atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6663: Because it is vital that we protect the fragile solar ecosystem, that's why

This a contender for the most terrible idea I've ever heard:
Protect the solar system from a mining 'gold rush' by creating a 'space wilderness' that preserves 88% of planets, moons and other heavenly bodies, scientists urge
Dumb, DUMB, DUMB. It's an epic level of Malthusian stupidity, which is saying something because the Malthusian viewpoint is already incredibly, hopelessly moronic.

Here:
The duo found that humankind would use up an eighth of the solar system's realistically-accessible resources within 400 years, assuming an annual growth rate for the space mining industry of 3.5 per cent.

This growth rate would be comparable to that found in the use of iron from the start of the Industrial Revolution until the present day.

After four centuries, we would have only 60 years to rein in the growth of the space economy before the solar system's usable resources would be completely gone.
400 years? Four centuries? And what constitutes "realistically-accessible"?

They think it will take only 460 years for mankind to exhaust the resources of the entire freaking SOLAR SYSTEM? We haven't even begun to exhaust the resources of one planet in that solar system in ten thousand years. One good-sized iron-nickel asteroid would supply the entire Earth's current need for iron for a decade. The surface of the Moon is made out aluminum oxide sand; we could mine and smelt aluminum from the Moon for ten thousand years and not make a visible dent in the thing.

The resources of one planet are vast. The resources available to us out there in space are beyond imagination. There's no way in hell we could use up even the "realistically-accessible" resources in a mere four centuries, let alone all of it. These "scientists" are idiots on crack.

* * *

Speaking of face science, climatology: the models are rigged and Michael Mann was just more obvious about it than the others are.

But we knew that.

* * *

Environmentalist vandals, as usual, do more harm than good for whatever value of "good" their delusions allow.

Vandals bust into a pig farm to protest "mishaps" in the meat industry. The pig farm now must consider culling its herd because there's an epidemic raging and people need to be decontaminated before interacting with the animals. These people just barged in and brought the disease with them.

African swine fever, apparently.

* * *

Absent skin grafts, tattoos used to be permanent. I do not feel sorry for people who have to endure "expensive and painful" to undo the consequences of their actions. You chose to get the tattoo; you later chose to have the tattoo removed.

* * *

Linked because it outlines the shooting non-skills of most police officers. But after that bit it talks a little about the damage potential of various calibers, and generally speaking you want to use expanding ammunition rather than jacketed slugs for self-defense.

The human animal is incredibly robust. We've got thousands of years of warfare to thank for our physical resilience; an injury that would kill an animal will only slow down a person. But this also means that shooting someone with a pistol round using a jacketed slug will not stop him, at least not instantly.

TV makes it look like any wound is fatal, except when it's a good guy. Game of Thrones, for example: a "red shirt" gets stabbed through the gut with a sword, he falls down dead. Jaime Lannister gets stabbed in the stomach and in a kidney, and he's got enough left to climb twenty stories' worth of stairs. The latter is much more realistic than the former.

* * *

One bad chip and the car is pretty much junk. That's just lovely. And Tesla won't fix them, either.

* * *

Full of spoilers but yes, the penultimate ep of GoT was pretty dumb. Plus side, it looks as if Jon Snow finally figured out how to use light cavalry, and Dany Targaryen realized that if you attack from the direction that the ballistae aren't pointing at, you can roast them with impunity.

My wife has disliked Dany for quite a while. The turning of the character's personality may have been a little too slow and non-obvious for some people, but it was foreshadowed "which way her coin would fall". To me, this latest development seems logical.

Meanwhile, what, exactly, was Cersei's strategy? I'm still trying to figure that out. "Lannister bannermen" plus "sell-swords" plus "Iron Fleet in the harbor", sure--she had plenty of resources to stymie an attack--but Dany learned from her mistakes in the last engagement (that cost her one of her two remaining dragons). Cersei made the same mistake that the defenders at Winterfell did, by putting a host outside the stronghold; theoretically that group was protected from the dragon by the ballistae on the city walls, but that didn't work out very well. Cersei knew Dany would come to King's Landing; she should have had obstacles and barricades outside those walls.

Dany's use of speed--going up very high, attacking out of the sun, and flying too fast for the Iron Fleet to do anything effective--that was a good move. She was caught flying "low and slow" at the last engagement, so I can excuse that (though she should have immediately swooped around and attacked from the fleet's rear instead of trying a head-on attack, only to break off before entering ballista range).

Notice please that I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, here, and not just slapping them with "that was all so stupid"--but there are limits. All told, the military strategy employed in the latter third of this series has been pretty craptastic.

* * *

Other craptastic strategy: leftist women refusing to have sex until and unless unlimited abortion-on-demand becomes a reality. Alyssa Milano, who was never really all that great looking, said:
The 80s TV teen turned leftist Twitter twerp recently tweeted that "Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I'm calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on."
I'm kind of curious as to which "reproductive rights" are being "erased", here. As far as I can tell, there may be a few places where some new restrictions on abortions are being emplaced (such as the "heartbeat" law, which classifies a fetus with a heartbeat as a human being rather than "unwanted tissue" or whatever the euphemism they use these days), but in most jurisdictions it looks like the push is on to remove all restrictions on abortion.

The entire idea of "legal control over our own bodies" is laughable, anyway. A woman may not put crack or meth or heroin into her body. A woman may not sell her body (except for a few places, mostly in Nevada). Claiming that not allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy in its last month (or days) somehow violates a legal principle of "legal control" is ridiculous. At some point in the pregnancy, the matter stops being solely about a woman's "right to choose" and starts to be about the life of another human being. With abortions limited to first trimester the issue is murky; but with them allowed any damn time up until and including the moment of birth, somewhere along the line we must acknowledge that infanticide is taking place.

If you want to argue that a child which cannot survive outside the womb is "nonviable" and therefore not an individual, that's something which can be debated, and I think that the pro-abortion position can be pretty effectively argued, regardless of my own opinion on the matter. I used to think so myself, that if you absolutely had to allow abortion, then the turning point of viability was a good place to put the limit, and I used to support "a woman's right to choose" on that very basis.

At the same time, though, there nonetheless comes a point at which it is now a human being and the woman no longer has a choice in the matter. When you come down to it, she had several choices, places where she could have avoided the pregnancy, and at those junctures she chose actions that could lead to, or would continue, her pregnancy. The choice she makes, or her failure not to choose (or her choice to continue the pregnancy) at those points has a consequence that must, at some point, be borne.

First off, she had sex. You can choose not to have sex. (At least, most of the time. I acknowledge that some women are raped, and can be thus impregnated, but it is not the majority cause of pregnancy. This used to be one reason I supported the legality of abortion.)

Second, when you do have sex, there is a panoply of contraceptives which are available; most of them are inexpensive. A few are not, but those few are far outnumbered by the ones which are. The Pill is common, cheap, and effective (99% of the time) so a woman who does not wish to become pregnant can usually avoid pregnancy by simply taking a pill every day. If you have an iPhone that was made within the last three years, you can afford the Pill.

Third, gestation in humans takes nine months. Generally speaking, in the last trimester the baby is viable outside the womb, though it's much more likely the closer it gets to the full term. In the first three months, though, the baby definitely cannot survive outside the womb. There is plenty of time for a woman to decide whether or not she wants the baby during the first trimester or--at worst--during the second, though at that point the fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity and so forth.

The fact is that the Democrat party is now making this push for unrestricted abortion-as-contraception because it's what they've wanted all along and they think it'll get them votes. The barbarous horror of legalized infanticide, as embodied in the New York version of this, seems lost on them, but I doubt it will escape the "deplorables".

* * *

The continued push to normalize pedophilia and ephebophilia. Sex between teachers and students--in the past, we didn't need new laws to stop this; a teacher that got caught having a sexual relationship with a student would be ostracised and jailed. "Statutory rape" was enough to send a teacher to jail, but the hit to the teacher's reputation would seal the deal. The idea that a teacher would abuse his or her position of authority that way was considered reprehensible in and of itself.

But we no longer care about that, I suppose, since in our society you're apparently supposed to have sex all the time with whoever catches your fancy.

* * *

Sure, and let's just have judges pre-sign stacks of search warrants. After all, we don't want to inconvenience law enforcement, right? We don't want them to have to wait for business hours or anything; and further we don't want to make judges work on weekends or anything.

...for a long time I have been aware that any agency which proclaims itself to be a "family services" agency is in fact one step removed from being the Gestapo...and it is not a very large step.

* * *

If anyone starts quoting "The Second Coming", though, I'm going to kickban him. It is hard enough to see it happening; we don't need to refer to Yeats' old clunker to emphasize it.

I cannot refute his point no matter how I try. Used to be that you could carry a gun, or not, as suited you; today you must have permission from the government. Used to be you could open a business; today, you need a license. Ditto for just about every other avenue you'd care to explore.

Owning property? You need to pay a tax on it, else the government takes it away.

* * *

I talked about this a while ago. When talking about how cities in the American southwest must put up "asylum seekers" and noted that the article said some 75% of "went elsewhere", I said that was because these "asylum seekers" were migrating elsewhere into the country and never attending their asylum hearings. Having accomplished entry, and having a court date set, they're now essentially free to go wherever they want--and the only thing the police can do is to make note of the fact that Pedro is 1,200 miles away from where his asylum hearing is scheduled to take place--in two months.

* * *

The gang problem in Chicago will not be improving any time soon. Crime is a tool of the left. By emplacing measures like this, which encourage crime, they can claim that capitalism has failed and it's time for socialism.

Crime then goes down, but only because offenders are shot or sent to the gulag rather than released on their own recognizance.

Related: Leftists have all the privilege in the US. They can break the law with impunity.

* * *

Okay, now for the palate-cleansing fun stuff.

Firefly is long since over, anyway, so I don't care what they do with the IP going forward. I don't have to buy this shit, so if they want to make a super-feminist version of the series, they can go right ahead and do that. I have no dog in that hunt.

It's typical, though, and ludicrous; and it's going to be complete shit.

* * *

Please let this not be PvP-only. The big problem I have with the Classic WoW pirate servers is that too many of them are PvP-only, and if you're the kind of person who just wants to run quests and so forth, PvP is no fun. "Great, I need only one more MacGuffin Chunk to finish this quest and then--hey!!!" You get ganked by an enemy player who has ten levels on you, and then he (or his friends) camps your corpse and keep killing you until you give up in frustration and log out. "Fun."

* * *

These descriptions of ST:TNG and ST:DS9 are completely accurate.

* * *

"Are you telling us that the poles of our world are Bear Continent and Anti-Bear Continent"? Yes. That's exactly what he's telling us.

Circle with Bears and Circle Away From Bears. Wow.

* * *

I don't think it's demonic or devilish. Whatever is going on there, it doesn't hurt anyone or try to scare them away. But even so, I don't think I'll visit.

* * *

There is a point at which you are pushing it. This is well past that line.

* * *

No, really? I'm amazed and shocked you could say so. "Cosmology has some big problems," yeah, like asserting that 90% of the universe is made of something we can't see or touch.
The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.
The result of this is that much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and some of the theories that we use to patch this stuff together are certainly wrong.

* * *

I finally got to the end of the links! Holy crap.
Tags: #sexstrike
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments