News thread.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/26/africa/sudan-last-male-northern-white-rhino-tinder/index.html
One of only three last existing northern white rhinos (that we know of) gets Tinder profile. Obviously it's just for PR, but good purpose

Mistral wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/26/africa/sudan-last-male-northern-white-rhino-tinder/index.html
One of only three last existing northern white rhinos (that we know of) gets Tinder profile. Obviously it's just for PR, but good purpose

Wow, Tinder is actually put to good use for once... also that photograph of the Rhino without his horns made me veins run cold with pity and shock.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/26/africa/sudan-last-male-northern-white-rhino-tinder/index.html
One of only three last existing northern white rhinos (that we know of) gets Tinder profile. Obviously it's just for PR, but good purpose

Wow, Tinder is actually put to good use for once... also that photograph of the Rhino without his horns made me veins run cold with pity and shock.

In certain situations it may actually be better for the horn to be off...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/better-de-horned-than-dead-zoo-chops-rhino-horns-to-foil-poachers

especially when there's just three left, even if they have armed guards round the clock

I remember reading how in India, there is a special wildlife preserve in which the government has allowed the guards to go Roman on any trespassers. It has stirred up controversy for obvious reasons, but the result is that there has been no pouching on that location since the 'no-holds barred' rule was applied.

Given how poachers have been using rocket launchers to kill elephants, I think that it may time for African nations to adopt that mindset.

In any case, I don't see why we can't just clone all these endangered species.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I remember reading how in India, there is a special wildlife preserve in which the government has allowed the guards to go Roman on any trespassers. It has stirred up controversy for obvious reasons, but the result is that there has been no pouching on that location since the 'no-holds barred' rule was applied.

Given how poachers have been using rocket launchers to kill elephants, I think that it may time for African nations to adopt that mindset.

In any case, I don't see why we can't just clone all these endangered species.

The scientists in the field of cloning still haven't yet perfected the method of bringing a healthy, stable recreation of an advanced species into the world through artificial means. The sad and frustrating thing is that there are many people who are anti-cloning on principle, and would probably oppose the idea of using it to help save critically endangered wildlife.

With all the talk of bringing Mammoths back from the dead, my guess is that there are financial incentives to basically bring the first truly extinct animal back because the public interest would still be massive. That interest could galvanize interest in preserving other near-extinct animals because now the technology would be viable. However, you would also need a lot of land reserved for the species to thrive and rebuild, and sometimes there are no wild spaces to go back to.

Adm. Harry Harris, the chief of U.S. Pacific Command says that North Korean missiles are now able to hit Hawaii and wants anti-missile systems in place in that state.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

In today's news of the relaunched Ottoman Empire and it's all powerful Sultan, Wikipedia is blocked for "threats to national security"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-internet-wikipedia-idUSKBN17V06Q

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Yes, but it wouldn't be that simple since North Korea has been known to launch artillery in short bursts via raids or something without getting counterattacked. One has to keep in mind that North Korea has been preparing for war for a very, very long time. And given how it's being run by somebody so young, relatively inexperienced, and more ruthless then his father and grandpa were, it's even more dangerous now then it has been since the early 1950's.

The only comfort is that the USA and South Korea also has a tank presence that is far superior to anything that North Korea has. Not to mention a better air force.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Yes, but it wouldn't be that simple since North Korea has been known to launch artillery in short bursts via raids or something without getting counterattacked. One has to keep in mind that North Korea has been preparing for war for a very, very long time. And given how it's being run by somebody so young, relatively inexperienced, and more ruthless then his father and grandpa were, it's even more dangerous now then it has been since the early 1950's.

The only comfort is that the USA and South Korea also has a tank presence that is far superior to anything that North Korea has. Not to mention a better air force.

I think South Korea has been preparing just as long, even if not quite as provocatively

Obviously everyone, including Koreans, really know that if war were to actually occur (traditional or nuclear), North Korea would loose in every single instance. It would just be matter of days really. However it's the initial moments that are so scary. Including bombing Seoul to atoms before anyone can even act to it

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Yes, but it wouldn't be that simple since North Korea has been known to launch artillery in short bursts via raids or something without getting counterattacked. One has to keep in mind that North Korea has been preparing for war for a very, very long time. And given how it's being run by somebody so young, relatively inexperienced, and more ruthless then his father and grandpa were, it's even more dangerous now then it has been since the early 1950's.

The only comfort is that the USA and South Korea also has a tank presence that is far superior to anything that North Korea has. Not to mention a better air force.

I think South Korea has been preparing just as long, even if not quite as provocatively

There was a time when South Korea cut back on that because they thought that good relations would help the problem. But that basically ended in the late-2000's when Kim Jong Il launched artillery raids and crippled that one gunboat.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Yes, but it wouldn't be that simple since North Korea has been known to launch artillery in short bursts via raids or something without getting counterattacked. One has to keep in mind that North Korea has been preparing for war for a very, very long time. And given how it's being run by somebody so young, relatively inexperienced, and more ruthless then his father and grandpa were, it's even more dangerous now then it has been since the early 1950's.

The only comfort is that the USA and South Korea also has a tank presence that is far superior to anything that North Korea has. Not to mention a better air force.

I think South Korea has been preparing just as long, even if not quite as provocatively

There was a time when South Korea cut back on that because they thought that good relations would help the problem. But that basically ended in the late-2000's when Kim Jong Il launched artillery raids and crippled that one gunboat.

Well they have the world's most powerful military behind them in ally form, so army spending probably isn't highest in the budget agenda every year

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-options-against-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

"Isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ?" Sen. John McCain asked Harris at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.
"It is, sir, and this is not designed to counter those kind of basic weapons," Harris said.
"And what is designed to do that? Anything?" McCain asked.
"We do not have those types of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched," Harris said.

I guess it's "interesting", for the lack of better word, how in this day and age technology exists to shoot down and prevent strikes of advanced weapons, but not traditional rocketry and the most basic of 'cannons'.

I remember that the Army successfully tested a laser that could destroy artillery shells in flight, but I don't know what became of it. Also, the Israelis have the Iron Dome rocket and missile defense system that can intercept modern unguided rockets. I also believe that a lot of the CIWS Gatling guns could also intercept these same kind of rockets, but you need a lot of them.

Interesting

Also does the South Korea and their US coalition not have some kind of artillery presence of their own near DMZ? Couldn't they intercept somehow. I haven't really looked into it

Yes, but it wouldn't be that simple since North Korea has been known to launch artillery in short bursts via raids or something without getting counterattacked. One has to keep in mind that North Korea has been preparing for war for a very, very long time. And given how it's being run by somebody so young, relatively inexperienced, and more ruthless then his father and grandpa were, it's even more dangerous now then it has been since the early 1950's.

The only comfort is that the USA and South Korea also has a tank presence that is far superior to anything that North Korea has. Not to mention a better air force.

I think South Korea has been preparing just as long, even if not quite as provocatively

There was a time when South Korea cut back on that because they thought that good relations would help the problem. But that basically ended in the late-2000's when Kim Jong Il launched artillery raids and crippled that one gunboat.

Well they have the world's most powerful military behind them in ally form, so army spending probably isn't highest in the budget agenda every year

It had to have increased ever since those raids, or at least since Kim Jong Un decided to launch all those raids once he took officially took power.

7,000 new weasels for the Sultan
https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/04/29/new-decree-creates-positions-for-7000-neighborhood-guards/

Mistral wrote:

7,000 new weasels for the Sultan
https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/04/29/new-decree-creates-positions-for-7000-neighborhood-guards/

It makes you wonder how long before Turkey gets booted from NATO.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

7,000 new weasels for the Sultan
https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/04/29/new-decree-creates-positions-for-7000-neighborhood-guards/

It makes you wonder how long before Turkey gets booted from NATO.

Looking inevitable yes

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

7,000 new weasels for the Sultan
https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/04/29/new-decree-creates-positions-for-7000-neighborhood-guards/

It makes you wonder how long before Turkey gets booted from NATO.

Looking inevitable yes

And not just kicked out of NATO, what about all-out war? Nobody wants to admit to thinking such thoughts, but the way things are gearing up over there doesn't leave me feeling safe regarding their political and military presence. Over here in my British Uni, students and teachers are lamenting how "bad" things are in America (even thoguh they probably haven't visited during the Trump administration) and how likely we are to be "killed" if anyone were to set foot over there! Ignoring how much of a broad, stupid and largely inaccurate generalization, I'd rather take my chances in Texas.

I think all-out civil war is more likely than war with another country (well okay with the exception of it's ongoing neighbors)

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

7,000 new weasels for the Sultan
https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/04/29/new-decree-creates-positions-for-7000-neighborhood-guards/

It makes you wonder how long before Turkey gets booted from NATO.

Looking inevitable yes

And not just kicked out of NATO, what about all-out war? Nobody wants to admit to thinking such thoughts, but the way things are gearing up over there doesn't leave me feeling safe regarding their political and military presence. Over here in my British Uni, students and teachers are lamenting how "bad" things are in America (even thoguh they probably haven't visited during the Trump administration) and how likely we are to be "killed" if anyone were to set foot over there! Ignoring how much of a broad, stupid and largely inaccurate generalization, I'd rather take my chances in Texas.

A lot of leftists professors and students in American universities think the same thing here. Other then those Antifa anarchists thugs, things are still pretty much the same as they were before the election. As for all-out war involving Turkey, Iran is a much bigger threat in the Middle East then either Turkey or ISIS. If anything else, Turkey has to worry about Iran and it's old enemy, Russia. As for civil war, that's unlikely considering how he still has mass support among the people. That's a big reason why last year's coup against him failed. Also, most of the commanders are still loyal to Erdogon. It's not like in Egypt where after the Muslim Brotherhood got democratically elected, how they ruined Egypt and turned into a totalitarian state that EVERYBODY hated. Thankfully, it didn't last long since they didn't purge nearly enough of the military commanders which in turn led to General El Sisi overthrowing and crushing the Muslim Brotherhood.

I think the "mass support" is something like with Putin, where it seems big, but under the skin and propaganda isn't actually that wide. Now with secret police in place and most of the opposition removed it'll seem more united though

Mistral wrote:

I think the "mass support" is something like with Putin, where it seems big, but under the skin and propaganda isn't actually that wide. Now with secret police in place and most of the opposition removed it'll seem more united though

But if that were true, than that one coup would have succeeded since the people would not have protested them.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

I think the "mass support" is something like with Putin, where it seems big, but under the skin and propaganda isn't actually that wide. Now with secret police in place and most of the opposition removed it'll seem more united though

But if that were true, than that one coup would have succeeded since the people would not have protested them.

That was before he had started his "clean-ups" and larger scale power grabbings, which many see as excuses after the coup. The recent election illegality questioning doesn't help

A lake of molten carbon the size of Mexico has been found underneath the western part of the U.S.A.

Bill Nye pushes eugenics.

First, he had that one transgender person sing about gay sex on his Netflix show (No, I'm not kidding. This actually happened.) and now this...It's really really sad what he's become. And to think I used to watch him on a constant basis when I was a kid. What the #$%@ happened to him?!

I don't think anything he says in that article is wrong. Even if you disagree with it, the population pressure will inevitably become a problem, if it hasn't already.

Also I loved his debates against Ken Ham. But since we apparently cannot discuss religion here, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

As for the Netflix show... ehh haven't bothered with it

Mistral wrote:

I don't think anything he says in that article is wrong. Even if you disagree with it, the population pressure will inevitably become a problem, if it hasn't already.


As for the Netflix show... ehh haven't bothered with it

Except the population of the world is already beginning to decease. Just look at China and how the population is already decreasing since their one-child policy has resulted in so many males being born and not nearly enough females. The population in the West has been decreasing dramatically for some time. It's not so much a problem with people as so much the distribution.

Not only that, but eugenics can lead to nasty problems... a la the 1930's. It wasn't just Nazi Germany but also Imperial Japan that believed in it as well.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

I don't think anything he says in that article is wrong. Even if you disagree with it, the population pressure will inevitably become a problem, if it hasn't already.


As for the Netflix show... ehh haven't bothered with it

Except the population of the world is already beginning to decease. Just look at China and how the population is already decreasing since their one-child policy has resulted in so many males being born and not nearly enough females. The population in the West has been decreasing dramatically for some time. It's not so much a problem with people as so much the distribution.  

Not only that, but eugenics can lead to nasty problems... a la the 1930's. It wasn't just Nazi Germany but also Imperial Japan that believed in it as well.

No. Picking single most radical samples from here and there does not prove a point. Most important to remember however is that even though the growth rate has started lumbering, the exponential growth will still continue because of the amount people existing. It is estimated (2015) that by year 2100 even with almost non existent growth rate of 0,1%, the population will be at 11+ billion.

I have read stats that say otherwise. Or least say that it will implode after 2100.

This one talks about Europe's shrinking population. And this is a respectable web site.


Here's about how Brazil's fertility rate has decreased.

Here's how China's population will shrink.

This was from 4 years ago, so not long ago.


These 2 maps were from 3 years ago.