuinely recent. That's when ISIS burned around 45 people. Then they stuck it on YouTube. They've also are in the process of committing genocide and allegedly selling human organs on the black market.
No where in the world is a bastion of righteousness.
What was the point of making that observation? I find it interesting how people are more concerned about a light case of hypocrisy in the US than a vile organization like ISIS. It's a pretty remarkable case of moral blindness.
What makes your people more relevant than those other people?
What are "my people"?
A tool that isn't working isn't what I would call a useful tool.
I don't throw away tools just because they're imperfect.
it takes $25K for one single mid level engineer to just write some code for a few weeks, see if he can break through the most likely failure points.
No, it doesn't.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
