3 days ago Snake catcher Barry Goldsmith used an angle grinder to free a venomous copperhead that found itself stuck in a metal girder near Melbourne. Snake catcher Barry Goldsmith used an angle grinder to free a venomous copperhead that found itself stuck in a metal girder near Melbourne on Thursday, Feb. 3 days ago A snake catcher has used an angle grinder to free a venomous snake that got its body stuck in the ring of a metal support beam near Melbourne yesterday. Sparks fly as snake trapped in metal ring freed with angle grinder man used an angle grinder to cut the girder, freeing the venomous copperhead.
angle grinder catcher uses copperhead free stuck Snake to
East Bay Times 11 Feb CNN 11 Feb The Independent 11 Feb Wtop 11 Feb Gulf News 11 Feb AOL 11 Feb Create your page here. Monday, 11 February News Wiki Chat Albums Lyrics. Grinder Grinder band Mill grinding Bing. Grinder Grind , grinder , or grinding may refer to: Machinery Grinding abrasive cutting , an abrasive machining process that uses a grinding wheel as the cutting tool Grinding machine , used in a machining operation to refine the surface of materials Angle grinder , a handheld power tool Coffee grinder , a machine used for grinding coffee Herb grinder , a grinder used for herbs including marijuana Meat grinder , a machine used for grinding food Tool and cutter grinder , a machine used to manufacture or resharpen cutting tools Wet grinder , a grinder that uses water either to soften the product ground or to keep the grinding elements cool Grinder winch , a device for tensioning a rope to control a sail on a boat People Grinder surname Bob Baker boxer — , American heavyweight boxer nicknamed "The Grinder" Michael Mizrachi born , American professional poker player nicknamed "The Grinder" Places Grinder, Norway , a village Grinder Island , Marshall Archipelago, Antarctica Grinder Rock , Palmer Archipelago, Antarctica Read more.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https: Mill grinding A mill is a device that breaks solid materials into smaller pieces by grinding, crushing, or cutting. Most Related Most Recent Most Popular Top Rated expand screen to full width repeat playlist shuffle replay video clear playlist restore images list.
You Can Find Them at Barneys. The luxury retailer jumps on the cannabis train with a fancy head shop in Beverly Hills The Head Shop will also sell jewelry, like grinder necklaces, and CBD-infused beauty and wellness products Edit Trapped snake freed with angle grinder. A snake catcher has used an angle grinder to free a venomous snake that got its body stuck in the ring of a metal support beam near Melbourne yesterday Edit Snake catcher uses angle grinder to free stuck copperhead.
Snake catcher Barry Goldsmith used an angle grinder to free a venomous copperhead that found itself stuck in a metal girder near Melbourne on Thursday, Feb. The snake was unharmed in the rescue operation, which took about five minutes.
Edit That Capresso conical burr grinder Mark recommended is wonderful. I have had that grinder open severaltimes, adjusting it for extra-fineness as my espresso machine is pretty picky and the lower-end Baratza was good but not great with every bean or roast I had read this post about his Capresso grinder just a few months ago, and remembered using it in his home Shots will fail until I dial a roast in on my grinder.
Edit Best coffee grinders you can get right now: Some countries like China may adopt a semi-democracy, in which only accomplished people are allowed to vote. As China and India complete their rise to the first world, Africa will start to take off, although it'll struggle with population problems.
I'm a bit more optimistic about the left than you are. We can expect three things that will push us towards the left, and they are, in no particular order:. I think that's a done deal, and the only thing left to hash out is the timing. This means less money for campaigns and buying politicians. It will also bankrupt Russia. So many high-ranking people will go down bigly. I believe that even if Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court all collude to squash the investigations, someone in the Intelligence Community will publish and distribute a full report, one that may even reveal sources and methods.
This will be devastating to the American Right. And you bet that the intelligence agencies in Germany, Greece, France, and the U. This has already happened. Going forward, Fox will be less influential over the next couple years as they reorganize, and may lose influence permanently. The third factor of a move to renewables is that the U.
The politicians haven't figured it out yet, but when they do it will revolutionize how the U. Either renewables have a small staffing requirement or they're going to be expensive, you can't have both absent slave labour or a return to serfs and feudalism.
To add a bit of viscerality to this: I am far from a military historian but urban battlefields with expensive toys tanks, helicopters plus cheap, largely printable drones sounds like a nightmare to me. You have someone with an "off" drone waits for the big anti-drone measures, then pilots it up and over a building, a hill or whatever and has it drop an IED down the barrel of a tank's big gun and boom. To paraphrase Gerry Adams, as long as the pilot gets away most of the time, and the drones really are pretty disposable I guess the guidance systems are the hardest part "We only have to get lucky once, the tanks have to get lucky every time.
If the drones can get to decent speed and are disposable, crash them through the tail rotors of the enemy's helicopters. Those special forces helicopters won't be dropping missiles, they'll be high-flying aircraft dropping drones carrying guidance chips for more drones and 3D printer plans for better drones In the US where CA-MRSA is quite common, as well as the HA-MRSA strains, the acronym that's normally pronounced as a set of initials in the rest of the world has been smeared into a word so there's a schwa sound in there, but you still don't normally write it.
For those of you who want to add to your nightmares, read up on Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. But the end of the antibiotic era has suddenly really come into sharp focus for a lot of people. If you want some hope There's a patent for a quorum quenching signal in use in the UK and depending on your brand of toothpaste you might already be using it! As for the "evil disease from out of the depths of time escapes from the permafrost" scenario, I don't think it works. Bacterial and viral diseases are parasitic on their hosts.
They need very specific conditions to affect them and replicate, the right kind of protein coatings and half a million years is enough time for evolution to diverge to the point of mutual incompatibility between disease and host. The pandemics that worry folks today Ebola, H1N1 bird flu etc. They're not long-dormant diseases that lurk under the melting icecaps. I think there are two reasons for this. First, we keep hearing the climate change is happening faster than the previous predictions.
Five years ago I would have happily agreed that we won't lose Florida until After five years of hearing about how much faster its happening than we thought, I expect it by or so and we're already getting flooding in Miami. Second, I think that people believe that there will be some kind of incident which makes it clear that the Climate Change believers are correct, after which there will be a WWII-level effort to end climate change, and that this effort will reverse climate change.
When viewed coldly, this idea seems a little thoughtless, but it's not completely unreasonable. It would be nice if the carbon crash simply led to a reorganisation of the global economy around renewables, but all the evidence suggests that big oil which includes the Russian government for practical purposes will fight to the last hydrocarbon molecule to defend their rents. It will be very ugly in all sorts of ways that aren't apparent yet as well as the ones that are.
In the long run the survivors may learn the lessons, but in the long run, as Keynes remarked, we are all dead. If we're discussing a thirty year perspective, I think the carbon power base will still have plenty of tricks up its sleeve.
It's interesting that the Saudi royal family is beginning to make preparations for the post-oil world. I wonder if the people who run Exxon are as far sighted No I don't, they're obsessed with shareholder returns to the point where they're completely paralysed. The US is self-sufficient in oil and gas, it doesn't need to kowtow to the Saudis and hasn't had to for decades. They just like telling people what to do.
That's one of the implications of the changing security situation I mentioned. I think it's the price that's the issue. The problem here is that ten years ago it looked like the smart thing to do was to be the last country with usable oil and gas reserves; it was good strategy to let the other countries pump, purchase oil from them, and keep your own reserves for later. Thus the case for keeping the Saudis happy even if they were contributing to some terrorist organizations.
Renewable energy plus climate change kills that strategy, but I don't think the power players have figured that out. From Wikipedia via the IEA:. The US buys in very little oil and gas and by law can't export it because America and oil insert voiceover of Gollum, "My Precioussss!
Why the US wants to spend money and blood acting as the self-appointed military dictator of the world is another matter. I figure it might be some form of potlatch thing. On the politics front I think there is a question about the relationship between liberalism and democracy and long term economic performance.
If so,which way does the causal arrow point? Or is the cause a third factor like a large, well educated middle class? If there is a strong causal relationship between liberal democracy and economic growth in high income technology frontier economies then that might give you an interesting checkerboard of rich free countries and poor unfree countries.
Fractured internet — also means no more free exchange of ideas or travel, post-docs between universities. Therefore an increase in the uneven distribution and uptake of tech.
Possibility of a brain drain for the US esp. Feel that Internet and TV are very closely tied culturally. Demise of TV networks as we know them, esp.
Instead, programming including news and music will target specific demographics and regions to fine tune these folks into whatever emotional or rational response wanted. Even weather reports would be targeted to only the local area: And, as the US slides into a climatic and socio-economic vortex, tourism declines so even less reason to know anything about the world.
Politics - Online voting with most-likely-to-actually-get-elected candidates selected via programmed competitions based on current reality TV show formats. Real decision making would be done by backroom scriptwriters preparing several different script versions each written using whatever arguments would best fit the various different segments. Long range more complex policy — economic and social - may also be first presented and market tested via favorite TV shows.
War — AI is already being used to make kill decisions according to journalist Jay Tuck. Guessing the panels were designed in consult with an architect. Health — As the US loses its hold on the world economy and suffers a brain drain other polities and their cultural standards will kick in. And India is already seeing climate refugees arriving from Bangladesh. China has good natural barriers against climate refugees Gobi and is unlikely to see NKoreans or Siberians arriving at its gates.
Rising water levels might finally force the Taiwanese to agree to a reunified China. But I wouldn't want to live there today hello tranny travel restrictions! But what happens if phage therapy comes back mostly abandoned with the discovery of antibiotics with the added tool of genetic modification?
The big problem with finding new antibiotics was the high cost of development against the financial returns they gave. The shortage of effective antibiotics happening so quickly caught pharm companies out; if they had forseen it they might have started research for entirely new forms earlier.
But if you have phages, that the "manufacturers" can constantly tweak with gene mods, that gives a constant income stream for a product hard to stockpile and in constant demand. Why would the end of the petro economy stabilise that region? It's been in turmoil for centuries, millenia even before petroleum was anything other than an odd thick gunk that bubbled out of cracks in the ground here and there.
Who said anything about the dawn of time? The question could be missing confounding variables; in the examples that come to mind immediately the correlation could be between a huge frontier to grow into, an empire to exploit, or a wartime boom rather than the political system. Factor in the discovery of more things like Teixobactin and I'm unconvinced that Antibiotic Armageddon is here just yet. Expect Big Pharma to get a knock back if they get in the way of either megadeaths or cheap drugs.
Making generics is only going to get easier. I rather suspect it has very little do do with oil but more to do with being a massive market for the US mil-industrial complex. You left out a bunch of things, not that I blame you. It's a book length question. Here's a few big ones:. Most of the human population lives within a few hundred kilometers of the coast, so one meter level sea rise means that there are hundreds of millions to a billion climate migrants in need of resettling.
That's why I was not joking about Bangladeshi cuisine being popular, simply because Bangladesh will be largely under water and those people will be somewhere. The big problem with massive migration is that it breaks down the idea of nation-states. If there are so many people on the move that no one control their borders, keep their citizens secure within those borders, or protect those coming in, the whole social contract that makes nation-states works starts to fall apart.
Walls won't help, really, and it has nothing to do with the supposed violence and anarchy of migrants most of whom are non-violent and just wish they still had their homes. It's a way nation-states fail, simply because they're not designed to handle this problem unless they are in rapid expansion mode cf: This is where there are some parallels with the late Roman Empire cf: Those barbarian slaves who built the empire were in part migrants from disruptions happening all over Europe, some caused by Rome, some not.
The oceans will keep rising and the Earth will keep warming, even if we stop injecting greenhouse gases into the air. It's going to take centuries up to , years for the system to return to 20th Century normal. Humans will largely be along for the ride. There's more heat in the air, which makes it hotter and drier, unless there's water available. In this case, hot air takes up more water than cold air this is the whole point of relative humidity , so this is why hotter atmosphere leads to bigger storms.
Additionally, the Jet Stream will grow increasingly erratic and slower as the Arctic warms it's powered by the temperature gradient between the Arctic and temperate regimes so storms will wander, Arctic conditions will continue to drift south, and storms will move more slowly, so a big storm will sit around for days rather than blowing through.
Third issue is disruption of food systems well, ecosystems everywhere, but I'm going to worry about food: I'm quite sure that there will be more heat tolerant corn and other crops, because they're working on that problem now, and they were studying heat shock proteins back in the s.
If it can be done, it will be done. Still, keeping everybody fed is going to be a big problem. Keeping all the other things wood, bamboo, rubber, coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar in anything like current amounts is going to be a real problem. Fourth issue is that politics will matter enormously. We're in this mess in large part because the fossil fuel industries chose to double down on production rather than shifting their industry to run on renewable power.
That was purely a political decision, and it was done starting in the s. Don't misunderestimate the ability of human evil to make things worse for the world to temporarily slake the power addictions of the few. I could go on, but you can read my book Hot Earth Dreams if you want more. It's more about the 22nd Century and after, but it will help you with the 21st Century. There's a reason these dudes ride together in Revelations: As a result people die Death.
I saw this in the context of the Mayan collapse, where Richard Gill The Great Maya Droughts pointed out that the unending arguments among the Mayanists about what brought down the Maya were about trying to figure out which of the three war, famine, epidemic came first or was the ultimate cause.
He pegged drought, because the area is prone to rare but devastating droughts, and there's ample historical records as well as archaeological records of what happens before, during, and after when the rains fail for three years or more. But crucially, he also pointed out that the ultimate cause doesn't particularly matter, since the proximal causes are inevitably linked. This is one thing I think the Bible got right, and it's worth remembering the Four Horsemen as a mnemonic for the misery that societal breakdowns cause.
As for permafrost releasing smallpox, we should be so lucky. Like most people, I'd bet on influenza first. Smallpox, if it shows up, will have been released from a lab or reversed engineered by an apocalyptic terrorist.
Zoonotics are also possible, but it's really worth reading Quammen's Spillover if you want to go here. Still, remember the Four Horsemen: We're within a few decades of when an idiot in his garage can create a genetically modified eukaryotic organism, and like the idiots we are, we're stepping on the development accelerator even as people trying to grapple in the most brittle and abstract ways with the ethical and practical outcomes.
What I expect to see is a lot of failed bioengineering attempts along with a bunch of successful ones. The main target will be pests and pathogens. We've already got a bunch of forest-killing bugs, fungi, and other organisms unleashed in the US, Australia, and presumably worldwide, due to massive shipments of garden plants and pallet wood without proper biocontrol.
California's recording a new pest every few months right now. Since social controls are proving utterly ineffective have you seen one of the many "don't move firewood" campaigns? I haven't, aside from a few meetings , I expect people will start engineering viruses and epiparasites to try to kill everything from Polyphagous shothole borer to various weeds, even pests like mosquitoes and rats.
The problem is that the biocontrols will spread too. Attempts to engineer eucalypts out of California won't just result in the deaths of all the koalas in the San Diego Zoo, once the control agents get to Australia, they'll start wiping out forests there until they are controlled, at which point that bug gets back to California and Attempts to control weedy mustards in California inadvertently wipe out all the kimchi in Korea cabbage is a mutant mustard, as are broccoli, brussel sprouts, kale, collards, etc.
The reason I'm so pessimistic is that the gene jockeys aren't required to take general ecology any more than doctors or tech billionaires are, so they don't know all the lessons about failed biocontrol that should have gotten drummed into their heads. Since the USDA process for licensing new biocontrols is slow, burdensome, and expensive, I'm sure that a lot of feckless young gene jockeys will decide that they'll just save the world by bypassing the whole process and hacking the world, with predictably bad consequences.
And this doesn't even get to the people who decide that smallpox is just the thing to kill of a few billion refugees so that they can keep living their comfortable lives in the US and possibly elsewhere. Currently renewables are PR. That influences everything about how they are built and how they are used. Solar energy deployed as an actual solution for electricity will look nothing like what solar currently looks like.
Instead, what we are going to get is a bunch of money flowing into places with actually favorable physical geography and some loooong HVDC cables. Because paving over a few square kilometers of the Sonoran and Sahara deserts is just a whole lot cheaper than faffing around on rooftops.
I think this means at least some of the southern edge of the med gets run through the Aquics Communitaire. Not that rooftops will go unfaffed with. They will just get green or white instead of black - In a world of rising temperatures and changing climate, on very straightforward answer is micro-climate engineering.
Cities currently form micro-climate zones that are hotter than their surroundings. It is possible to change this by changing the way rooftops and other aspects of the built are put together - Green roofs - roofs things grow on, cool things down and make the air quality higher. So I expect the more well organized cities of the future to be a riot of life - plants everywhere. This probably also means wildlife that is adapted well to living in the human ecosystem that is a city will do very well indeed.
Agriculture will be revolutionized by the robot "peasant" and the requirements of mitigating weather changes There are all sorts of things you can do with autonomous machines clever enough to navigate a field, and the agricultural lands are also a micro-biome that can have its own weather altered by deliberate effort - For example, changing an area from open wheat fields to mixed fruit and nuts threes, bushes and vegetables will cool all of it and put a dampener on local wind speeds.
With the wast bulk of the work mechanized this also be far more economic - Much higher total caloric harvest, even if this sort of thing being common will crash the price of vegs, fruits and nuts. That in turn will change the entire way we eat - for the better.
Lets see, what else.. The kind of automated psychological modeling that Cambridge Analytica does will see wide ranging uses. And then reactions and restrictions. It certainly looks like it is at least potentially an answer to the question of how the surveillance state can ever actually do something with the flood of data it collects, because, well the kind of radicalization that makes bombs is probably detectable.
So, we get thought-crime. In not-so-civilized nations, radicals just quietly vanish in the night. Phage therapy might work. It's been 'the answer' that's about years away for the last 35 years or so. And refer you to a light dose of fusion power as another technology that's been "10 years away" for all my adult life too.
If you don't kill them all which is the problem with antibiotic resistance there's a really powerful mechanism to generate resistance to phages too - that we didn't know about 10 years ago. Can we circumvent it? Maybe but I wouldn't like to bet a lot of money on it. Something to think about And because these deaths would be distributed across a very large number of different causes, it could look very normal and the humans who gave this command could go to sleep feeling secure against being found out as the actual mass murderers.
Dangle a weighted line from the drone, or link a pair with a few metres of something, and fly the cable into the main rotor so it tangles in the hub. Bigger target than the tail rotor. And the drone plans will be on the net, the black helicopters will be dropping off boxes of motors and reels of feedstock for the 3d printers. It does a lot of work around what colossal, long-term ecosystem interference could result in.
There are two trends here. One is the research on the traditional, left-wing side, showing that non-violent action is approximately twice as effective as violent action in achieving political goals.
We've known this intuitively for decades, which is why laborers strike rather than sabotaging their plants. The problem is, especially in America, we're so drenched in images of gun violence that this doesn't feel intuitively correct, even though the data support it worldwide.
The reason non-violence works is that you can literally mobilize everyone, since they don't have to be trained to fight. Ninety year-old grannies and young children make great non-violent activists. The critical disadvantages are that you need organizers most non-violent activists, myself included, are extremely disorganized , and you can't use the threats of violence to coerce obedience, as you can with an armed insurrection.
This information is out there, publicly available, and there are a lot of people trying to get it distributed more widely. So we may see a revolution in conflict, IF people get organized, simply because it will be more effective. Tens of millions of non-violent migrants could take down any government, if they were properly organized. Imagine this happening to, say, China. The flip side of non-violent action is that the authoritarians have been more assiduously reading this stuff than you have, and they're ahead of you.
Look at the US election hack and Brexit debacle. How much of that was non-violent action by Russia and the oil industry? Probably quite a lot, but we're still sorting it out.
The Bad Guys can act non-violently as well, and the results are just as profound. Don't expect non-violent action to be a panacea leading to a peaceful, democratic world. However, I do suspect that we'll see more non-violence, which means life will become a war. While it won't be a violent war, the effects on our societies and psyches will be profound.
As Mary Roach noted, war denatures people. Most countries that style themselves as free may resist government control of the Internet. Will they also resist private control of the internet? It's actually pretty hard to pull off from s technical perspective. It only works with extremely strong totalitarian governments ready to bring down the hammer on offenders. If you postulate that level of rise you are deep into at least a collapse of society scenario. We're already selling energy back to the grid, but our intention is to get an electric car for commuting and a wall battery, and even with the Bolt's 60 kWh battery, we can easily afford to run it off the sun.
At that point, we'll be very close to off the grid, with the exception of the one gas car kept for hauling heavy stuff. Granted we live in San Diego, where we can get away with this fairly easily, and also granted that we're going to take about 5 years to phase out all our gas appliances, since that involves remodeling the kitchen to put in the electric range.
But still, it was shocking how easy it was. And solar prices are still going down. The revolution's already here, and it's taking off. The thing to ask yourself whenever you consider gas, is whether the convenience now is worth the suffering of the kids and grandkids.
If some combination of senolytics, telomere extension, muscle mass increase via myostatin inhibition, assorted other gene hacks via CRISPR or whatever, gets people an additional years of healthy life, then the first person to live to might be alive today -- and I see no reason why such procedures should remain prohibitively expensive and I bet George Church would agree with that.
If we get nowhere without full-blown, absolutely comprehensive SENS-type damage repair, then I suspect people alive now are screwed, wealthy or not. It doesn't matter how execrable are the views of the privileged Silicon Valley douchebags leading the cheers. You know, I started wondering if future historians assuming they exist may talk about the period of "the first internet," possibly "the second internet," and so on.
What I'm thinking is not the social media revolution, but the internet backbone being splintered, possibly rebuilt years to decades later, broken again, and so forth.
I can think of any number of reasons why this might be desirable, from any number of political and psychological viewpoints. Social media hasn't made us more free, and it's not clear whether it's made life better. While we're currently all addicted to it and this blog! If that happens and the internet is broken, I can see people trying to build a second, better internet to take its place. And that being broken too. You have a roof? You must be rich. Thankfully the government will force the electricity company to buy your solar electricity at a lot more than the market rate so you can get even richer.
Us little people will have to pay the extra costs of giving you money but hey, that's what we're here for after all. We know our place. I've been toying with the thought of artificial intelligence, specifically with a system that designs something like an FTL stardrive, but which can't communicate to us how it works in a way that we understand.
The AI system doesn't have to be humanly intelligent, it simply has to be given a problem and resources to solve it through genetic algorithms and fitting the data. This problem has started cropping up with increasing frequency: Perhaps the problem dates back to quantum mechanics as in "don't think about what the equations mean in real life, just crank the numbers and check if the results work"?
What should we call these things? I think of them now as The Blasphemous Equations, but perhaps that's too melodramatic. That would be the ultimate irony of science: And worse, we can design systems that can derive more than we can understand, but these systems are not in themselves intelligent in a human-enough way to explain their results to us. Nor are they capable of solving all our problems Climate refugee migration, don't forget that even internal migration within a country's borders can have major social, political, economic and environmental effects.
The Indonesian government has been encouraging the poor of over-populated Java to migrate to remote parts of the country for decades, paying for the trip, granting them land etc. It's kinda internal colonialism. Even in a first world country, building millions of new homes, deciding who gets to live where and so on will be enormously disruptive.
Consider the politics, opportunistic corruption and graft, racism etc post hurricane Katrina. Think of the carbon emissions from all that construction. Then there are the politics of which coastal towns do and don't get levee banks, pumps etc to keep the waters at bay.
Trillions of dollars of real estate makes for powerful vested interests. Semi OT but semi relevant, the account of the wasteful, constant rebuilding of US East coast sandbar barrier islands towards the end of this article is astonishing:. I've actually thought a little about surveillance states, and the nightmare of course is that the surveillance state becomes a nation run on blackmail or some kind of tough-on-crime thing where the cops watch monitors all day and arrest everyone who commits any kind of crime whatsoever.
But what if there was a surveillance state that didn't do blackmail or tough-on-crime? Where if you had sex in a TAAS car the only "crime" would be not cleaning up after yourself and the record would vanish once the car was clean? Where if you wrote a check the day before your paycheck ends up in the bank they didn't arrest you? Where ALL surveillance was kept by a responsible private party under the control of the courts and law enforcement had to apply for a warrant to check out any surveillance?
April, there was a lot of discussion of the future of cars on the "Rejection" thread from a couple weeks ago. Some of the biggest trouble spots are places like the DelMarVa peninsula and Hong Kong, as well as coastal Bangladesh. We'll see how it all works out. I agree that it's a great opportunity for more carbon emissions. After all, emergencies always justify the suspension of normal rules. Back when I wrote the book, I figured that adaption to climate change was going to be one of the big causes of greenhouse gas emissions.
The irony is that I suspect a lot of the property law around the Kilauea lava flows also will apply to coastal real estate. Just because a property is buried under lava doesn't mean you still don't own the land. And just because a lava flow has cut off access and utilities to your house, it doesn't mean that you've lost the house.
And just because a lava flow has come between you and the ocean, it doesn't mean that you can claim loss of beach-side real estate. I suspect that similar rules will be in place when people lose their beach homes to the rising tide. That said, I was looking at a model map http: The US East and southeast coasts will be badly hit deep red irony there , so will Hong Kong, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire in England, the Netherlands if they have an oopsie, the Nile Delta, the Mekong Delta, coastal Bangladesh, all the atolls, and parts of the Philippines.
However, a lot of other areas won't be so affected, because they aren't on low-lying coasts. Thing is, there could ultimately be 50 meters of sea level rise in a few thousand years, and that really would rework a lot of the coasts.
The idea that "everyone must work, all the time" is itself a value promoted by capitalism. Modern working hours are bad enough, but they would be a whole lot worse had it not been for anti-capitalist forces such as trade unions fighting to get them down.
They are still as bad as they are because capitalism is not concerned with need except insofar as it likes to create illusions of need to make people buy more stuff , but with greed, and the amount of work that must be done to satisfy greed is vastly greater than the amount required to fulfil need, because need is self-limiting but greed is limitless. So people systematically have stolen from them the one resource of which the supply is strictly limited: The word "stolen" is used deliberately, because they are permanently deprived of it and it is absolutely impossible to return it.
Instead people are given money and encouraged to regard spending it on stuff they don't need as some kind of substitute; which of course it isn't, so it doesn't work, but they keep doing it partly because they have no choice and partly because they have had no choice for such a long time that they can't see there should even be one. Capitalism retards, rather than promotes, the advantages of automation, because automation is implemented in such a way that the advantages accrue only to the individual capitalist responsible for the implementation, and the workers are excluded from partaking.
And so it always has been; it is that, fundamentally, that gave rise to the Luddites' complaint, only they don't appear to have thought it through that deeply, or if they did it hasn't made it into the historical account. The capitalist gets more profit from automation, the workers get nothing. They are not freed from the theft of their time; they just have to find some other crappy thing to do all day for money, in order to survive, and nothing really changes.
Naturally, as the years go by, the other things gradually become more automated too, but so far that has been counteracted by doing what remains un-automated to a degree that further and further exceeds the actual need for it; by hijacking creative activities to serve as things to be done, and thereby rendering them destructive; and by simply making up more and more things to be done that are not useful at all, or are negatively useful, but simply burn people's time to no purpose beyond perpetuation of the system.
The impending "crisis of automation" is not a crisis at all, but simply the increasing capability of automation, combined with the slow exhaustion of ideas for new kinds of useless crap to force people to waste their time on, approaching the point where the conclusion that this is a bloody silly way of doing things becomes inescapable.
It may be a "crisis" in terms of cognitive dissonance for those in whom the current system is so culturally ingrained that they see work not as a means to an end but as an end in itself, and it'll pretty certainly be a crisis for those at the top of the capitalism tree when it falls over, but overall it could be the greatest blessing in history, restoring to people the time they once would have had as hunter-gatherers, but without the diseases or the shitty food or the being eaten by lions etc.
It is traditional at this point for someone to complain "but people will have nothing to do", without understanding that that's the whole point. They will have nothing that they are forced to do; but they won't have nothing to do at all , rather they'll have their own choice of things to do instead of being compelled to follow someone else's choice. It is undoubtedly true that the choice of lots and lots of people will be to sit on their arse all day watching TV and getting off their faces, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
To condemn it as a "waste of potential" is to ignore the point that sitting on your arse all day shuffling meaningless paper in an office or assembling things in a factory which are deliberately badly designed so they fail and need replacement at ten or more times the rate they would be lost to attrition if they were designed to last is even more of a waste of potential, and a waste of non-human resources as well to boot.
And we also gain the potential to solve, or at least go a long way to solving, many of the problems people have mentioned upthread. For a start, many of the stresses on the environment will plummet when people are no longer using the vast amount of energy and materials expended on useless "economic activity" which at present they are compelled to. We're talking a good order of magnitude drop, which alone is worth putting it at the top of the list of things worth fighting for.
We also get to solve the antibiotic resistance problem, since it is no longer coupled to dumb shit about whether or not people can make money off it.
Developing life-saving drugs is absolutely the kind of thing people want to do simply because it's an obviously good idea, and will do given the freedom to choose to do it. Similarly, the answer to the anticipated objection "but who makes the TV programmes the people sit on their arse all day watching? They will probably include better TV programmes, because they will be about things people are interested in otherwise why would they make them rather than shit made to get people to watch adverts.
To be sure, there will be lots of shit as well, but the choice will exist not to watch it. Authors get to write what they want to write without being constrained by what publishers think will be sold, and without compulsion to do it so fast they damage their health because they have to make money off it.
We get to sort out messes like string theory, as scientific research ceases to depend on the vagaries of fashion as exhibited in the selection of topics that can be used to chin people they might make money off it. Education finally gets to be about increasing knowledge rather than about how to be a brick in the wall.
All sorts of things of this kind become possible once the current obstacle of "but who pays for it? Conventional war, the obvious point to make is that there is a an advantage in being a nation with a massive manufacturing capacity and b massive population for cannon fodder. Or, possibly, proxy or client states of China, who thus have a source of cheap, copious weaponry. To the extent that conventional war is possible under a nuclear umbrella, proxy war seems to be SOP.
Vietnam, Korea, Angola etc. Most obviously about climate change, but also around religion, economic regulation, bigotry etc. It could make for some strange bedfellows. Say, China and Europe, united in a desire to control carbon emissions, minimise the next financial crisis etc, vs America and a bunch of theocracies clinging to their inalienable right to destroy the planet, murder gays and securitise sub-prime mortgages on sea-level Miami condos.
A fractured internet, I simply note that the internet used to be described as a network of networks, a term I haven't heard much recently. Quit knit hetermelos if daily production is 32kw you don't have 32kwh of solar panels.
That would be an hourly production of 32kw and you'd probably be producing in the hundreds of kw. I can see what we think of today as "the internet" becoming both increasingly unusable and increasingly undesirable to use; and I can see a response to that arising through a combination of geeks and hackers with the increasing availability of radio equipment capable of covering at least a few km from peer to peer.
There'll be informal, unregulatable meshes everywhere, and the current monolithic picture will no longer fit. Very good point about the robot peasant; just how much of current agriculture fails on sustainability simply because it is designed around big clumsy things that perform crude, large-scale operations while tied to the back of a tractor?
I should have noted that internal migration, just like international migration can have cross-pollinating positive outcomes as well. The movement of African Americans North during the early 20th century was driven by Jim Crow laws, but many of those migrants found relatively high paying jobs, and gave us the Harlem Renaissance and Chicago blues. Daily production on sunny days is more than 32 kWh, although it does go down substantially if it's cloudy. Right now the panels are producing 2.
Yes, it's a big install, but as I said, we intend to run a car off it. Assuming we get a Chevy Bolt the car with 34 buttons on the steering wheel , that has a 60 kWh battery. Recharging that battery is two days of sunny day production right there, but the advantage is that with a mile range, we can commute all week on one battery charge. Once we have a house battery, we could even recharge the car at night without touching the grid. The other key point is that our setup is going to look low-powered and expensive in a few years.
I don't think we'll replace it for at least a decade, but right now, solar panels are like PCs: Employment, per se, is not the end goal of onshoring to bring jobs back to the developed world. The goal is to give people under the current economic system a way to empower themselves by earning the unit of value currently currency that lets them survive and have a chance to choose their path through the world.
Money is traditionally seen as a way to buy things, but really what it's all about is agency. With no money, you have no choices and no agency; with money, you have options. The lack of agency is a major source of stress, and stressed people can behave "badly" -- for example, stealing food for their children when they can't afford to buy it.
I've seen economists make the argument that providing tax incentives to employ people will lead to bloated, economically inefficient companies. I used to dispute this notion until I realized that senior management really is sufficiently stupid to do this. Setting aside my misanthropy, I find myself on the fence about this idea. On balance, I suspect managers aren't really that stupid and on the whole, onshoring would be a good thing.
There's been much talk about guaranteeing everyone a basic survival wage so that people can live without good jobs -- or any job for that matter. It's a nice notion in theory and in fiction cf. Star Trek , but I'm not sure it will work in practice. First, someone has to earn enough money to pay through their taxes for people who aren't working.
We're already seeing the problems with this approach in the underfunded U. Second, most people are not tempermentally well suited to having nothing to do all day. Watching TV is the least negative consequence that I can imagine. There's much room to explore this in fiction in the hope that we might learn from the fiction and not have to experience it in reality.
Almost all of it. Note that robot peasants are just hilariously better than trying these farming methods by hand. Because robots eat electrons, while grandmother eats calories. And you can put your robot peasant in the barn and put it on standby when there is no work to be done. This means one square kilometer of Saharan desert will output enough surplus to keep at least a hundred square kilometers of German farmland under the hoe. So all those predictions about the end of oil meaning the end of mechanized agriculture?
Are just hilariously wrong. Farming will get automated to heck and gone. I suspect the Babushka would win, hands down. You don't grow robot parts on a farm, I'm afraid.
Peasants are annoying because they need to keep their land fertile, so they produce whatever the land will let them produce sustainably, whether or not it's something the ruler needs. If the ruler is, say, running a war and needs army supplies, well the peasants may not be in the position to provide enough grain, wood, etc.
On the other hand, if the ruler sets up a system to gather farmland together and give it to one big farmer, the ruler can work with the one big farmer to get what they need: A lot of this probably comes down to iterations on the theme of Dunbar's number, but never, ever disregard the role of politics in favoring the rise of a few big players in any industry, especially agriculture.
Some joke sourly about the military-industrial-corn complex, with fixed nitrogen being the thing that they all need bombs or fertilizer , and a lot of the infrastructure that was quietly set up to beat the commies and so forth produced the big farms of today. The factory farms are not terribly efficient at anything except getting government contracts, subsidies, and regulations, but they are certainly good at that. They're also good at providing a commodity say 2 field corn that is sufficiently standardized that it can be marketed in bulk, and people can build supply chains around its dependable supply and known quantities.
It's a lot harder to build massive supply chains based on small farmers growing crops sustainably. You'll get what they can surplus when the surplus is ripe plus or minus refrigeration or storage , and if it's a surplus of golden beets when you need bread wheat, that's just too bad. Hard to make bread from beets, and hard to stop urban food riots over beet bread instead of wheat bread, but there you have it.
Ironically, one of the reasons Russia didn't suffer a famine when the USSR crashed was that they'd taken to doing some really effective peasant lot-farming. They had their apartments in the city, but they had their little dacha out in the countryside. When the official distribution systems collapsed, for a few years the dachas provided a majority of the food the Russians ate, until they made the shift to a market-based society.
In that way, I'd suggest that the Russians were much better prepared for a crash than are people in the US. No one I know here has a survival garden outside the city, and many of our in-city gardens are crap for producing food as I'm finding out.
I've got rocks, clay, and a 45 degree slope. Terracing will be expensive. You're probably right, but for SFnal purposes it's interesting to consider: What if you're wrong? What if Hollywood, and all things Western and white are considered uncool or uninteresting by the rest of the world? What if they're considered uncool by pretty much everyone, everywhere, including white westerners? Ok, yes, people want to see stories about themselves, but the analogy would be European cinema: That said, my young Indonesian relatives all learnt fluent English by age 5 from endless repeat viewings of Pixar and Disney product on ever-present tablets.
They're relatively cosmopolitan and middle class, though. Ah, I see what you mean. Heteromeles if my physics teacher was here he would wrap your knuckles for messing up your units of measure. Yeah the price of solar is falling but the power density isn't really moving much.
Which means prettty soon available square footage is going to be the dominant factor at least in urban areas. For 32 KW's of solar panel you need probably sqrft of panel space. Most fix roof installations are not gonna come close to actually generating 32 KWH with that except at certain times of the year.
San Diego helps not just because it is sunny but because it is southernly, and if you are coastal you don't need much air con, which is a real killer.
Nights and winters really screw up solar. You can use the grid essentially as your battery and you can sell back surplus. I have a 20kwh off the grid install up here in southern Oregon with tilting panels and there are stil times in the winter where shit gets problematic and we need the generator.
I also need to rely on propane for heat in the winter and for hot water. Adding more panels doesn't help much since the times that are problematic production is essentially zero. To quote Mitt Romney something I try not to do: OK, carry that too far and you wind up with Saturn's Children , but the fruit of automated labour is no more or less taxable than human. Especially if you grant a basic income in part in kind; driverless uber trip kilometres, robot farmed food etc.
Yes, the idle hands- devilry link is an issue, but that doesn't mean we should say "You there, peasant, get back to your life of meaningless toil lest ye revolt". When I was young I had friends who referred to their unemployment cheques as "art grants". It was only half in jest. Heteromeles was quite clear -- he is getting about 32kWh over the period of a day from his panel array, not 32kW output at any given time I presume this is a near-peak summer output, not what he expects to get during mid-winter.
Your own comments are a bit confusing with a mixture of lower-case and upper-case "w" for watts. The proper symbol is always "W". In general the distinction between the kW and kWh is pretty important, changes the meaning of what is being discussed and measured. However capitalization doesn't change the meaning and is s bloody pain in the ass on an iPhone keypad so I'll likely continue fucking that up on occasion.
Today's been cloudy, and we'll be lucky to break 20 kWh by sundown. Yes, the difference between kW and kWh is important, and he made it in his initial post. He gets three kW or more peak at noon on good summer days, 2kW on more cloudy ones. Oh, and capitalisation IS important - k is a common abbreviation for kilo or thousand or depending , K is temperature in Kelvin. There are some coming out now in the range but they are pricey.
He could be producing 32kWh over the course of a day with an 8kW system assuming it's relatively sunny as it is now. Or a 6kW that is well aligned and kicking as.
Or maybe a 20kW that is poorly aligned like almost all rooftop systems are. There is simply no way to infer the number of panels from the daily production numbers, at least not from a rooftop system. It's like him saying "I got three inches of rain yesterday" you can't tell the intensity of the rainfall. You cant build anything on top of a human peasant substrate, because they do not produce much in the way of surplus.
This is how almost all of history worked - 9 people farming for every person doing something else. The only places that were even marginally richer were places with off-season crafting traditions. The important thing about robot-babushka is that robot babushka doesn't eat 90 percent of everything it produces. Which means you get to keep on having, well, an economy. That economy will be producing the robot parts.
And that will not be a strain on it. Because, again, electricity is much easier to produce in terms of "Land required" than calories, and you can convert it to metal and parts and everything else very easily. World may run out of oil. It is not going to run out of bauxite, iron ore or sand. Until we got to tar sands, people though that was crappy too, and it is: It's just that it's worth it right now.
Change the cost equation slightly and all that stuff will stay in the ground. The other thing to remember is that the order of fragility is: The last two are safe from anything we can do right now, and probably some members of our species will survive. Oil-based civilization is in as great danger as any uncontacted Amazonian tribe at the moment. Fortunately for us, we still have the option of abandoning it the way we abandoned horse-based civilization a century ago.
All we've got to do is find the guts to call it progress and the metrics to call rebuilding and re-engineering growth. That's a psychological task more than a physical one. We're not really sure yet. I've got 18 panels, and I'll have to check on what the peak wattage is. Fortunately, my new house has a big ol' south-facing roof.
Most civilizations have been built atop peasants. The problem isn't the surplus, because you can get pretty enormous surpluses out of things like paddy rice and wet-patch taro.
Rather, the two problems are that high-output systems tend not to be stable or sustainable on the scale of centuries, and when they are sustainable, the outputs tend to be sufficiently unpredictable that you can't run complicated supply chains off them. For example, if you want to build a fleet, you can whack down a forest and you've got your fleet. You then have to wait a few hundred years until the forest regrows, or you've got to go elsewhere for your wood.
If you want to build a few ships a year, that can be harder, especially if they are big ships, because the particular trees you need may or may not be available any given year.
The forests may produce a wealth of firewood in the meantime, but you can't build your ships out of firewood. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
My small home state, Victoria, has an year supply of dirty brown coal. That's just the known reserves; there's almost certainly a lot more, but nobody's bothered doing any exploration since the s. Of course, the good news is that, as you say, the cost equation has changed. One large coal fired power station has just closed down.
BUT there were howls of outrage from the right when it did, including from former PM Tony Abbott, who demanded subsidies to keep it open. The coal needs to stay in the ground. In a sane world, it would stay in the ground.
But if the carbon lobby gets its way and keeps the carbon bubble going for another decade or two, a fair bit of it won't. We've already seen problems with the traditional agar because of materials shortages: My dad was an epidemiologist, so I learned a bit about this.
One big problem is that if you do your job right and prevent an epidemic you can't prove that it would have happened. You know, those who "don't deserve" our hard earned tax dollars — even when universal prevention would be the cheapest strategy.
During the flu scare a few years ago in Toronto the wealthy and famous managed to jump the queue to get their shots. No concept of herd immunity or realization that a vaccination isn't perfect protection.
I was blackly reminded of a story I read years earlier, where the protagonist has an incurable epidemic disease which she struggles to conceal from her employer — because the longer she cleans the rich bastard's house the greater the chance the rich bastard will catch the disease too.
Thankfully the government will force the electricity company to buy your solar electricity at a lot more than the market rate. And when they stop doing that In Sydney, Australia we have a little 3kW system that produces enough electricity for our electric-only adult house to be roughly grid-neutral. But obviously we produce during the day and consume at night. The most annoying part is when we're duly feeding our 2.
Someone is making money, but it's not us. But note that gas and coal thermal electricity costs more even after subsidies, which is why electricity prices here keep going up. Our government is really smart about stuff like that. That problem is way more general: Save someone from a lion that has attacked them and they will be extremely grateful.
Notice that the cage is unlocked and lock it before the lion gets out, no-one will care. In my day job I make burglar alarms. They're hard to sell and almost always a begrudging purchase.
Sparks fly as snake trapped in metal ring freed with angle grinder
Indonesia police admit using snake to terrorise Papuan man Snake catcher uses angle grinder to free stuck copperhead · The Kansas City Star (2 days ago) . A $1, Weed Grinder? (Entrepeneur); feb () Snake catcher uses angle grinder to free stuck copperhead (Star-Telegram: Latest News); feb. The Angle: Crowdsurfing at the Grammys Edition feb () Snake catcher uses angle grinder to free stuck copperhead (Star-Telegram: Latest News).