Environmentalists are the worst people on earth.

[freebeard]

Isn't machined vs ground splitting hairs?

[rmay635703]

If you think environmentalists are the worst try talking to the pro roundabout people.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

If you think environmentalists are the worst try talking to the pro roundabout people.

LOL.

I'm indifferent so far to roundabouts. Sisters (Oregon) got one on Hwy 20 a few years ago, and so far it's slowed me down. Maybe cross-traffic could never get in?

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Isn't machined vs ground splitting hairs?

Not if you're talking precision, which you seem to do.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Werent machined which implies a tool bit, they were ground using an abrasive which indeed can be exceedingly accurate as you get down to polishing compounds
And you split hairs on my eunuch comment?

Surface grinders.

[freebeard]

Your basic subtractive machining operations are grinding and scraping.

But neither are provable to be capable of the demonstrated technique in materials with inclusions of differing density. Possibly laser ablation?

[Piotrsko]

Lasers have same difficulty cutting stuff as anything else..... the soft spots ablate faster, only the soft is different than a less dense or tensile material

[freebeard]

So what doesn't?

[freebeard]

Crack Down On New Climate Denial! Nonprofit tells YouTube

On the one hand you have environmentalists stirring the pot, OTOH there is this:

3:22 If someone claims that plants will benefit from the sudden change of climate zones, then that’s
3:27 scientific misinformation alright. If someone says that they’re not worried about climate change and
3:33 more worried about energy shortages, then that’s their opinion

Whether plants benefit from the knock-on effects of increased CO2 would be a [human-centric] opinion; would it not?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

On the one hand you have environmentalists stirring the pot, OTOH there is this:


Whether plants benefit from the knock-on effects of increased CO2 would be a [human-centric] opinion; would it not?

That's been my basic argument since the beginning of the banned global warming thread (which is substantially changed since my first opinion decades ago). It's not the change that stresses species; but the rate of change.

Plants generally benefiting from increased CO2 concentration is objective scientific fact. Humans can observe that fact, and have an opinion about the benefits of greening the planet vs other less certain consequences of increasing CO2 concentration.

I'll give it a listen tonight. My brother in law sent me his "old" VR headset which is 1 generation old now. Must be nice retiring in your early 50's with lots of fun money; but I'm not complaining at all. I'll be watching Youtube on the "big screen".