Darth Fluffy

Deer seem to have calendar technology, they disappear during hunting season. Does wildlife avoid railroad tracks? Rails have been around a good hundred years or more longer than highways. Honestly, the drivers do not learn much faster. A collision with a deer is usually expensive, even a smallish mammal can mess up your suspension and steering. It generally takes some hits and some expense before drivers learn to respect the potential presence of wildlife at night.

I drove across Kansas many years ago; it was flat farmland. I drove across a couple of years ago, and there were hundreds of huge wind turbines. They were definitely not a picturesque as old time windmills. Huge, looming objects, hard to get a handle on how large, too large to get a good sense of comparison. They were rotating slowly, and I'd imagine even with that, the tips were moving at high velocity. I saw a parked set of railroad cars with some replacement blades; a single blade spanned a bit less than two railroad cars long. I'd estimate that the diameter of the spinning blades was roughly one hundred feet, so something like thirty meters. If I had to rate these for visual appeal, the fair comparison would be vs nuclear plant with it's cooling towers, fossil plant with smoke plumes, a solar farm, and a hydroelectric plant. Hands down, the smoke plumes are the worst. I've lived in a steel mill town pre-environmental concerns, and intense industrial smoke will forever bring back bad memories. The cooling towers look worse, but it's easy to remember that's steam, not smoke. I'm not sure if you mean the turbine merely bother the bird, but they do kill birds, just like highways kill other wildlife. Said wildlife does not appear to be getting much smarter about highways, maybe it's too soon. I suppose birds will have similar issues. With the low rotational speeds and massive architecture, there must be some incredible infrasonics going on. I wonder what effect that has.

It would not be cheap, nor would it be a long term solution, but it would prevent people from getting sick now. If cost is a factor, they should not have been so penny wise, pound foolish to begin with. Once there is a club, everyone wants to join. Any particular reason? Plenty of smaller countries have considerable arid land that could do this as well. I thought so over thirty years ago, yet it keeps improving. I suppose it's got to hit a wall eventually. I'm not sure that article is germane. (Very nice article, by the way.) That relates to the lithium content of a star, which is not available either way. A similar point, lithium burning is one of the easiest (lowest temperature) forms of fusion, so it tends to get consumed. Wind still has much potential to be further exploited. Hydro has been pretty well tapped out; it's an older technology, so has had time to be more or less fully exploited. New hydro comes at the expense of sacrifices of land. Maintaining existing hydro infrastructure is on the other hand, something that needs some attention. Solar had much additional potential, but there are limitations. If I recall correctly, the panels have key ingredients that may be a bottleneck. There is a lot of available energy in geothermal, but the water becomes very corrosive. Geothermal is still in its technical infancy. I suspect cost cripples it. It would actually be useful to siphon off energy from geothermally active sites, to mitigate future eruptions. Space based power would be nice, and I agree, politically difficult. If we're going to reduce the use of fossil fuels, that leaves nuclear to take up the slack.

That is true, although there are nations that have nuclear power that are not currently known publicly to have nuclear weapons. Lol, that's almost self-referent. It could at least be said recursively. Yes, the politics of the situation is quite dirty. On the plus side, it appears some of the officials will be held accountable. Fair point. Solar is amazingly viable, beyond what I would have thought possible even five years ago, but it helps if you have vast tracts of unused desert, like the US, Russia, China, and Canada. Not so sure it would do much for Europe. Battery technology is essential, but has also made great leaps with the advent of viable electric cars. It is also helpful that most individuals peak usage occurs during the daytime, but if you are using electricity directly for heat, that will shift the peak to the night. In the US, electric heat is tremedously expensive relative to fossil fuel alternatives, but it is desirable from a carbon footprint reduction standpoint. There are alternate nuclear energy paradigms that promise to be a great deal safer than conventional nuclear plant designs. As I understand it, in the US many of these are not viable because of archaic safety rules; for instance cooling specifications that don't apply. There may be other ulterior motives blocking them. Thorium based power plants have several advantages, one of which is that the byproduct does not lend itself to weaponization.

Well, sure, but how exactly is that particularly helpful? If you were starving and I threw you one soda cracker, how grateful would you be? Actually one of the disappointing aspects of this is why the hell isn't the governor having the National Guard (state militia) process water for Flint? That is something they can do. Well, I kind of agree with you, but the track record is not great. In the relatively short lifetime of nuclear energy, there have been three major breakdowns that I recall, only one of which was contained. That's in spite of best efforts to keep it safe. And the waste is kind of horrific, it is not easily gotten rid of. It needs to be contained roughly indefinitely, well beyond the lifespan of any culture of record. If the container fails, the radioactive waste gets into the environment, notably the water table. Whats sad is that there are ways to use at least much of this waste. It should be pursued if even just to mitigate the disposal issues.

I kinda like the new character.

Yes. I am saying that during a multi-years long crisis in which the water supply leads to various health hazards, long term complications, and even death, not to mention smells and looks bad, even the poorest people are sufficiently motivated to buy up the available supply, to the point where "bottled water for sale in Flint" is not a thing. People do truck some in form elsewhere, and lord knows how many folks have by now set up their own makeshift water treatment plants in their homes. Worldwide, unsafe water still kills vast numbers; our aggregate carelessness is likely to allow such to remain a problem.

If you want to get technical, unfortunately, many start before birth. If only. Flint is a community of over 100,000 people. Imagine your town's entire water supply being toxic for the past five years. That's a lot of bottled water. Many Good Sams have taken to trucking water in, but can't keep up. The remediation is supposed to wrap up this summer, 2020; that's for the plumbing, not for the human damage already done. The entire story is full of more political bullshit than you can imagine. One of the worst points is this was in part precipitated to save $140.00 per year. You read that right. I've never watched the alleged demonstration of dissolving a tooth in Coke, but I imagine it would work. Honestly, I don't quite get this one. Granted, the horse knows it's way home, but they aren't exactly the safest mode of transport ever devised. I personally known people who have gotten thrown by horses, and look at Christopher Reeves. The wife of a friend of mine had something similar happen. I can't imagine being inebriated and riding a horse is a good combination. Unfortunately, it is a good age for soldiers. You have a large pool of relatively unskilled personnel needing jobs to enter the workforce, who incidentally have an inflated sense of their own immortality, and are used to have someone else direct their lives. Or you can take a somewhat older crowd, who are already an integral part of the economy, more likely than not to be starting families, and have a fair sense of independence. Hmm, which to choose, which to choose, ... Yes, the irony of being arrested for underage drinking by a fellow soldier who is himself underage and will be attempting to do the same in a few hours ...

... and their more likely to hit what they are aiming at.

When you put it in that context, it actually makes sense to restrict it. Do you really want inebriated 18/19 Y.O.s carrying arms? Of course, in our case, it would make more sense to restrict congress and the Presidential staff. But what are you going to do?

Fair point, although the end result will be similar. I believe it is lower in a good portion of the world. Mexico is (or was) early teens, as one of my kids figured out during a trip. Many places have a "You can't take alcohol out of the bar" law. He also discovered that. I find the mental image of the doctor delivering the newborn handing him or her a shot disturbing. Oh, it's still a thing. Visit Flint, Michigan, if you doubt it. Sure, substituting sugar as the toxic substance can work. So far, horses are smarter than cars. Not true in the US of A. You can fight and die for your country three years before you can drink. When I was young, it was on a state by state basis, and we used to go to New Jersey to get alcohol. Now, I believe it is a federal mandate. Unlike pot, it's actually honored. I had this in mind, too. I would not vouch that even then, such an individual was sufficiently mature, but family and community had more influence to prop them up that the do in my neck of the woods today. OTOH, I can also vouch that "young adults" fresh out of school and serving in the military are generally still far from mature.

She is pursuing spirits, she's going to a pub. I assume that even though she's barly a young adult in the main comic, in the context of the game she's clearly a young adult. There was not question, "I wonder if a pub will serve me." Also, it seems like she's been a monk for a while.

I'm sure the drinking will help with that: Bottle in front of me <==> Frontal Lobotomy

About d@mn time she got an edumacation, amirite?

I love this quote. It is so to the point. Regrettably, people are often not so mature as to say what they mean.

Possibly also because she's being drained by some unknown effect related to the doorknob. It's a doorknob of gratuitous nudity! Put bags over the childrens' heads!

I've been to a funeral at one, and saw a concert at something similar. They had a good sense of community. I've also visited a humanitarian "church" of sorts; basically an atheist church. They held their gathering on Sunday, and did non-church things in a church style; speaker where a sermon would go, piano music with songs that made sense in context, like "Imagine". I enjoyed it, I've been twice, I knew some of the folks from elsewhere, and I thought it was weird as hell that they bothered. Oh, they also identified as "non-militant atheists" and mentioned that there were other groups like them, but that were more hard core. My goal is a group of believers that I can have an intelligent conversation with, but are also not toxic. I haven't found it yet. I like the neat boxes you describe, but I don't think it's that simple. If you listen to public atheist talking heads, most will at various points say that if they saw evidence, they would change their opinion. There are exceptions like Dawkins, who won't admit the possibility of a deity because he views the topic as toxic, but he's also a reasonable man; I suspect that faced with evidence, he'd be no different. The agnostics I've talked to seem to embrace an apathy toward the topic, a desire to distance themselves; so a bit more than just stating uncertainty. While I don't embrace this myself, it frankly makes sense that someone would want to. Regarding evidence, there is a conundrum that seems insurmountable. Any such evidence has to be repeatable, or it is not going to convince very many, and by its nature, it won't be repeatable. As Herod says in Jesus Christ, Superstar, "Walk across my swimming pool." Lacking such, all you have is hearsay, stage tricks, questionable photos or videos. Generally, evidence is highly interpretive, and is never as cut and dried as it is portrayed in a text book. This adds another layer of complexity. X proved Y? Yeah, we're not gonna talk about the twenty years of debate that took place. Dueling Tubas Weird Al's polka medleys; Polka Your Eyes Out, Polka Face, ... His earlier stuff is more distinctively him. I don't think that's ever been true. There's always an entitled, elitist faction. "It's not a zero sum game" depends on how enlightened or stupid we choose to be; how far we set our horizons. Hillary had issues. Few people trusted her. I think the private email server showed a critical lack of judgement, and there was no correct response; but admitting it and moving on would have at least been damage control. She let the issue fester. There are good woman candidates this go-round, but I think it won't matter; Trump is too embedded.

To find out the question. With luck, before the Vogons arrive.

How do you know they're not?

That was a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference.

No doubt the mice have her running a psychological experiment on you.

My ex did that when she ran off with her Internet boyfriend. Me and my daughter inherited three cats she abandoned.

Lolz or QQ ... (caveat, political cartoon)

Yes, I'd imagine quite a bit. While video tape was available from near the infancy of public broadcast, film was more widely used if the broadcast was recorded at all. Video tapes were often reused by the studios and stations, so original content was slot. Reruns of I Live Lucy and The Honeymooners were common when I was a kid, so I guess they were on film; also cartoons. Sgt. Bilko/You'll Never Get Rich never seems to see the light of day, so I suspect films were lost or damaged, or there were rights issues. Ernie Kovaks is considered to be foundational in modern video comedy, but you'll find precious little of his shows preserves. Viewers did not record shows. Video tape was not available as a consumer item until the mid seventies. Film was available to consumers in an 8mm format, and it was crappy. Taping just the audio would have been doable. So, just did a search, Phil Silvers Sgt. Bilko is on You Tube. I'll have to watch some. There is some Ernie Kovaks, not a lot. What's Nice Kid Like You Doing in a Place Like This, they have the title song, the credits, and one other song. Leave it to Beaver, quite a bit; Dobie Gillis, quite a bit; The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, check; the animated Pogo special, yes, and one I didn't know about; Claymation Christmas Special, check; The Adventures of Mark Twain Claymation, check; Dennis the Menace TV show, looks like they have some episodes; George Burns and Gracie Allen, check. You make a good point, I'm not finding much that You Tube doesn't have.

I am sort of assuming that is a rhetorcal question, but in case it isn't I'll answer it anyway. In the days when broadcast TV was the only form of TV, up to the 1990s, a typical station would shut down for the night at say 1:00 or 2:00 AM, it varied, and come on again in the morning. That's when all the stuff referenced above, national anthem et al, happened, at shut down. I think the generic prayer was a preamble to returning to the air. In the dead time in between, the stations would broadcast a static image, a test pattern, along with a single audio tone, all oriented toward calibrating the equipment, hence test pattern. Here is the wiki article on test patterns, the ubiquitous B&W Indian, now called Native American, and a further article on the color bars test pattern. I recall seeing the classic test pattern years after color was common, but it might have been just a station of two. I vaguely recall them being replaced by color patterns, but the station that carried Johnny Carson must have used a hybrid with the Indian, or I'm misremembering. As the one article states, in the 90's, stations moved to 24/7 broadcast. A key point is that in the earliest days of TV, the tube based receivers were unstable enough that having a means of adjusting the set was particularly useful. By the solid state era, not so much, and today, it would be almost pointless. Broadcast is still a thing, in the US, though not popular. I see ads for small urban antennas occasionally but large TV antennas on houses (like these) used to be ubiquitous as well. TVs used to come with built-in rabbit ear antennas, from about the 60s to the end of the CRT era. In our area, we picked up Philly broadcast in VHF, three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, and with a rotor (or a second antenna) we could get NYC. The network shows were the same, but there was a lot of local filler content. There was a local news and a network news; kids shows were local or syndicated, purchased from another local broadcaster. Most folks did not bother with picking up NYC, because the content was similar enough, and Philly covered news in our area, such as school sports scores, and NYC ignored us. UHF was introduced in the 60s; a very few additional stations were available, and typically. By the 1970s, we had an independent station from Philly, and a local PBS; I think one was VHF and one was UHF. Cable was only being introduced in the 60s in urban areas. Cable basically bundled all of the channels with its own channel schedule, so you could get them all on a standard VHF TV, with no antenna and a strong signal. Few people bothered, initially, it competed with free TV and added little. Initially, cable companies were small and local, unencrypted, and did not add content. Optical fiber was not yet a thing. Lasers were in their infancy, so no off the shelf optical communications components.