Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I've never been in the military but my first thought was that they should probably move before the enemy starts lobbing mortar rounds or launches an RPG to displace the sniper.

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

Consider the problems the world is having absorbing <5million Syrians....now multiply that refugee number by 100 to include those displaced by sea level rise, exceptional drought or flooding, and loss of historic water supplies like glaciers, and assume every country is having internal problems for the same reasons. How do you solve that issue, which is inescapable and already happening world wide?
Consider that privately, climate scientists will tell you we are way past the tipping point already, we can't avoid worsening the serious climate issues we already have, because the atmosphere is quite slow to react, so even if we cut emissions to zero tomorrow, we've got 25-50 years of things getting hotter and more acidic before it could get better.
Now, with those two related issues already beyond a tipping point, you don't think raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity? I agree, his administration alone won't doom us all, but they may make the pending doom far more inescapable in just 4 years, and exacerbate the associated problems horrifically.

"Literally doom the human race."

I used to be a global warming denier, then a skeptic. I've come around that it is real and that it is caused in large part by human actions. I do admit that I'm still a bit skeptical about how catastrophic it would be to do nothing. Doom the human race? Nah. Decimate the human race (literal/historical definition of "decimate" meaning 10% dead)? Possible, but I think unlikely -- extremely unlikely unless deaths by famine/disease are wholly attributed to climate change. Lots and lots of people displaced over the next 100-200 years if, say, all polar and glacial ice melted (resulting in a ~70 meter sea level rise)? For sure. But they won't drown unless they are incapable of moving away from the ocean at a rate of at least a few meters per year.

In climate terms, a 4 year presidential term is a fraction of a second. In geological terms, 4 years is absolutely nothing. If the (admittedly terrible) climate policies of any single person, even one as powerful as the "leader of the free world" President of the United States over 4 years could literally doom the human race, we'd have been dead a LONG time ago.

I'm not saying it isn't important, and that it won't matter at all what Trump does with regards to climate, the EPA, etc. But even if you limit the timescale to sensible human terms (say, since the Industrial Revolution roughly 250 years ago), another 4 years, no matter how bad, aren't going to throw us over some sort of unrecoverable tipping point.

Displacement means that no matter how many people are swimming, it weighs the same....assuming it's normally kept full of water.
Besides, who wants to die alone? I say take that party with you.

Wasn't easy being a planet hunter back in the day *promote

I'm looking for
1 tug
The pull of a planet
1 tell
A wobbling sun
I've searched for years
Haven't found a one
But they're out there

1 jump
In radial redshift
1 slip
Of spectral lines
They'll see if I can show them the sines

Pish tosh
Green men
Take five
Take ten

Just a little cash guys

Budget's tight
Don't fund this trash guys

I can take a hint
Better face the facts
Second-hand'll have to do

Eww
All you planet hunters at the bottom
You've got fact & fantasy entwined
Finding planets except they haven't got one

Well they gotta be forming readily
When you think about it given we've got nine

1 jump
A blip in the spectrum
1 shift of meters per second
1 graph of period power
They laugh but I'm not sour

Here goes
18 months of data
Cross & correlate it
All I gotta do is run

Pish tosh
Green men
Ah don't mind them
If only they'd look closer
Would they see a pure void
No sirree
They'd find out
There's worlds galore
To see

Make way for Pegasi
51 Pegasi

First was a world
Round an old pulsar
That's true
But the news
Is a sun-like star
With wobble
Too quick & precise
To be designed
No fluke not a spot
If you like it hot
You're gonna love this find

Pegasi 51b
Planet discovered
Orbit traced
Every 4 days
Hot as can be
Its order-Jupiter size
Was something of a surprise
Especially given its star's proximity

Pegasi 51b
It's a new era
To detect
Exoplanets
Soon there'll be three
As planet pulls on its Sun
It shifts the stellar spectrum
That's how we found 51b Pegasi

How'd a planet get so close in orbit
Cause I thought you needed ice to form it
Did it later undergo some strange migration
Star too small to be so long-pulsating
And too old to be so quick rotating
Is there any other good interpretation

This will certainly help with our funding

We got your funding
We got your funding

Got a surface of 1200 C

It's treacherous
So treacherous

If in time this new breakthrough feels mundane
Planets are common

That's proof
Of the truth
I've been telling you
This is no mean anomaly

Pegasi 51b
Planet uncovered
Round a far
Main sequence star
Spectral type G
We know its mass to be high
Half Jupiter by sine i

It's 15.61 pc from home
And it shakes our faith in how planets are formed
And its star is in Pegasus
Give it an A and thus
Label the planet as b
51 Pegasi

Plotting Doppler shifts is glacial-pace
And that astrometry never prevails
But baby you're in luck cause
Up in space
You got a planet-finder never fails

You got the power of statistics now
You got a view without an atmosphere
So no more nights spent locked up in your tower
All you gotta do is wait right here
And I say

Kepler the planet-searcher
Got a dip, no 2, no 3
We just measure brightness
Plot it out & that's transiting photometry

When your stars do this
And your curves displace
Then your star's got this
Transiting its face

Then you hit compute
And lookie here

You get good diameter data
From that dip
And orbit distance from the length of year

Well now we need this tale supported by
A ground observer with a good Échelle
We got 2000 planets certified
2000 more that only time will tell

But let's take em all, plot em out
And find out if we're really all alone
Is there a rocky world we've found no doubt
That orbits in the habitable zone
Like home?

Kepler the planet searcher
Got an Earth 452b
Part of a throng
40 billion strong

There ain't never been a field
Clever as the field
There ain't never been a field
Better than the field they call
Exoplanetology

I can show you a world
A shining shimmering planet
Found concealed in the band-shifts
Of the closest star in sight

I've found hope in the skies
And facing wonder I wonder
Could the sine wave discovered be
A planet fit for life

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of blue
Placed in that narrow zone
Where water flows
Midway tween cold & steaming

A whole new world
Its sun a faint, reddish hue
Could there be waiting here
A biosphere
Evolving in this whole new world to view

Fathoming a whole new world to view

Unbelievable find
Indescribable feeling
Earthlings someday revealing
Through directly captured light
A whole new world

Don't just stare from a far

Though nigh impossible to see

Wouldn't close up be bolder

Next to its parent's flair
If life is there
We'll know through atmosphere spectroscopy

A whole new world

Block the glare of the star

A laser starshot to pursue

With a star-shaped occulter

Chasing that crazy dream
That's always been
Of walking in a whole new world with you

a whole new world
That's where we'll be
A thrilling chase
A home in space
For you and me

EDIT: Expecting a uniform measured response from 100% of a terrorized, decimated, displaced people who've lived a living hell for years, some growing up in it, to a plan that seems to remove any hope of escape to a place where they might live a normal life, an escape they've worked towards for years at great expense and hardship, and in some cases escaping certain death due to helping America....no culture or people on earth are going to live up to that. American's certainly don't. We go off half cocked over 1% of that hardship and fly planes into federal buildings.

...Says the person advocating blaming and ruining the lives of innocent people for the acts of those that attacked and displaced them. Destroying the lives of random innocent people will never make the situation better, it will create more hatred for the US. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or Nazi because they're seeing everyone with a certain demographic as terroristic. We don't need more people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

I think it's the racism and xenophobia they already had coupled with a sudden influx of "others" that are now in their daily lives that turns them to extremism, because they've been primed to do so by the far right. If it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, we wouldn't have international outrage at our horribly thought out, disastrously implemented, clearly racially and theologically motivated travel ban, but it hurts far more than feelings, it will kill some people.

HA!!!! All those groups have been labeled terrorists at one time, and all of them have committed terroristic acts. Every. Single. One. You just pulled a Bob and used an example that totally destroys your point.

Read some history, Christian extremism puts Islamic extremism to shame.

After 2 years of a difficult application process completed in a refugee camp, we have a duty to those who successfully completed our process. The same goes for non refugees who completed the process. That was the deal we made with them, and they've completed their part. No, becoming hostile won't help public opinion, but why would they care? Public opinion of them is already terrible when they've done nothing wrong, and that same opinion mirrored in Trump has cost them dearly. Now, imagine you're a pissed off displaced teenager who's just escaped war and gone through the lengthy application process with their surviving family in terrible conditions the whole time, you are accepted, and then some guy just says "nope, you escaped the wrong war torn country, Fuck off"....would you be pissed at them? Maybe pissed enough to do something stupid? Now imagine there are numerous organizations looking for people just like you who convince you to act on your adolescent anger. Do you not see how blocking those people creates terrorists where acting honorably and keeping our promisses would create allies?

They ARE angry at them, irate, but they are war refugees, not mercenaries. Most able to fight them already did, and we're killed by them, Assad, or Russia.

When doing everything right by our standards at great expense gets you a nice "Fuck off and die" , why would a sane person continue?

I think they get the brunt because 1) they don't stop refugee migrations and terrorists just walk in with refugees, a problem we don't share, and 2) because of their foreign policies, an issue we do share. Their populations, and even governments are becoming more xenophobic.
Also, I haven't heard of any terrorist acts in Greece, a country that's arguably helped the refugees the most.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

It's mentioned on the Mercedes-Benz web site, the motor has a displacement of 0.954l, generates 0.55kW, and the vehicle manages a top speed of 16km/h.

No less than 25 production versions of this car were sold.

Yeah, the Syrian refugees are mostly either displaced within Syria, or in the surrounding countries (6.6m internally displaced in Syria, 2.7m registered in Turkey, 1m registered in Lebanon, 650,000 registered in Jordan). Then there are 600,000 in Germany and another million or so not registered (and many of those are in Greece).

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

If you have the specs necessary to run it, you can download it and play it for yourself here. Warning: it's huge (over 7GB)

This project was an experiment to see how much geometry and textures we could push in UE4 on modern PC hardware, and as a result, it is fairly system intensive. We recommend 16GB of RAM and at least an Nvidia GTX760 or AMD equivalent as the minimum requirements.

For more fluid frame-rate, and/or screen resolutions above 1920x1080 we recommend at least an Nvidia GTX970, or AMD equivalent or higher (2GB of VRAM for Low texture settings / 3GB for Medium texture settings / 4GB for High texture settings / 6GB or higher for EPIC texture settings)

Also, Terrain displacement is a very system heavy feature. Please note that enabling this feature on a GPU slower than an Nvidia GTX980 Ti may cause a significant drop in frame-rate.

Agreed, that was an exercise doomed to failure at the outset. Good call.
Well, only a death sentence for about 6 years of that, to pick a nit...but point taken. I don't have a good answer to that, perhaps Russia? I don't think they should have just waited to be killed, which was likely for those that stayed in Germany, and later most of Europe. That only goes for until 1945 though, after the war, they had little to flee from, and many good reasons to stay in Europe, specifically Germany, where they had a great case to make for a large industrialized territory in Europe as reparations. That's what I wish had been the outcome, and where I believe Israel belongs. IMO, it would probably have been better for everyone in both the short and long term.
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue. There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.