Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 381
Someone modded you flamebait, which is what I was thinking until I got to the end of your post and meditated on it. ;)
The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.
1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.
2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.
Agnostic.
I don't know either way.
That's supposed to be what "skeptic" stands for. Being a skeptic is never supposed to be a bad thing. I voted skeptic because I don't know either way, either.
You got it! My uncle is now a security officer in the military. he's a highly skilled Linux Programmer, and knows how to attack the network if he needs/wants to. the only reason he got in the military and is now in security is because he had a 96% accuracy at 300 yards. After all this time, the military still values killing over technical skills. While they should be on equal footing.
If an Iranian Nuclear power plant can be attacked by a virus, which could have caused major damage we are just lucky it didn't, you'd think the military would take a better look at their skill requirements. But they rely on their current ranks, the NSA/FBI/CIA to foot for when they can't make up. (and the majority of their skills are about as good as the Military) we need a skill refresh, its long over due.
I don't think you really know much about the military, or your Uncle is pulling your leg. That's not how the armed forces work in the U.S.
He also misrepresents the entire process of modern agriculture - namely, none of the inputs are implicitly dependent on the active production of more CO2. All of them could be done more efficiently, or utilizing alternative power sources. Of course, he's also not covering the rather considerable issue that high-energy-driven intensive farming is doing a lot of long term damage to arable lands all over the world, and actively reducing their productive capacity. Changes to more sustainable farming methods would reduce the dependence of fertilizers and follow effects on marine ecosystems from run-off.
But there's no sense letting any of that get in the way of trying to co-opt global hunger as a perverse argument *against* doing anything about climate change.
Hi. My argument isn't that we shouldn't do something about climate change. It's that we won't, at least not until preventative measures are useless. We'll be left to do something more exciting, like increasing the earth's albedo.
Note that the US, who in principle did not sign the Kyoto protocol, actually reduced emissions significantly (not just reduction in growth, but actual reduction) since 2007 due to the economic recession.
So, we don't want to reduce carbon emissions because it will hurt our economy - but hurt the economy and emissions automatically reduce. Sounds like a vicious cycle that needs a technological exit strategy to me.
I already know what will happen. Policy measures will be introduced to barely limit emissions worldwide. Eventually this will become a looming problem, and a reasonably sized international body will decide that we will use active measures to counteract the climate change problems.
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else. You know as well as I do that we won't do anything until the last minute, which will be active climate measures.
Or how about finally facing the fact that we are not the chosen ones. That we are not in the center of the universe. And that we are not special?
My grandma still believes that humans aren't animals. Some people still believe that non-whites are inferior. And some even still believe the sun rotates around the earth.
Admit it. Cause I’m the only god here!
.
.
God/religion don't have anything to do with the notion of us or the universe being "tuned" for each other. We're talking about 1) evolution, and 2) space that may have such a warped set of physical laws that life is literally impossible.
c is the maximum speed. Things with no inertia, obviously, travel at this speed. This is why it's the speed of light in a vacuum for example. The "mechanism" that determines c is space-time, the speed c, is a null (zero) metric in space-time. Other than defining what it is (299792458 m/s for example), it doesn't have an arbitrary value. Our understanding of space-time could be wrong, but what would the value of c vary against? It's the maximum speed by definition. What (constant) speed could we compare it to?
No... things with no inertia travel at 0m/sec and are stationary to an observer. Things with no rest mass travel at the speed of light.
Try taking a classified military radio (in a properly marked courier bag with all the paperwork) through security. Between what the xray of the bag showed, his truthful answer to "did you pack this bag yourself" and his response to requests to open the bag (he correctly said that he couldn't do that nor allow it to happen) he spent the night with airport security and only got out when someone from the base personally came to get him and told the TSA that he had done everything correctly.
Good for him, but it sounds like he could have been more assertive to get through security in a timely fashion. Ask to speak to their TSA supervisors, call his issuing S2 back on base, etc. Very interesting story, nonetheless!
Good for them! Finally, some common sense and rational planning, instead of letting the market get our power from anywhere without regard to the consequences!
I like your sarcasm.
I never found it to be that annoying.
Now, silverware scratching on a plate? Gives me the shudders.
Exactly the same for me! "Fingernails on a chalkboard" kinds of sounds never bothered me in the slightest. But if I'm the one scraping silverware on a plate, it makes me shudder exactly like other people do when hearing fingernails on a chalkboard! It's weird, maybe my sense of whatever causes the shuddering is slightly "shifted" compared to a normal person.
Unless you're in dense fog, the beam itself is invisible. You'd only see anything once the beam actually hits the aircraft (and then it's too far away to see the reflection with the naked eye).
However, it only takes a fraction of a second to dazzle and disorient the pilots, so even a momentary random intersection caused by a sweeping laser beam is dangerous.
Are you serious? I have a 5mW green laser, you can see the beam CLEARLY at night or in a drkened room. You can even see it in a well-lit room if you look hard.
What hath Bob wrought?
