• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Lark

Members
  • Content count

    2,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lark

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ohio
  • Interests
    Small boats, water, wilderness, and those who travel far.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,394 profile views
  1. Selective breeding was both experiment and process. Mendel produced the math of simple genetic traits, complete dominance on one allele, way back. The gentlemen farmers of Jefferson's day were testing for the heritability of many traits long before somebody could guess what was happening inside one of Leeuwenhoek's cells. Granted many false assumptions were made on heritability, nobody dreamed of multifactorial incomplete dominance, let alone the intricate control mechanisms recently elucidated in the nonsense regions. But they knew redheads were hereditary. Unintended baggage confounded the selective breeding process, increased milk production in Holstein cattle linked to twinning, and as a result, medical problems after calving, Gene maps have helped keep us humble. To say there was no scientific basis would be to ignore a lot of observational science and early predictive genetics. Cause and affect can be carefully examined without mechanism. Much of the mechanism I memorized in undergrad is incomplete, some was wrong. Yet they still did science back in the 1980's and early 1990's.
  2. I'll read the Fraunhofer report this weekend. Thanks. As I noted, I'm curious how much wind is practical. Conservation is still critical, if boring. That's why I object to CAFE standards being watered down just because idiots feel the need to commute to work alone in their SUV, add mudders to their pickup to go to the grocery store, etc. I objected to CAFE failing to create a separate (taxed) category for trucks and SUV, so people could work or haul boats. I'd even let them create a (taxed) supercar category for rich idiots who want to drive slowly in bumper to bumper traffic. I'd water down CAFE as part of a carbon tax, to allow individual choice. I also support an increased gas tax. By the way, your logic in the Keystone Pipeline is convincing.
  3. I think your analogy was flawed but understand your point now. Selective breeding or survival of the fittest are common sense cause and affect. Darwin was willing to publicly state their similarities, despite the religious risk, and did a good job supporting his statement with detailed observations of the 'island effect'. His "On the origin of the species" is worth reading. As you stated, the phenomenon was understood long before Watson, Crick and Franklin took the first steps to explaining the mechanism. Settled science, despite the creationist camp of the Republican party. Eugenics fails not on scientific grounds, but on moral grounds. Many genetic diseases could be reduced or eliminated by selective breeding. Many multi factorial diseases have a genetic component (as well as prenatal care, early childhood development, etc) and could be minimized. Separating nature from nurture is of course not settled, partially because controlled experiments are unethical. Racism (the determination that native groups, a subspecies in the language of a biologist, were inferior) was a flawed moral judgement. They were different. There are subtle genetic differences, generally advantageous in the environment of pre colonial Australia. Addiction (alcoholism) also has a genetic component. The problem (IMO) of eugenics was the forced sterilization, and the flawed moral judgement, including racism, that the group in power used to determine the fate of those without power. The devaluing of life due to imperfection is a tricky slope indeed, especially if you trust me to determine what an imperfection is. I accept the science of selective breeding without accepting the morality of eugenics. The Education portion of your example was ironic, since Republican policy to determine school funding and quality by income of the parents (local property taxes, local control, poor parents kids' have shit educations) is one of my pet peeves, a huge waste of potential.
  4. Eugenics and forced sterilization is morally repugnant. From a livestock selective breeding view, it is completely logical. You don't keep low producing cows in the herd. You don't keep flighty animals that cause human injury. Are you saying mitigating global climate change is scientifically correct but morally repugnant?
  5. In reverse order of your concerns. Of course some conservatives are truly conservative in their environmental cause and affect approach. The American Conservative party (R) gives the process a bad name by preventing even the navy from taking risk minimization actions that might affect national security, odd since they military is the only government agency left that the Republicans universally like. (Even intelligence is on the questionable list, since they dared comment on Comrad Putin having his hooks in half of Trump's inner circle.) So when Republicans try to prevent NASA and NOAA observations and order the military not to prepare for predictions, they taint the conservative brand name. Just as some conservatives have been a great ally for prairie conservation (sustainable grazing and hunting), I would welcome American conservatives ceasing to be obstructionists and joining the world in protecting the world from climate change. The Conservative reaction in the US is not the conservative reaction globally. The US is promoting coal and eliminating black lung regulations. We just reached 10% renewable energy, to the embarrassment of the Republican party. Even more embarrassing, Texas makes a lot of it. I admit curiosity on how high that can go while allowing for peak capacity during the dog days of summer (hot and windless). But our policy "drill baby drill', 'dig baby dig' is not a straw man. It is what the Republican party promotes. Minimize conservation. Review and water down CAFE standards. Eliminate tax breaks for energy efficiency. Don't tax carbon, subsidize it. Can you give examples of Republican actions that are actually good for the planet? Or actions where Conservatives thwart the Republican party to protect the planet? Have Republicans considered how CAFE standards help protect the US automakers from badly polluting Chinese cars? The degree of preparedness has to be based on worst likely predictions, not best case scenarios. I presume a conservative family man would protect his family with adequate insurance just in case he croaked, despite the expense. I invest heavily in my health savings account even though I don't feel sick. I'm buying a harnesses, because I don't trust my girlfriend not to panic if I fall overboard on Erie. I could swim to shore eventually, but she may not fair as well. Like a conservative sailor, I consider the involvement of any rescue service to be an extreme embarrassment due to my failure to plan and prevent adequately. I agree a thinking individual can come to a minority opinion on climate change. Carless Dude is an extreme example, others have more polymodal view of the world. I assume you would agree that Venus is an example of runaway global warming not explainable by proximity to the sun alone. I would assume you accept that laboratory models and testing show a 'blanket' affect from CO2, CH4, O3, etc. II assume you disagree with that Republican politician that blames body heat. But we disagree on how much of an affect each has and which of the climate models are most accurate. Would that be correct? So if we agree so far, how much do we prepare for an uncertain future? Dog argues that it makes no sense to do anything since nobody is doing enough. (There is a big leak, so there is no reason to bail. Just relax on the deck and hold your nose plan.) Carless Dude says President Trump (R) is right, its all bogus. What say you? What would you do, knowing your children / grandchildren (if applicable) will depend on your getting it right? Wouldn't the conservative approach be to take aggressive action to minimize the risk of changing their world further? Germany proves sustainable energy production can be economical. Several islands are doing fascinating things partially to avoid the costs of importing fossil fuels. Foreign owned companies especially are doing quite well making and inventing renewable or energy efficient equipment, Updating our aging infrastructure, decentralizing our power grid and simultaneously adding renewables is not only conservative engineering of the non BS tradition, but also provides jobs much less subject to automation and outsourcing then coal mines or pipelines to move Canadian oil to Gulf Coast supertankers. Watering down every standard and regulation just because the Republicans can prevents long term planning and is actually bad for business. I think we are missing a great opportunity because the Republican Party painted itself into a corner at the behest of its political donors.
  6. Agreed. The military considers global climate change to be a huge risk for future wars. Republicans are telling them they cannot plan for it, even when it will affect their readiness, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/ the official UN stance is that climate change poses a huge risk. http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/11/climate-change-threatens-irreversible-dangerous-impacts-options-exist-limit-effects/ edit. For understandability by Republicans please replace huge with ginormous, I think that's the official adj now.
  7. Finances to start. Science in general is sometimes poor at producing full disclosure statements regarding where funding comes from. If Pfizer paid for the study it is given less weight then if UCLA did, since Pfizer had no reason to submit the other three studies showing no benefit for this new off label use. If Pfizer paid for the new research lab at UCLA that is also relevant. A career NASA scientist risking his career under BUsh or Trump who still says it's real, and causal, has far more credibility then one getting funded by 'clean' coal.
  8. So global warming is real. Carbon is rising. It is possible there isn't a cause and affect, and the worlds scientists who don't work for big oil and coal are mistaken. Therevfore the conservative reaction is to do nothing and risk the future and grandkids just in case no action is necessary. BS builds a conservative boat, since frames and floors may not be necessary. Math and stability design is academic. Some Orogomi experts say they are expensive wastes. Maintenance puts an unnecessary burden on the cruisers' economics. Rimas is a conservative sailor. Planning is overrated, it's better to drift along and trust to fate or god, Working toward the future you want isn't necessary, just radio the FEMA tow service when necessary. Why plan for an uncertain future by inspecting dock lines? Why risk the Starbucks money making sure ground tackle deploys? It's possible you won't have to anchor. It's possible the tide will flush you safely on to your next adventure.
  9. TV news is borderline irrelevant, as a large segment of the population doesn't pay for cable, can't or won't get broadcast, and gets their news elsewhere. That's where Senator Hilliary went wrong, She advertised (I read) on TV. Half the population under 50 didn't watch. This gives power to fake news, which fed the Trump camp and even here was frequently was quoted. In addition to fiction writers for profit, Putin provided his own circulation departmeant via an army of trolls. Even the IPad News feeds are interactive and feed the clicks by showing you what you are predisposed to believe.
  10. John Oliver did a good episode on that. He did it knowing he would face a lawsuit. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/22/media/john-oliver-coal-king-murray-lawsuit/index.html
  11. Meanwhile, those Ford jobs that Trump saved from Mexico.... They are going to China instead. Mine was built in Detroit. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/20/533680458/ford-shifts-focus-again-car-will-be-imported-to-u-s-from-china-not-mexico
  12. One small edit to suggest. "Claiming that the climate model<s> are wrong...." Think of it as hurricane projections only more so. There is a wedge of probability. There are several wedges of probability, constantly being revised. Different groups look at different data. Some are meta-studies looking at everything from tree ring data or CO2 in ancient ice to establish a baseline. Steam hits upon my biggest problem with the Republican party. They are being very radical in their casual disregard of 97% of the experts. Is conservative yacht design a Brentboat origami without floors or bulkheads, that considers maintenance as an unnecessary expense interfering with cruising? Is conservative seamanship ignoring NOAA? Just eyeball the sky. Don't plot a course or plan for reciprocals. You don't need a compass if you have a GPS. Life jackets waste valuable space, so leave them on shore. Reefing points are for pansies. Don't replace the safety flares and hope the hand held works if a storm comes! Part of self reliance is planning for possible scenarios, taking corrective actions and making sure you don't need a bailout. Republicans rely on FEMA and ignore reality.
  13. What I've seen of the EU from my brother's wedding was my generation (X) completely taking advantage of it. Virtually nobody was both married to somebody form their country of birth and living in that same country. I don't have insight to how that translates across economic groups in Europe, the guests of that generation would translate to upper middle class in the states. I get the impression that the working poor also take advantage of it, but are freaking out the geezers.
  14. I'm actually optimistic for the youth, sometimes. Its kind of cool to see multiracial groups of teenagers wandering down the street, an opportunity Dabs never had. The smarter millennials know they don't have it as good as Grandpa. They may have graduated during the crash, and know there is no guarantee of anything. Their job may go to China tomorrow, or be replaced by a robot Christmas Eve. Dad was downsized at least once while they were growing up. Not ALL millennials are entitled lazy underachievers. Just as this group is connected despite geography, millennials do the same thing with online gaming. Even the most insular Indiana white guy will have contact with others from around the world, and realize the Pence Universe is too limiting. What is the Democratic vision? Big tent party, but instead of a big party inside that tent its a bunch of small groups ignoring each other.
  15. https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/129885/why-does-increasing-the-sample-size-lower-the-variance Here is a partial answer to your hang up on sig figs of thermometers vs ability to measure change. I regret I'm not the person to give a short course in statistics. They give me a headache. A buddy did his PhD in this area, he'd just laugh at me trying to understand years of study in an afternoon. Short version is many imprecise measurements increase the power of any experiment to identify small change. Data points are each data station each time a measurement is taken.