SilentWorld

35 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Because the only other option is the slow decay towards there being no Palestine at all. More of the Arab people in the region will become Israelis over time and enjoy the benefits of living in a liberal democracy.

 

The only way the Palestinians can actually move forward with building a lasting nation is to agree to the terms the Israelis are offering. They have rejected better deals and the deals keep getting worse because the position of Israel keeps getting better. There is no reason to believe the Israeli position won’t continue to improve over that of the Palestinians.

 

But again, the leaders of the Palestinians aren’t the ones suffering due to rejecting every deal offered for decades now, so what do they care?

If enough Arabs become Israelis, wouldn't Israel eventually just... become Palestine? 

19 minutes ago, Brick said:

 

I knew you'd bring up this anecdote. My maternal grandfather was a recreational pilot, even owned his own small plane, and he didn't like helicopters either. If you have engine failure in a plane you can still try and land safely, but with a helo, there's very little you can do, and will probably just drop like a stone. Makes me second guess ever wanting to go for a helicopter ride again. 

I wonder what the statistics are on the dangers of helicopters vs small planes. It seems like, aside from drug overdoses, aviation deaths are the most common way for celebrities to meet an untimely death, and there's quite a few that died in a plane not in a helicopter. 

MacKay is stupid as hell. 

I hope Charest wins. cuz fuck Harper. 

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

The median age of the 18 comfirmed fatalities so far is 75, many with underlying medical conditions.

Oh good!

how bad could this get 

He’s right tho

16 hours ago, DarkStar189 said:

I hope everything goes absolutely perfect when they take real people up into space. Could you imagine the shit show if there was loss of life?

If we’re going to be sending people to Mars, there’s probably going to be loss of life eventually.

42 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

True! Bernie and Trump have many similarities.

Well yeah. 

1 hour ago, Jose said:

 

I wonder if this tiresome bullshit of always crying about fake media abuse will work in the GE. Hopefully!

It worked for Trump.

7 hours ago, osxmatt said:

 

Donny is right about the Afghanistan war. 

1 hour ago, gamer.tv said:

So now parts have started to flood due to the rain...

That’s good isn’t it? The fires are over?

3 hours ago, chakoo said:

If the CPC picks Pierre Poilievre than they might as well already start congratulating Trudeau on his next majority win.

 

There is only 1 other CPC MP I find lower then him.

Who.

Some of the responses to that tweet are real gems.

I think Suits was more popular in Canada than the USA, probably because it was filmed here. 

58 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

Correct. They don't randomly burst into flames. But they sometimes do burst into flames, and rarely is a missile the cause of that. 

But sometimes a missile is a cause of that.

45 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I think you’re underestimating the powers of human technological creativity.

 

This is why the ‘doomsday’ view of climate change always strikes me as naively Malthusian in nature.

 

I won’t deny that we might be in for some pain—humans can be a little slow on the uptake.  It might be that the average Joe has to see the oceans rising up and burying a good third of the city or village he lives in before he gets truly motivated.

 

But once humans are motivated to address a problem en masse—I.e., once it’s do-or-die for the average Joe—they tend to find an ingenious, didn’t-see-that-coming way to solve it.  Maybe not overnight—but given enough time, they tend to find an answer.  That’s how we got the horse and plough, weights and measures, vaccines...all the accumulated wonders of technological innovation that saved us not just from a Malthusian apocalypse, but innumerable others that ought to have done us in, but didn’t.

"Well yes climate change is going to cause a significant amount of human suffering, but it probably won't cause a complete extinction of human society. Once the suffering gets bad enough I think we'll find a solution" is not really a very optimistic outlook on the future of humanity IMO. 

I also think that the idea that "we always solve problems when the consequences get bad enough" is being extremely optimistic. Technological development alone isn't going to pull us out of the woodchipper unless we have some miraculous discovery very soon. Here's a hypothetical: tomorrow the University of Utah (lol) announces they have developed a commercially viable  fusion reactor. It would still take years, probably decades before the majority of power production was replaced by such a device. And then, it would take decades after that to get to the point where the climate stopped warming. If this miraculous technological development you're hoping for isn't going to happen until after we're seeing coastal cities and island countries getting submerged, I don't think I'm being pessimistic to say that it's probably too late. 

It makes him look more mature he should keep it!

Imagine if Trump invades Iran AND gets re-elected! What a time to be alive!

49 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

What does it mean? Are they gonna attack Iran?

Practically, the law isn’t going to prevent many 18-20 year olds from smoking. They’ll get cigarettes m from their college buddies, coworkers, etc. What it will do is make it harder for 13-17 year old to get cigarettes because the 18 year old seniors won’t be able to buy them. I tend to think that’s a good thing. 

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And trucking has a built in advantage over rails, as currently set up. Trucking travels on maintenance and capital-subsidized roads where the road owner (government) also doesn't pay local property taxes on the property used by the roads. Truckers do the most damage to the roads, but have every ICE passenger vehicle (and in some cases, sales and other general tax payers) to help subsidize their operation.

 

Rail is privately owned and operated (for the most part) and the property owned by the rail companies are subject to local property taxes.

While many things curently hauled by truck could be replaced by train (but then what powers the train?) there's plenty of things that can't be -- gravel/road base isn't going to be transported by train (or if it is transported by train, perhaps there's some place that doesn't have gravel pits for hundreds of miles that I'm not aware of, it's still got to be transported by truck for the last part of the journey). And with current technology (despite what Elon Musk might say), it's literally legally impossible to put a powerful enough battery in a haul truck. The truck would be overweight even when it had no load! Perhaps hydrogen isn't feasible either, but battery electric is literally a non-starter and will continue to be unless battery density has a revolutionary change. Like it needs to improve probably 10 fold. 

47 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Hydrogen is basically as dumb as ethanol. 

57 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Hydrogen isn't coming

why tho. 

zero emission transportation can't be done with fully electric. impossible for hauling goods. 

bring on hydrogen already 

oh geeze