? Are you implying that famine and/or water shortages somehow preclude war and disease? I think they're major causes.

No, that's a myth. We have resources enough to do some amazing things if we properly apply them, not anything, and without the will to apply them, almost nothing. Having everything you need for success besides direction is a guarantee of failure.

Depends, if you remove the human factor and look only at total resources vs global need, there are still major logistic hurdles to just feeding everyone, not to mention resource problems if we want the biosphere to be healthy and not homogenized down to humans and our farm animals.

Odd, international law has been enforced since ww2 with only few exceptions with no WW3, only sanctions, bribes, and relatively minor skirmishes. I don't know where you get the idea that only a gun to the head might be coercive when a gun to the economy has worked so well for so long.

You should be hysterical. If you aren't shitting your pants over the state of the world, you aren't paying attention or you're absolutely delusional. Civilization and the habitatability of the planet are both on a clear path to collapse and people are busying themselves with arguments over will it be 50 years out or 100, or maybe 150 instead of making substantive changes to mitigate what's now unavoidable....or even prepare.
A hysterical voice is the only one I think indicates an understanding of the problem and total lack of a working solution.

I'm really curious about the logistics of this and other aspects like handling of accidents/medical emergencies, overall air quality, etc. A pretty awesome undertaking for sure.

What a logistical marvel / nightmare. The complexity of some infrastructure that, ideally, we never even see is sometimes just ludicrous.

Impressive Logistics.

I've been following this story here. Sure was happy when they were found alive -- I had started to lose much hope after they'd been gone 4+ days.

The bad news today is that a Thai volunteer diver, a former SEAL, died on a return trip from setting up extra air supply tanks along the route. BBC coverage is very good:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44734385

Most cave diving experts think that it would be extremely risky to try to move the kids out by diving. One of the on-scene people from the US has said that none of the boys know how to swim, let alone dive, and the conditions in cave diving make it so that panic can quickly lead to disaster.

Unfortunately, a new complication has come up. Oxygen levels in the chamber they are in are now at 15%, down from the usual 21%. They are working to get piping in to supply fresh air, but logistics of that are difficult since they need about 3 miles of piping. And to make matters worse, heavy rains are in the forecast, which will further stress the pumping that they are doing to keep water levels low in the cave.

The Thai head of the Navy rescue operation was quoted today as saying that "At first, we thought the children could stay for a long time... but now things have changed, we have a limited time." If that is correct and can't be resolved (due to dropping oxygen levels, rising water, or whatever), they may have to opt for the risky exit via diving. So definitely not out of the woods yet.

I always find the logistics of a job this size mind boggling.

It's more natural to hold a phone in portrait (vertical) than in landscape (horizontal). Typically landscape requires 2 hands -- and if filming landscape with one hand, it becomes easy to lose grip.

I know it ruins the cinematic quality, but he didn't film the dude for our entertainment, he filmed it as proof.

It's also a logistical issue, as it is easier to grip a phone vertically than horizontally. This is the reason why there are so many videos filmed in this mode. Especially in situations where people are unable to use both of their hands to stabilize the video, such as running, when in danger, or at the top of a bridge...

Also, his subject is a human which stands upright, so filming vertical allows him to distribute his subject matter across the entire canvas; whereas landscape would cut off the primary focus and distribute the background on either side of the subject, which is unimportant to the situation, in place of filming the man from head to toe in a single frame.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Because the Sun doesn't have a convenient plug socket

There are some pesky logistical problems in harnessing even a fraction of the suns output.

It's not that it can't be done but.......we could instead just make our own fun sized suns like these people are trying to do.

Nothing else could really touch the output of a fusion reactor if (when) they finally nail it.

Not that solar cells wouldn't still have their niches, or a stopgap role in the mean time.

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

Misleading - maybe not many are current generation migrants but most are second or third generation offspring of north african and middle east muslim migrants brought up inside muslim communities in Europe. Not your traditional Europeans.

Why ISIS attacked Brussels? Logistics - they have a huge support network there. Effect - seat of many European institutions. Who would care if they attacked Brno?

There is no reason to believe that second or third generation offspring of current migrants will be any different. And I dont mean Syrian war refugees - I mean the other two thirds of whoever has come to Europe recently.

There was a lot of posturing from Star Wars fans (from stardestroyer.net, I think) for a long time, with exaggerations about the power of imperial starships. However, some fans have done an extensive (and pretty ridiculous) amount of work to make a lengthy comparison, that, while only as accurate as can be interpreted from the provided material, does come out in strong favor towards Star Trek technology:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/
So yes, NdGT is correct, and really, you don't need to do the extensive research the fans did to confirm that. Logistics in a post-scarcity civilization alone gives a significant advantage.
But this is to be expected. When you have a TV show as focused on science and technology as Star Trek, it will certainly excel.
Meanwhile, Star Wars isn't supposed to be about high end technology. For them the technology is only there to highlight the story. The charm of the Millenium Falcon is not that it's a god-like ship that can mop the floor with everyone else, but that it's some guy's souped up junker that's full of surprises. The Death Star isn't the ultimate weapon, but a weapon of fear. (A weapon that destroys excessive amounts of available resources is impractical for anything else, and that especially includes Starkiller Base.)
And if there really needs to be some sort of sci-fi-peen competition, you can go the complete nonsense route with Doctor Who, where one Dalek could probably conquer both the Trek and Wars universes with minimal effort.
Or the overkill route with the Culture, where wiping the rest out would be an idle task, pursued for entertainment.
Star Wars fans just need to chill and embrace their universe of junkers and quaint technology. Star Trek fans have already embraced the fact that their universe isn't about action and explosions. (No, we don't include the Abramsverse.)

Don't care. At all.

Still, it's good to have the argument put to you so that you can reject it. Most people consume animal products because most people consume animal products, not because they've made an intelligent moral choice.

I see videos like this and mainly I think about how cool and elegant are the logistics involved in food production.

The foreign policy of both Russia and the US is far more motivated by domestic policy than "imperialism" or "cold war tactics".

Putin just needs to appear to be winning. Winning wars, media arguments, just winning anything. Crossword competitions, ice hockey games, fishing, push-ups, literally anything. With not much to be gained in Ukraine quickly, he can switch to helping Assad to quash rebels and appear to fight the IS. Russian air support and logistics will have small losses and big PR gains. Putin is clever so he will avoid direct confrontation with the IS leading to a long stalemate and much destruction, in Iraq mainly.

Obama needs to do stupid unworkable things like "spread democracy", "help Israel no matter what", "broker peace in the middle east" and "support 'friends' of the US, some of them as bad as Assad" - its nearly impossible for him to have a sane middle east policy. There is nothing Obama can do in the short term in Syria. He probably cant reconsider his position on Assad and there is no reasonable path to topple Assad gracefully. Also no direct path to fight IS - Turkey will fight Kurds before fighting IS, Israel has to be careful.

Is Iran the key then? Iran is definitely not to be trusted http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11903290/Eight-of-Irans-womens-football-team-are-men.html

If it was laying there and you quickly grabbed and used it straight away to get a few shots off in the heat of the moment most people would probably be cool with it, but it'd be very situational (and you really need to be at least acquainted with the person and what kind of attitude they'd have).

It very rare that it'd come up anyway though as once they are dead, they are generally going to be walking off to the re spawn and will want their gun back to do so (and most likely still have it in sling/holster/hand).

Main exception is when something like medic rules are in play and people have to sit down and wait to be revived. If you can camp a downed enemy & ask nicely you might well get away with it. But it'd be very poor etiquette not to at least ask them. Most these guns are £2-300+ (some pushing 1k) and quite precious to people so you wouldn't appreciate some randomer you know nothing about grabbing it and going rambo.

At a small close knit site it does happen, less so at a bigger less personal one. I'd be a bit fucked off if someone I didn't know grabbed one of mine and started using it, but depends on the situation and their attitude to it.

As for a battery, only if they expressly offered, very unlikely unless you know them and they are carrying a spare compattible with yours. Realistically you just treat it as a catastrophic weapon jam and get on with it. (there will be spare batts back at base). A lot of people are using Gas powered rifles now also which adds to the logistical problems with that.

But as you saw, at that range his pistol did a perfectly serviceable job anyway! (I often switch to pistol in buildings anyway, much more weildy)