search results matching tag: Oysters

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (37)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (5)     Comments (106)   

The $5BN Mega Resort in the Desert

newtboy says...

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

The Oldest Fast Food Restaurant in the East End

Buttle says...

Looks delicious. Eels are one of those foods like oysters, that used to be dirt cheap but, due to overfishing and pollution, are pretty expensive now.

Wave tank demo showing impact of coastal defenses

Wave tank demo showing impact of coastal defenses

Wave tank demo showing impact of coastal defenses

worthwords says...

seems logical. I was thinking with my stomach. I suppose edibility of oysters would depend on how clean the sea is at that point.

WKB said:

I'm guessing it's because over time the oysters will fill up those nooks and crannies between the rocks that are absorbing the energy. Eventually this may turn the complicated maze of directions the water can flow into something that performs more like the stepped gradient.

Wave tank demo showing impact of coastal defenses

WKB says...

I'm guessing it's because over time the oysters will fill up those nooks and crannies between the rocks that are absorbing the energy. Eventually this may turn the complicated maze of directions the water can flow into something that performs more like the stepped gradient.

worthwords said:

how is oyster growth a disadvantage ?

Wave tank demo showing impact of coastal defenses

newtboy (Member Profile)

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

newtboy says...

As I've said, it's contradictory.

Jesus's death was hardly the end....there have been innumerable accomplishments since then, so in my mind it can only mean the final apocalypse.

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death. That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find, that's pure conjecture and impious wishful thinking on the part of all those self labeled Christians, no?

If you were correct about that interpretation, ALL the old testament is moot and none of the laws/rules are still in effect, no? But no Christian worships that way that I know of....certainly not the WBC types. It's kind of all or nothing, and it's simply not practiced that way. If God hates fags, he also hates oyster eaters and poly blend wearers just the same, no?

bcglorf said:

That hardly seems the most straight forward reading though as it seems at odds with later advocating love your enemy and all, no?

One of the things that both protestants and catholics have almost always agreed upon was that the line about "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" is that everything WAS accomplished, at the latest, with Jesus death. That's the wiki that came up first quickly summarized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

I'll not object to vehemently disagreeing with the interpretation, but can you at least acknowledge that centuries of 'christians' under a multitude of different sects have held pretty consistently on the notion that the old testament kill all unbelievers was CONTRARY to Jesus teachings and direction for his would be followers. That doesn't negate plenty of people right up until today(westboro) who still do want to take your more bloody interpretation instead.

Why are Cashews Not Sold to Consumers in Their Shells?

JustSaying says...

First, to be clear, the T 800 ballsack isn't artificial. It is 100% real human tissue with sweat glands and hair. Unless T 800 have manscaping capabilities. Not sure about their programming concerning this. However, an argument could be made that the sack comes without marbles. I'm not clear to what extent interior organs are required and provided for insuring appropriate operation conditions. I'd have to refer you to the documentation.
Second, why in drag? Is that a certain preference you have or just a necessity to maintain the required amount of eroticism of your fantasy? While I have to inform you I'm a cis hetero male, I do not feel threatened by ideas of genderqueerness or homosexual actions. Feel free to fantasize about me and Arnold Schwarzenegger to your heart's content. The mind is free to make imaginary world's your oyster.
“The mind is endless. You put me in a dark solitary cell, and to you that's the end, to me it's the beginning, it's the universe in there, there's a world in there, and I'm free.”
Charles Manson

poolcleaner said:

k, see you post comments like that around the sift and now I can't stop fantasizing about Freddy Krueger in drag licking a T-800's artificial ballsack. Do you think a T-800 produces sperm?

Mekanikal (Member Profile)

PlayhousePals says...

Late to the party [and I try to be so prompt!]. Well done on the silver bling ... Ruby was my favorite. Onward and upward Mekanikal ... the Sift is your oyster [whatever THAT means]

Safe and Sorry – Terrorism & Mass Surveillance

poolcleaner says...

Yeah, i dont trust a single fuck with a badge or a gun or both and a uniform. That wasnt always so. At one time i was a pretty lame introverted nerd with the world as my oyster. Listening to Rage Against the Machine made me concerned, because it was too extreme. And then the iron fist of law enforcement thought theyd fuck with me and make me suffer for what was not my burden. And then it just gets worse and worse, a downward spiral of constant legal battles, jail time, mental illness, etc. etc. etc. Its all the same to me, govt, law enforcement, human resource representatives, executives, redcoats. Oppression creates terrorism. Always.

During the Philippine-American war, the events which lead up to our own soldiers commiting acts of genocide started with our disregard of the indigenous people, oppression, and penchant for disrespecting local men and harassing their women; as well, our ignorant and well documented philosophies of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. The family of the abused rise up and attack their oppressors. Terrorism will always be so as long as the mighty refuse to respect all ways of life and seek instead to instill their systems of government and create puppet governments whoch fail, destablizing entire regions.

Because now the game is bigger. You dont simply destablize a region: when you oppress people, you destabilize an entire zeitgeist, affecting far more people than ever before. People in America rise up to join forces that provide promises of liberty that America no longer offers. Even if those terror groups themselves lie, the broken people see it as a hope. The oppressed will crawl out of the woodwork and kill. There is no precise pattern when frank castles of the world do their deeds. Its just like the 4000 deaths per year from semitrucks, the trucking industry says 70% (debatable, likely a lower number) of accidents are caused by noncommercial vehicles. Impatient people weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off truck drivers oppresses them and sometimes even they to rise up and do terror.

So simple answer: Love, peace, and good will are what the government should promote. Of course, that would simply open them to being taken advantage of... so, we are fucked, always and forever. But maybe even if we cant promote true peace, perhaps we can at least avoid creating the terrorists we fear.

Sheffield to Essex journey via Berlin?- BBC News

oritteropo says...

At least near the centre of London it can also be quicker to just walk instead of taking the tube for a few stops. The density of stations must be part of the slowness.

In Melbourne the fare for travelling anywhere as far as the end of zone 2 (about 30 kms out of the city) is $A3.90 (£1.94/€2.55 today) although there is also a one off $A6 charge for our inferior oyster card equivalent (called Myki)... but even that $A9.90/€6.46 euros/£4.92 is closer to German prices than London.

Chairman_woo said:

This is a fair and accurate example of how reasonably priced trains are in England.

By way of another example, a U-Bahn (subway) ticket in Berlin is around 1 euro to go anywhere in the city (perhaps it's gone up since but still). To do the same for a few stops in London can often be in the region of £20+.

They are also slow as shit due to the generally low speed limits across most of the network. If you are lucky enough to be on one and not a hastily co-opted bus.

We might possibly have the worst (or least least value for money) rail service in the 1st world, though I'm prepared to consider counter examples.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon