Also, where are you going to get the gigatonnes of carbon for your film? Strip mine the organic matter of the planet which you are trying to keep habitable for organic beings?
I know that you're being facetious, but both schemes are similarly silly.
One important fact the article doesn't mention is how this water was identified
The actual article does mention that - in some detail as you'd expect. But it's pay-walled and the summary and press releases that are linked to don't have the details. I had to go down to the library to photocopy the original to read.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of different techniques were used in different areas (the original article is a review, not a report of original research itself). Some are direct observation - submarine fresh water springs have been reported since time immemorial. Some are the results of petrophysical logging of oil wells - the resistivity of pore fluids can be measured by propagation of radio waves. Some are the result of actually coring the sediments and extracting the pore fluids - if you're planning on setting concrete pilings into the seabed to support a construction for example, the freshness or otherwise of the pore fluids can have a large effect on the setting time of your cement grout.
Volumetrics are mostly from seismic. Which is entirely routine. From the seismic reflection profile you can invert a velocity profile ; the speed of sound in a rock is closely related to it's porosity, so if you know the lithology (from coring ; from onshore comparison and correlation), then from the seismic you can estimate the porosity. Then by calculating up the volume of your rock body from dozens to thousands of seismic lines and your porosities, you can get an estimate of the pore fluid volume. We've been doing this in the oilfield (and accepting 50% uncertainty on the results) for decades - it's application to hydrogeology isn't even new, as use of shallow wells for disposal of undesired fluids (e.g. produced water) has been routine for decades too.
It's an interesting review article - if you're into hydrogeology, which I'm not. But not as spectacular as the press releases are puffing it up to be.
Not quite. She's actually the chair of the local council.
The whole "City of London Corporation" thing is the last remnant of the state corporatism of the colonial era, where companies such as the Hudson Bay Company, the Dutch East India Company etc were either founded by royal/civil charter with a monopoly over trade and civil control in the colonies, or were started as private enterprise and sought a charter of monopoly.
I'm not aware of any other similar city "corporations" in the UK. I'm guessing this existed purely because the bankers at home wanted the ability to control their own taxes and police their own properties the same as their colonial counterparts did. (I don't think police reported officially to the monopolies, but there's plenty of evidence of them seeking approval for actions in advance.)
Yes, but the Crown Jewels would still exist as a relic if the monarchy was disbanded.
In fact, the Crown Jewels are one of the monarchies biggest costs historically. They are owned by the realm, not the Crown Estates, and every monarch or two the realm (ie taxpayer) has had to pay to have them replaced, cos the previous king or queen has decided to flog them off to pay a gambling, drink or drug habit. This is technically theft, but no-one's ever prosecuted the royal household for their incredibly huge criminal acts. (To be fair, it would be difficult as it's never been found out until it's time to crown the successor, so the guy who did it was usually dead by then.)
Why shouldn't anyone be ashamed that the best-paid public sector worker in the UK is employed on grounds of accident of birth to do nothing more than rubber stamp government decisions and shake people's hands?
Seriously, what ever happened to earning your place in society? I would happily do the Queen's job for 20 grand a year, as long as there was a sufficient training allowance for me to actually learn the languages spoken by the foreign dignitaries I was meeting, rather than expecting them to use English.
I'd be cheaper, and I'd be better at the job.
It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there.
Which is damned-all use unless we have a credible technology for getting non-trivial numbers of people there. ("Non-trivial" being on the order of hundreds, though a lot of that necessary genetic diversity could be shipped as eggs and sperm.)
Currently, the only credible proposition (note : "credible" meaning "doesn't break any of the known laws of physics") is for "generation ships". And by the time we have that technology sufficiently proven for people to risk going out to [insert name of nearest star with potentially-habitable planets], then we'll also be able to scatter ourselves sufficiently around the solar system for instant species death to not be a consideration.
But we're a long way from that.
What would make aircraft go? Either absence of resources (oil, metals), or obsolescence. Though what the replacement to make aircraft obsolescent would be is hard to realistically imagine - in SF, let's look at teleportation. If a transport system which was safer than aircraft was created to do the long-distance legs of moving people and things, then there would still be a niche for the 500m down to the shops / round to your friend's house / whatever. And that would be easier to fill with bicycles (or trikes) than with cars. Or flying cars.
I wonder if there are more bicycles in the world than cars. It's possible. Or maybe, in absolute numbers, it's closer to a 3-way split between bikes, motor bikes and cars.
To implement sigma without FOR-loop side effects requires a fundamental change to the software architecture, and is only truly possible with an infinitely parallel computer.
Not...really. Everything you've said there is basically a constraint on the for loop. The free order of evaluation is a consequence of performing only associative operations -- so you get that in a for loop that limits itself to associative operations.
This is still an implementation of a sigma summation, and not a true sigma summation. The problem is that the FOR loop only has one logical operating block, whereas sigma summation, product-for-all-i etc have two discrete operations: the expression ruled by the sigma, and then the summation operation (or multiplication, or whatever). As you say, they thinking's completely different.
In 100 years or so, there will probably be even better technology available to more effectively add friction to the fault line, or transfer the kinetic energy from the release, so the fault begins to form in some safer place.
Or it'll form in some less safe place. Or somewhere no better and no worse (but without the century-worth of investment.
In fact, your scheme wouldn't work. The stress would just move up to the top (or bottom) of your re-bar reinforced layer and start slipping there. You'd have to chill (to strengthen) the whole lithosphere to a depth of tens of kilometres and up to the surface ; then drill your re-bar all the way through.
And then the fault would start to develop either seawards or landwards of the section that you've locked. Big progress. Not.
The long (and short) of the matter is that the stresses are approaching the strength of the rock. And unless you're going to replace the top 10-or-so kilometres of the surface of the Pacific plate with unobtanium, then that's the way things are going to remain.
There are some things that we can't fix. We have to live with them.
What's next on your agenda for repairing? The steady brightening of the Sun due to accumulation of helium in the core?