Forum: Author Hangout

Again, this is assuming a childhood death rate of zero.

Yet, historically, with much higher death rates, the rate of childbirth were MUCH higher than once every five years, with the assumption that many of the children won't make it, while the other children can help with the child rearing, allowing the adults to spread their efforts.

Assuming that survivors would adopt 21st, mostly peaceful behaviors, is a bit ... unrealistic.

If a few have genetic issues, they generally wouldn't last long without advanced resources to keep them alive indefinitely.

the target would be the nearest star system - Proxima Centauri has to be many light years away so it has to be a very very long journey

At least a 40-year journey, each way, so it's assumed there will be NO return trip, and NO resupply ships either. In fact, we don't even have the technology to send messages back and forth, as radio or light waves would disburse long before arriving intact. Thus the initial 'colony' would have to be capable of existing on their own.

On the positive front, now that they're considering dwarf star planets, it turns out there are more nearby planets than they ever considered before. Unfortunately, since we can't discern much from those stars, or their nearby planets, we have little clue as to whether they'll support live or not.

Ten generation permanently housed in whatever plastic shielding they carry with them is not a life that anyone wants to consider, and they could only support a consistent population little more than the original crew size.

I can actually see it getting into the half-million people range really quick if you're trying to maintain current status-quo. Thing is, this is a number nobody knows for certain at present, and is a vexing problem for Space Colonization planning efforts in particular.

No one is ever going to suggest loading a half a million individuals on a single space ship and blasting them off to travel to the nearest star. We can hardly finance sending a couple to the space station without help from other nations intent on gaining the necessary technology for their missile programs. Even then, the rush to 'accomplish something' often leads to disaster (aka. the Chinese satellite which spun out of control and recently plunged back to the Earth).

Even if we only sealed 160, or even as few as 80, after 60 or 80 years in space, an extremely large number would either commit suicide, kill each other in fits of passion, or screw something up where everyone died. You'd need to factor in expected death rates to have a truly meaningful number, otherwise it's guaranteed to fail.

Agreed.

The idea of populating a world starting from 160 people is okay in theory assuming a controlled environment, but in practice it would fail when it encounters the real world.

The idea of populating a world starting from 160 people is okay in theory assuming a controlled environment, but in practice it would fail when it encounters the real world.

The brief summary didn't mention how much of a 'fudge factor' NASA included in their estimates. They must have assumed a certain failure rate due to accidents. Knowing how large it is would help establish just how realistic their estimates were.

They must have assumed a certain failure rate due to accidents.

That is an assumption.

I suspect that when they say the minimum, they mean minimum without a fudge factor.

If you assume only existing real world technology, the effort will fail no matter what you do, even for something as close as Mars.

The plan to establish a colony on Mars has always been a one-way mission, with no hope of those sent ever returning, and an extremely high level of doubt as to future resupply runs. Yet, people continue signing up, though whether that's to explore the unknown or escape their lives here is anyone's guess.

Yet, people continue signing up, though whether that's to explore the unknown or escape their lives here is anyone's guess.

I'd go. The chance to see something that no one else has ever seen, even with a certainty of dying somewhere far from home. Easy trade.

I recall reading in the Pournelle and Niven book 'Lucifer's Hammer', which amusingly enough was a post-apocalypse novel once the earth was hit with that comet, that some people were actually looking forward to the end of civilization. Why? People who crave a challenge, or were just sick of the ordinary day to day, or figured that a planetary reset button was the only way to get them out of the mess they were in.

At the same time, if certain technology can be maintained and kept - an operating nuclear reactor and the related shop equipment, for example - then doing a reset back to a planetary population of 250,000, or even a full 1,000,000 people, might not actually be a bad idea.

I think another point of discussion in this scenario is how many of US might at least consider this as a good thing. Or another way of phrasing this is ... did Valentine have a good idea in Kingsman, since it was man made? Would it have been acceptable if it had been a smaller comet causing the deaths?

first he has to get a dozen people there.

After the next stupid tax hike in California he may have 2 million volunteers.

After the next stupid tax hike in California

Don't forget the Republican tax bill that is supposed to be so good for the American tax payer.

I asked my tax preparer how it will affect my taxes next year. He said if the provisions were applied to this years filing, I would have had to pay an additional $850.

In the U.S. Navy, there is the expression "don't nuke it out." Which is a reference to their Nuclear Propulsion program and the tendency of its graduates to make things "needlessly complex."

I think the correct term you're looking for is "engineering applications" not technology. I think the technical capability has existed since at least the 1970's and the Skylab missions.

The needed tools for survival on Mars, or even deep space, already exist.

I think you're also referring to 'acceptable risk'. If we move into space - which is an unforgiving bitch - what level of risk are those people who live there willing to accept as just part and parcel of the normal life?

There's a certain risk inherent simply in getting out of bed. The ballpark figure I've seen is that about 50 million people drive at least at some point each and every day in the US. So that puts us at about 18 BILLION times behind the wheel each and every year, and with 5 million traffic accidents per year, you have about a 2.7% chance of being in a car wreck each year. With 35,000 fatalities, your chance of dying in a car crash, that's less than a 0.02% chance of dying.

Apparently we consider this acceptable, because we do it all the time.

In space, we need to decide if this is an acceptable risk level, and just move on, use the technology we have, and start going. Accept that people WILL die, just like they did in early aviation (and continue to do even today with plane crashes) and quit trying to reduce the risk to 0.

That said. Obviously, the technology that has been developed in the past 40 years since Skylab will be insanely helpful, and will likely improve safety margins by an order of magnitude, if not more.

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3. And you're telling me that we're going to use THAT technical expertise to build space stations that will last the next hundred years, even with normal repair and replace schedules.

As long as the operation is 'for profit', as it would be under Musk's control, the immediate aim are short term profits. Thus, if everyone on the Mar's mission dies the year after Musk dies, he's not going to give a bloody fuck. We only achieved what we did on the Apollo mission and with the shuttle/skylab missions is because we had the government funding necessary to build the quality equipment which stands the test of time. Even then, we've lost the vast majority of technological information from the various Apollo missions, simply because the old records couldn't withstand normal aging.

Contrast that with the advances we all accepted as 'a natural progression' in the Movie 2001, where we already had an established year-round base on the moon by then. People are betting at planning that which never becomes real, than they are at implementing things that actually get constructed.

Really? The typical smart phone, the epitome or current design expertise, are typically only used for 2 years. Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.

I hate to disagree with you, but technology that still functions will continue to be used until such time as it ceases to function. I have laptops over 10 years old. I used my original computer, a TRS-80 I bought in 1980, until 1998. Sure it was slow and didn't have all the fancy screens, but it still worked and ran programs I was familiar with. As for your smartphone example, I have been using mine for almost 5 years. Sure it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the newer models (which I can't afford) or run newer apps, but it still works and I will continue to use it.

My point is that people will use what is available, even if there is something newer. The old technology may not be the best, but it has a proven track record and, in many cases, does not require specialized training or equipment to maintain and repair.

I hate to disagree with you, but technology that still functions will continue to be used until such time as it ceases to function. I have laptops over 10 years old.

"Will use", yes. 'Designed to last'? Unlikely. Although Apple products, for one, tend to last much longer than PCs, they have a nasty habit of shutting down and crippling their smart phones when you don't upgrade at least every couple of years.

And it makes sense, from a financial point of view, so that approach will probably reign supreme, until the first utter disaster, resulting in the televised death of hundreds. That's the point that the government will step in and finally set up a few safety standards. If they encounter a couple of such disasters, it'll be their financiers, and not the government who'll shut them down.

Corporations only turn a profit when they're making money. But it's hard to make money when no one will support your product.

As far as mining asteroids, I'll believe it when I see it. It sounds good in theory, but so far, the one asteroid we attempted to examine close up, provided to be largely impenetrable (they couldn't even fire and iron spike into the surface to moor the satellite). That implies that many of those many satellites are composed largely of metals, and unless they have onboard blast furnaces, they'll have an incredibly hard (and expensive) time mining them.

Once again, Corporations are only interested in easy profits. When the costs go up, their interests drops substantially.

"Will use", yes. 'Designed to last'? Unlikely.

I never said anything about them being 'designed to last', I was refuting this statement. (My bolding for emphasis)

Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.

I said that technology that still works, no matter how old, can still be used even if something newer is available.

Although Apple products ... have a nasty habit of shutting down and crippling their smart phones when you don't upgrade...

Which is another reason why I don't own an iPhone. :)

B-52s designed in the 1950s and built prior to 1963 are still in active service, and are scheduled to continue in active service through the 2050s.

They're damned impressive watching them take off and do touch and go's, too. They're doing engine rebuilds on them here, so at any given time there's a BUFF or two on the ground being re-done or getting an electronics update. And since the north-south runway ends right at I-40, it's almost a scary thing to be driving along and all of a sudden see one about 200 feet off the ground coming in for a landing right over your head. Noisy as hell, too.

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, in case you were wondering. (And what's also fun is that my house is right in line with the OTHER runway. So an AWACS coming over at 300 feet is something I see and get to feel about every other day.)

Either you wear sophisticated ear-plugs or you are getting deaf.

What'd you say? I couldn't hear you.

If you meant, I'm GOING to get deaf, then, sure. But standard earmuffs for doing lawn work or my shooters muffs when I'm on the range (noise canceling) work fine for normal time.

I pity the guys in the test cells. They'll power up one of the engines doing a test and I can hear the roar and rumble in my house ... and I'm four miles straight line distance from where those are located.

But standard earmuffs for doing lawn work or my shooters muffs when I'm on the range (noise canceling) work fine for normal time.

That's hardly the case. While they work much of the time, I've known a LOT of vets, sports shooters and hunters who have all suffered hearing loss while wearing the standard noise cancelling equipment. I also know the military has fairly extensive claims of hearing loss from soldiers in the field, even though the VA is notoriously lax in providing coverage for such claims.

The protection works most of the time, but the few times it doesn't produce permanent damage, so I wouldn't count on 'modern technology' to protect you in all cases.

But, having spent much of my childhood by the Oceana Naval base in Virginia, I can attest to both the volume of repeated jet flybys, as well as the familiarity and affection many of us living in their crash zones hold for them. Just like the smell of skunks in the Northeast, must of us have fond memories of what others can hardly stand.

Just like the smell of skunks in the Northeast, must of us have fond memories of what others can hardly stand.

I just ran over a skunk last week on my way home from work. That did not bring back any fond memories. But ...

I can still recall being able to pull the pin on a CS grenade, drop it at my own feet, and just stand there while the grunts we were training were puking and crying from the smell. Even now just the faintest whiff of riot control gas DOES bring back fond memories.

Noisy as hell, too.

Man I miss that sound. I was stationed with the BUFFs in ND back in 83. Been around the Herc, Blackbird, F4, F111, and A10s as well, but none of them compared. What a sight to see.

The government won't give a shit about astronaut/colonist safety if they are driving to get there first for political reasons.

Not exactly. If a for-profit company faces severe public feedback, they pull back. But faced with widespread scandal, public anger usually forces government to act. Each of those disasters forced a slowdown, but they ultimately led to better safety programs. How many safety programs would Samsung invest in if everyone sues them for damages?

Whether it does something that actually fixes the original problem is a 50/50 proposition under the best of conditions.

That may be so, but virtually every single semi-successful public safety measure was the result of scandal, not careful planning by legislatures. If things don't fall apart, Congress will do nothing, and if scandal befalls a Corporation, they either ignore it, pay off the Congressional investigation, or simply close up shop, take all their profits, and skip town.

The point wasn't that government intervention is all rainbows and puppy-dog tails, rather that forced reforms often lead to more substantial changes than corporations will ever undertake on their own.

I don't trust government actions, but I also don't trust corporate greed as a power for good.

Those older than three are more likely to be so degraded (by software design) that no one CAN use them beyond 3.

Wonder what my iPhone 5 thinks about that? I've had it almost 6 years. And I've had customers come in with 4's.

Wonder what my iPhone 5 thinks about that? I've had it almost 6 years. And I've had customers come in with 4's.

Maybe so, but when the iPhone X came out, my iPhone 6+ started degrading, not even starting each time I put it down, and it got progressively worse over time. Now it serves as a paperweight in my desk drawer. The timing of that is certainly suspect, especially since the battery is fine, and wasn't subject to the recent 'slowdown' on that front.

Maybe so, but when the iPhone X came out, my iPhone 6+ started degrading, not even starting each time I put it down, and it got progressively worse over time. Now it serves as a paperweight in my desk drawer.

That may be related to this, even if our batteries are fine:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/technology/apple-iphone-slow-battery-lawsuit/index.html

To be fair, I though the figure was interesting, and only brought up the PA scenario to help get the conversation going, so there's no need to focus exclusively on PA scenarios. The brief article didn't have any suggestions for non-cherry picked candidates, and the variables would be wide I'm not even sure that anyone could give you a definitive answer.

The problem is, for most PA stories, there's little discussion of either repopulation or the minimun figure to keep the gene pool active (though I often bring it up in my stories).

The problem is, for most PA stories, there's little discussion of either repopulation or the minimun figure to keep the gene pool active

That is probably due to having no choice. Once the PA event occurs you only have those people around you who happened to survive.

Profit-oriented megacompanies will.
That's terrifying, but I take anything for the survival of the human race.

Which brings to mind Outland A forgettable (well, not quite) Sean Connery movie.

A forgettable

Heresy! I really enjoyed 'Outland'.

AJ

Isn't that an overestimate? Currently total volume of the asteroids is estimated at roughly 5% of Earth's volume. And it would be reasonable to expect about the same ratio of precious metals and rare earth metals as ended up on Earth as essentially all those rocks up there and those that went to make up Earth came from the same source. Still, it will still be worth a bunch of dinero and well worth commercial exploitation when we get around to it. Just not by a factor of a billion.

Case in point, Gold doesn't just 'appear', it's consolidated into solid physical form when techtonic forces (i.e. earthquakes) evaporates large amounts of water, leaving nothing but the rare hard-elements. That's why gold is almost always discovered in old stream beds or underground rivers.

Trying to find gold on an asteroid is a pointless exercise, because we can't currently provide enough physical force to extract enough to make the operation worthwhile.

It's the same with oil. You can't just go out and kill a couple more dinosaurs and get more oil. Instead it takes millions of years and tremendous natural forces before man can actually 'discover' anything. And everything he takes for his own profit, is something that future generations will never have access to.

99% of the gold in old (and current) stream beds is the result of water erosion of solid gold deposits at higher elevations near by.

Yes, but the gold was formed (into a solid state) deep underground in mountain streams which boiled away during earthquakes. You're relying on the common knowledge from the 20th Century, rather than the newer discoveries uncovered much more recently.

Citation required.

It'll take time to dig up, but I KNOW I read it in the New York Times Science section in the past few years. Unfortunately, unless you have specific keywords to search with (i.e. the correctly indexed keywords), it's often difficult finding the right article.

Update: Damn it. I know that the Times used to have a search box, but I can't for the life of me find one on the current page. Each time they add a new 'feature' to their site, they take away several more.

Ah, here they are, but not from the Times. The reports are dated from 2013:

Nature: Earthquakes make gold veins in an instant (a slight oversimplification, as it only accumulates over millions of years)
Live Science: Earthquakes Turn Water Into Gold
Smithsonian: Earthquakes are Basically Gold Factories
YouTube: Earthquakes Can Generate Gold From Water
ABC Science: Earthquakes Turn Water Into Gold
MINING:
io9:
New Scientist:

Is that enough? It's only based on a single search expression and generated a pile of Google pages full of links.

All the links are articles about a single study from two professors in Australia. The study is based on mathematical / computer models, not empirical research.

Empirical research? Like, digging up an entire mountain, to a depth of possible one or two miles underground, examining the underground streams and determining their mineral compositions, replacing the entire mountain the way it was previous before triggering a series of massive earthquakes spread over a million years and then digging up the same underground streams to examine the gold deposits?

The kind of research we're talking about can only be done on a purely theoretical basis, but that kind of research allows us to understand what we currently see and observe (i.e. direct empirical evidence) around us.

We've long observed that silver and gold reserves are often found in long, twisting, mostly horizontal form, but we never knew why? We also knew it was formed deep under ground, and only rise to the surface due to massive erosion over thousands of years.

This research helps explain the processes involved, explaining that the 'long gold and silver reserves' were once underground streams, and that repeated earthquakes converted the mostly pure water into solid form over eons, instead of naturally occurring in those positions during the formation of the Earth.

What part of the scientific process do you not get?

Is this definitive proof that this is the only process involved? Of course not. Does the evidence support the conclusions? Obviously, especially since no other proposal explains what we've long observed. But demanding 'empirical proof' is akin to demanding proof that, inside the core of the Earth dances little green leprechauns. There's just no way to prove that, short of dismantling the entire Earth, atom by atom. It's simply NEVER going to be possible!

It's the same with demanding proof every time someone makes an assertion on these forums. How is my providing a series of links any different than you doing a simple Google search? You aren't asking for the information simply because you're curious, or because I just happen to have the reference sitting around, waiting to hand it to you. No, you simply ask for "PROOF" as a way of shutting down a discussion you don't personally like.

It took me all of five minutes to find those links, yet once I did, did you seriously consider the implications? No, instead you look for the first objection you could spout to shut me the fuck up!

You keep spouting the need for evidence, but your history on the site argues that you have no interest at all in any kind of documentation, you only use those claims to shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum. It's a form of harrassment, pure and simple, and doesn't lead to a free exchange of ideas.

And you don't just do this for scientific claims you choose not to believe. You've done it every single time anyone makes a claim about writing, and which techniques work better than others (which, by definition, are virtually ALL anecdotal), but you essentially shut down ALL CONVERSATION just so no one will dare suggest that you don't know shit about how to compose stories, and have no desire to consider ANY new ideas.

SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!

You keep spouting the need for evidence, but your history on the site argues that you have no interest at all in any kind of documentation, you only use those claims to shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum.

CW, that is what it feels like to you, but it is not true. You have a history of making unsubstantiated comments in this Forum. When we ask you for the documentation on which you based your comment, you take offense and go off on a rant, like the one above, about others having "no interest at all in any kind of documentation". Our requests are not attempts to "shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum" (i.e. it's not an attempt to shut CW up).

We are interested in honest communication. You make an unsubstantiated comment and we ask for substantiation of your comments. That is part of the communication process. Instead of providing the substantiation, you destroy the communication process by going off on a rant because we are not willing to just accept what you say.

SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!

Now that is a Trump-like attempt to shut someone up.

All of us in this Forum have the right to express a differing opinion. We are interested in learning and chatting about different topics. It is just that we aren't going to just accept what you and others say without something to backup what is said. We are not that gullible.

It's the same with demanding proof every time someone makes an assertion on these forums.

Assertions made without adequate substantiation are assumptions. If you provided what you base your assertion on, we would not have to ask for substantiation. What you call "us demanding proof" is us asking for substantiation of your apparent assumption.

Yes you are right that we can go out and try to find articles on a subject. Some of what we find will contradict your assertions. We just want to know which of many possible articles you are basing your assertion on. We aren't mind readers and like you we have better things to do with our time than read a dozen or more articles to find one that substantiates what you say.


I read the Live Science article but not the others, so my following comments are based on that one article.

An example of why we don't want to just accept what you say is, you said -

Yes, but the gold was formed (into a solid state) deep underground in mountain streams which boiled away during earthquakes.

What the article said is the gold deposits were formed in faults, not streams. Streams is your interpretation of what the article said.

What part of the scientific process do you not get?

The kind of research we're talking about can only be done on a purely theoretical basis

The Scientific Process starts with a factual baseline. Then through observation and experimentation, facts are added to the baseline. Eventually, a new theory or factual understanding of the subject is formed.

Theory is not fact. It is an assumption that has some basis in fact, but it is not a proven fact. When you start out with an unsubstantiated theory (i.e. the article stated "scientists suspect") and make assumptions regarding that theory, the resulting so-called theory is actually an assumption.

allows us to understand what we currently see and observe (i.e. direct empirical evidence) around us.

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
• empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
• an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
• empirical laws
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

Sorry CW. Nothing has been seen or observed in this instance by us or the scientists. The article is about a bunch of guesses that the scientists are making.

Empirical research? Like, digging up an entire mountain, to a depth of possible one or two miles underground . . .

Yes, if that is what it takes to gather evidence for an empirical theory. Otherwise the theory is just an assumptions.

This research helps explain the processes involved,

The Oxford dictionaries say that research is the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

When you start with an assumption that there are gold deposits in what you believe are faults caused by earthquakes and then assume the gold deposits are there because the water boiled off, your resulting "theory" is not valid because you did not do the research on which you can base a new theory. If you read the article carefully, you will find that other scientists have alternative theories.

What I got out of the Live Science article is Weatherley explained how earthquakes create faults and carbon dioxide, water, silica, and gold can be found in these faults. Then due to extremely high temperatures, the water instantly vaporizes leaving behind what nature turns into gold bearing quartz. However, the article also said one of Weatherley's peers (see quote below) said scientists have suspicions regarding the link between gold deposits and faults, and Weatherley's theory takes the idea to the extreme.

The main thing about this article that creates a problem for me is - it contains words like suspected, could, and may:

While scientists have long suspected that sudden pressure drops could account for the link between giant gold deposits and ancient faults, the study takes this idea to the extreme, said Jamie Wilkinson, a geochemist at Imperial College London in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study.

this process may be the primary driver for the formation of economic gold deposits

explaining that the 'long gold and silver reserves' were once underground streams, and that repeated earthquakes converted the mostly pure water into solid form over eons

That is not what the article said. The article explains the theory, but it does not prove the theory is factual. You need to stop confusing an explanation and fact.

Does the evidence support the conclusions? Obviously, especially since no other proposal explains what we've long observed.

The article does not provide evidence of there being gold in a buried streambed (or fault). Assuming there is gold there, the article does not adequately explain how the gold came to be in the streambed (or fault). Just because you are not aware of a competing theory, doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, the article indicates that other scientists have competing theories.

But demanding 'empirical proof' is akin . . . It's simply NEVER going to be possible!

And that is the heart of the problem. If it is impossible to gain proof of a theory, then that theory is an unfounded assumption.

I haven't made it a secret in the Forum that Trump is at the bottom of my list of favorite people.

I believe it is highly inappropriate of Trump to use demeaning nicknames in his twitter posts in an attempt to undermine the credibility of those who disagree with his actions and statement.

The way I see it is, when Trump uses his presidency as a bully pit to discredit those who disagree with him, then he cannot or does not want to address the issue for he knows what others are saying about him is the truth or at least their comments contain a great deal of truth.

And, in this case, incorrectly so.

In which case? Are you referencing CW posting:

SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!

Keep in mind that in this and prior posts, CW appears to define that anyone disagreeing with him is not engaged in honest communication. [(ETA) He is also saying that posters who disagree with him are abusing other posters and that because we don't agree with him, we don't have a desire to learn. Frankly, I don't agree with a lot of what CW says, but I usually just let it go.]

or are you referring to:

And you don't just do this for scientific claims you choose not to believe. You've done it every single time anyone makes a claim about writing, and which techniques work better than others (which, by definition, are virtually ALL anecdotal), but you essentially shut down ALL CONVERSATION just so no one will dare suggest that you don't know shit about how to compose stories, and have no desire to consider ANY new ideas.

That is one of his commonly made statements about people who have opinions that differ from his. What he is actually saying is he has the right to defend his opinion to the death, but it is improper for people who have different opinions to defend what they believe. He is also saying that when we consider his new ideas and find them lacking, we don't have the right to disagree with him for our disagreeing will shutdown communication.

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.

Your post isn't clear. It sounds like you are referencing the above. If so, it is difficult for me to comprehend why you would say something and then say it's not true.

I would disagree with the part about leftists imposing censorship. The last time I checked disagreeing with someone wasn't censorship. It was free speech.

I personally question everything politicians and media outlets (left and right) say. They all misrepresent the truth to the degree that none of us can be sure what is actually true.

I agree. That action is also considered rude.

To bad they don't teach classes in manners and consideration of other people's rights in Public Schools and Universities. Following good manners and considering other people's rights would prevent a large portion of the problems present in our society.

As so many people seem to be allowing themselves to be willfully ignorant of what they're actually doing.

Their attitude is the end justifies the means. The Nazis used that approach and when they lost, they had to pay the price. The same thing is likely to happen with your SJWs.

When you use "SJW's," I don't have a clue who you're talking about

SJWs are the authoritarian, identity driven, racist leftists proliferating in western societies now, being produced by the extreme leftist academia. Third wave feminists are among them, Antifa too.

They are hardcore leftists, practically communist. They are basically working hard to end Western civilization as we know it. They are anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-men and anti fairness. They work for equity in society (equality of outcome), they abhor meritocracy and divide/group people by their skin colour and their sex/gender. They proclaim to be anti-racist and yet they emphasize skin colour.

you missed their absolute intolerance to any other views than their own

Yes, I missed mentioning that point.

They are the most intolerant people that I've ever had the unpleasure of meeting in the west. They remind me of the < sarcasm>religion of peace< /sarcasm> where I came from.

It's telling that they have Antifa, which behaves exactly like the brownshirts.

Antifa? Brownshirts? What are those?

Antifa (or Anti Fascists) are an unofficial political group in the U.S. You see them around when there are protests against free speech and against conservatives on college campuses across the US. They dress up in black and they cover their faces. I'm not sure if they're going for irony with their name as they behave very much like fascists. They engage in violence and rioting when they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

The Browshirts or 'The Sturmabteilung' were the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

They are hardcore leftists, practically communist. They are basically working hard to end Western civilization as we know it. They are anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-men and anti fairness. They work for equity in society (equality of outcome), they abhor meritocracy and divide/group people by their skin colour and their sex/gender. They proclaim to be anti-racist and yet they emphasize skin colour.

You forgot that they claim to support LGBTQLBFB ideals while at the same time wanting to see the country allow Muslims to take over things ... which would put an end to absolutely EVERYTHING they claim to support.

Phrasing it another way - freedom of speech and the freedom to refuse service is perfectly okay if you're on their side of things, but if you happen to be a white, Christian, male or business owner, why then to them, you have no rights.

That may also be why we don't see too many of them here in Oklahoma.

Do you have frequent and prolonged contact including conversations with college-aged/college-attending youth?

If not, then you won't.

formal SJW organization

I thought that was called the Democratic National Committee.

I think another example of the whole SJW thing is that in 2015, a police officer (in uniform) went into a Starbucks and asked to use the restroom. Since he hadn't purchased anything, the barista told him no, and yelled it out to the entire dining room that the bathroom was for paying customers only. Minor social kerfuffle, Starbucks issues an apology but does say it's their policy, and the issue is done. Two black guys come in, ask to use the restroom, they're simply asked to leave as per policy, they refuse to do so, police are called and suddenly Starbucks has to close for a day to train for sensitivity to how they treat black people ... but not police officers.

I'd say that they have a double standard, except it appears they only have one standard, which is to support liberal causes. Note that BOTH incidents happened in Philadelphia - the 'City of Brotherly Love'.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150916_Starbucks_apologizes_to_cop_over_restroom_incident.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-chief-officers-did-nothing-wrong-arrest-black-men-starbucks-n866061

You need to look into what is happening on Public University campuses these days.

Randa Jarrar does have the freedom of speech to state her opinion about Barbara Bush. She does NOT have the freedom of speech to give out a crisis center hotline as if it were her own phone number and should be fired for that.

And if you're wondering about who Randa Jarrar is ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/18/fresno-state-says-barbara-bush-bashing-professor-can-be-fired-despite-tenure.html

I've read your post multiple times. Reading it again isn't going to help.

That is the problem with writing. The meaning of what someone writes is perfectly clear to the writer. However, the meaning can be ambiguous to the reader. That is the case for me regarding the following portion of your post.

In fact, the only ones that I see attempting to impose censorship right now are leftists. So accusing Trump of doing so, or trying to do so, is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. And, in this case, incorrectly so.

The phrase "in this case" is totally ambiguous to me as a reader for I can't determine what case you are referring to:

1) Are you referring to the two sentences preceding "And, in this case, incorrectly so"?

2) Are you referring to the preceding paragraph in the same post?

3) Are you referring to something in one of my prior posts?

Then there is the cryptic "incorrectly so". Depending on what you are referring to, you didn't state why whatever you are referencing is incorrect.

I'm dropping the matter. The only reason for this post is to make you aware that one of the things we strive for in this Forum is clarity in what we write. The fact that I said your statement wasn't clear to me and your response of it being clear to you without clarifying your meaning shows me that you fail to accept that your communication was not clear to all of your readers. That may not be important to you, but it is to an author.

Uh, except Trump would love nothing more than to censor his critics.

I think there are a lot of people who would like to censor their critics, including some writers.

He does seem to have enough of a clue to not try doing so, however.

So he doesn't censor them.

So he rants at them instead, often via twitter.

This is called freedom of speech.

And, hopefully, better than employing five-year-olds in Sudan to mine Cobalt so millennial snowflakes can delude themselves that their electric cars are saving the planet :(

AJ

Our rare earth metals are not found in great quantities at easily exploitable locations.

If you research rare earths you will find they are not rare. Most are readily available and the refining costs are what makes them expensive. They are called rare earths because they were believed to be rare when they were first discovered.

Following an apocalyptic nuclear war, the only thing left on earth was a tree with two monkeys sitting it it. The one monkey looks at the other and said:

Not monkeys. The only things left would be the tiny rodents deep underground. However, once they survive—essentially started the evolutionary process all over again—the rate of mutations would skyrocket, thus the rate of recovery (as each species adapts to their current environment) improves.

Monkeys only came about when they needed to swing from trees, not when the world needed intelligence. And in terms of that, for every dog (intelligent social animals), you also have cats.

Because, the mere fact of his being there was so offensive to the SJWs that they couldn't just avoid any panels that he was on, that wasn't sufficient to them, they had to plan confrontations.

SJWs are all about spreading their ideology. They even believe or at least pretend to believe that words are actual violence. So they can't allow words they disapprove of spread. So at most risks are authors because authors spread ideas and if those ideas happen to be against the SJW marxist narrative, then they can't be allowed nor tolerated and must be stifled at all cost.

It's the main reason that SJWs are so opposed to freedom of speech. They don't want you to speak, they will never debate you and never have any type of discourse. They shut you down whenever they can.

And there is no doubt that if they ever achieve political power, a similar reign of terror will be imposed.

I thought their political power was the Democrat Party?

As for a reign of terror ... yeah, it's possible, I suppose, but that would mean they'd have to have some means of backing that up. And since to back that up, they'd also need at least some willingness to actually stand up and fight for what they believe in ... that's something that seems to be lacking in them.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen them cause plenty of violence in their protests. It's just that violence was against objects or defenseless people - burning police cars or beating up old men. Any time that it's been anything close to nearly decent odds - 20 SJW's against 4 grown men, for example - the SJW's get their asses kicked.

The Radical Left sees the Right doing this in regard to taxation and it's impact on social services; they fail to recognize that they have been doing the exact same thing themselves, with their imposition of social engineering by legislation.

I suspect that this is due to the history of the Democrat Party itself, and how long ago it actually went that way. Otherwise Reagan wouldn't have made that comment back in 1962 that he didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left him. And that's also why so many Southern states, which were tremendous Democrat strongholds in the past, have become Republican states. The ideals of the voters haven't really changed, but the party itself has become radicalized.

In the UK, we've come to realise that a two-party system requires a strong opposition party, or a lot of very poor quality legislation gets passed :(

AJ

The most recent bad example is a convention that extended an invitation to John Ringo to be a guest, and then, as a result of the violent threats made towards him, determined that it just wouldn't be safe for him to attend, and thus they withdrew the invitation.

I'm surprised Ringo didn't show up anyway, with Michael Z. Williamson providing security. Ringo would have been safe. The SJW's would have pissed their pants and left. (Have you seen some of Mike blades? I was fortunate enough, when I lived in Indiana, to visit with him once. DAMN!)

Follow up question: After nuclear war, how long before one can come out of hiding?

It's probably not the answer you were looking for, but the real answer is - it depends.

An airburst (which is when the direct fireball doesn't actually touch the ground, so detonation is anywhere from 500 meters to 1,000 meters ABOVE the ground) will destroy ground structures and cause a lot damage, kill a lot of people, but not leave that much radiation to actually have to decay before you can start to rebuild. There will be elevated levels for a long time, but honestly, nothing that can't be tolerated or accepted.

A groundburst (where the fireball DOES touch the ground - so detonation anywhere from ground level to 500 meters) is a different story. At that point, you're probably leaving a glowing crater in the ground that will kill you for a long time. AND you're also going to see a lot of debris that is now radioactive in the atmosphere and spread around, so you'll end up with areas that will be uninhabitable for anywhere from 20 years (for the simple, rapid half life decay products) to 20,000 or more years (for the really nasty stuff).

Where it gets bad is that there's not that much from a volume perspective of the nasty stuff, and so long as you're not getting much gamma from it, the alpha and beta really aren't going to do much if you're not too close. So if you had a marble sized piece of debris that was 'hot', if you stayed 10 feet away from it, you'd probably be fine, all things considered.

Now - you go for the whole 'War Games' scenario, with global thermonuclear war, and realistically, then when you come out of hiding is a moot point. When your shelter runs out of supplies and you're forced out is when you come out - there will certainly be pockets and areas that are still quite habitable (relatively speaking, many of them aren't), but we're talking wilderness areas - Amazon rain forest, Rocky Mountains, parts of the Great Plains, large chunks of Africa away from population centers, large chunks of Russia away from population centers, the Australian outback.

I sometimes wish I didn't know this stuff. It's what I did when I was in the military. And what's more fun is my direct knowledge items are from 30 years ago. Think there may have been some tech improvements since then?

That's backwards. The shorter the half life, the more radiation it puts out in the short term. It's the stuff with the shortest half life that's the nastiest.

It's the nastiest for a brief (in the whole scheme of things) period, though. Say you have 1 pound of material that has a half life of 5 years. In 5 years, you'll have 8 ounces of material A left, and 8 ounces of whatever isotope it decays into. Say that isotope has a half life of 2.5 years. So at year 7.5, you'll have 6 ounces of material A, 6 ounces of isotope B (because 2 ounces of material A have become B in that time) and 4 ounces of isotope C - which depending upon how nasty it was, probably only has a half life of a few days before decaying away.

Year 10 you're at 4 ounces of A, year 15 you're at 2, year 20 you're at 1. That's what I was getting at - the stuff with short half life is nasty when it's active.

Where it gets fun is the stuff with longer half lives that decays and puts out the stuff with short half lives. That's part of what makes radon gas fun - it's a decay product with a short half life - less than 4 days.

(Oh, yeah, did I mention that I used to do radon gas mitigation back in Indiana?)

a half life over 1M years might as well not be radio active at all, because it is no hazard at all or the effect is barely measurable.

The original element isn't (technically) that harmful. U-238 has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. It's next three decay products have half lives measured in days or minutes. Since the U-238 is going to continually decay, it's always putting off short term dangerous stuff. Then it becomes somewhat stable for a quarter million years, then a few thousand, then a few days, minutes and seconds.

how long would John Connor have been in hiding, before he could come out of Crystal peak and start organizing shit against Skynet?

With a functioning radio network, technically never. At the end of T3, he was already using the radio network available to rally and organize survivors.

On top of that, if I recall correctly, the fight between the two terminators outside the underground bunker either messed up or buried the blast doors leading into the bunker.

Emergency exit. Even if it's a nightmare to get to - CO2 scrubbers will only work for so long, then you have to get fresh air in. What you typically do is make something like that such that it simply CANNOT be opened from the outside - it may not even be visible or detectable from the outside.

Not saying that they may not have been down there for a few years before exiting, though.