On 08/01/2025 20:00, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 08/01/2025 16:32, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 08/01/2025 14:02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> No, it is not the people who dont want nucler, it is the oil gas and
>>>>>> renewable companies who don't want nuclear, and who spend an enormous
>>>>>> amount of money on negative propaganda and buying politicians and
>>>>>> regulators, who tell you that the people don't want nuclear.
>>>>> Well, we know that, at some point, oil and gas will become scarce and
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what's in the nuclear objection for "renewables", though.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a nuclear grid there is no point in having any renewable
>>>> energy whatsoever. It simply adds cost complexity and unreliability for
>>>> no benefit whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Renewable companies are only too aware of the fact that widespread
>>>> adoption of nuclear power means the end of wind and solar.
>>>
>>> None of that makes sense to me.
>>
>> That is not my fault. I said it in as few syllables as I could, that
>> renewable energy intests are totally threatened by nuclear power, Is
>> that simple enough for you?
>
> No, it's too simple. Probably simplistic as well.
>
> I don't see how widespread adoption of nukes means the end of wind and solar,
> when those two coexist right now with oil/gas/coal generated power.
>
Lol.

That's because you neither understand the reasons nor the economics of
that coexistence.

> And it seems to be that the infrastructure for distributing electricity
> is the same once it leaves the generating plant.
>
> But obviously my thought on this is not well informed.
>
No, it isnt.

The salient point is that the fuel cost of nuclear is minimal. Once
built fuelled and serviced the opportunity cost of generating
electricity is pretty much zero. Whatever else you put on the grid
nuclear can and will always undercut it to allow as much of the asset to
generate income

Renewables can coexist with gas, because gas can save money if it
doesn't generate.

But whatever space nuclear takes up, it will always be to the exclusion
of all other technologies because it cost as much not to generate as to
generate. Same as a windfarm or solar farm.

So nuclear coexists with gas for peak demand following, but directly
competes with renewables for baseload. It is however a far superior
quality product. It is independent of the weather, needs no external
storage to stabilise the grid, can be built near demand centres and its
ecologically and environmentally sensitive and efficient in terms of
site usage. And far cheaper to maintain and less liable to downtime. And
it lasts longer

We could run nicely on 30GW of nuclear and 20GW of gas with no renewables.
But we couldn't run on less than 100GW of renewables with 50GW of gas
with any reliability.

From the grid perspective, intermittent renewables simply add to the
problem of a varying demand. Meaning far more capacity is needed in e.g.
gas and other dispatchable plant. That costs money.

By taking renewables off the grid you only have variability due to
demand. The amount of gas needed to balance drops dramatically and
nuclear runs all the baseload.

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 19:24:03 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen
<lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> wrote in
<slrnvntk6j.31j9q.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>:

> On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 18:25:29 +0000, Rich wrote:
>>> If you must use samba as the backing store, then use something like
>>> Restic which stores the data in its own internal format and only
>>> requires "basic file storage and basic filenames" support from the
>>> underlying backing store.
>>>
>>> Restic: https://restic.net/
>
> On 2025-01-08, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>> Or tar(1), with or without compression.
>
> I think restic has promise.
>
> tar(1) does NOT allow me to have a complete backup for every snapshot
> without wasting space on multiple copies of the majority of files tht
> did not change.
>
> I suppose one could use one large file on the samba server, mount it
> through some tunnel that lets you see it as a block device; create an
> ext4 file system on that block device, then use rsync to that file system
> to create a backup with versioning. Could this be done with a loopback
> mount?

I was going to suggest that, but also using LUKS to encrypt
the volume -- at least if you're storing it on some cloud provider.
"It should work." (More famous last words. ;) )

(One downside is LUKS apparently won't allow a sparse file
being used for your loopback mount to remain sparse, since
it encrypts across the whole block device.)

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.8 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"A pessimist is never disappointed."

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:05:19 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You're racist for even talking about it! :-D
>>>
>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a
>> kid 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>> color'?
>> That means they're colored, right?
>
> Why don't you walk up to a "colored man" and call them that? A good
> test!

I don't care for 'Mad Dog' Mattis but he did have one good quote in him:
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/

Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.

Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.

On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>
> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>
> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>
> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.

There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want
to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing
better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better than what
the US produces, but they're just as dim.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>
>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>
>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>> feasible.
>>
>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows.
>> The
>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>
> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want
> to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing
> better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better than what
> the US produces, but they're just as dim.

Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
just too different for a good fit.

Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
somewhere to the middle.

With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
is 'good enough'.

Joel wrote:
> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>
>
https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:00:16 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I don't see how widespread adoption of nukes means the end of wind and
> solar,
> when those two coexist right now with oil/gas/coal generated power.

For the most part the wind and solar projects are subsidized for political
reasons. If nuclear generated power was cheaper and wasn't limited like
fossil fuels what would be the rationale?
> And it seems to be that the infrastructure for distributing electricity
> is the same once it leaves the generating plant.

There's the rub. In the US effective solar is limited to the southwest.
Suitable wind sites are more widely distributed but both are often far
from where the energy is needed. Iowa has wind capability but the
infrastructure to bring it to Chicago is lacking. I'm not going to hunt up
a cite but I believe almost all current nuclear plants are within 75 miles
of the area they service.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:19:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The salient point is that the fuel cost of nuclear is minimal. Once
> built fuelled and serviced the opportunity cost of generating
> electricity is pretty much zero. Whatever else you put on the grid
> nuclear can and will always undercut it to allow as much of the asset to
> generate income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Public sentiment and regulatory agencies come into play but the cost of
generation is only zero if you defer maintenance to the point where it
isn't worthwhile. The Vermont and Maine projects were also hurt by cheap
hydro from Quebec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Seabrook is operational but it bankrupted Public Service of Nw Hampshire.

Many US plants have been more successful but it's never a case of fuel and
forget.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 18:34:06 +0000, Pancho wrote:

> How do you explain Jihadist Islam?
>
> Religion/ideology is like evolution, the selfish meme. It is a mistake
> to presume it must be intrinsically good for adherents, as opposed to
> just good at perpetuating itself, creating new adherents.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/heresy-of-mohammed-10817

Belloc had a good explanation of why Islam didn't fade away like Arianism
or other Christian heresies.

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization_that is, the
civilization of Europe and America_have forgotten all about Islam. They
have never come in contact with it. they take for granted that it is
decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not
concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy
which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a
menace in the future as it has been in the past."

He wrote that in 1938.

On 1/8/25 4:54 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2025 10:43, D wrote:
>>> Cooling kills 10x the people than warming. That is how cooling is
>>> worse than warming. As for lack of water, desalination exists and
>>> works well. Desalination can be combined excellently, with solar
>>> power to drive down cost.
>>>
>> It is suitable for intermittent sources, yes. Nuclear is even better.
>
> This is the truth! But I am curious if solar would be a good option in
> say, southern spain to drive desalination, and in order to build the
> plants quicker, due to the politicians doing their best to still stop
> nuclear with the power of various regulations?

As I've said many times before - we need to use
EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT now (except coal if we can
possibly help it).

TRICK is to thwart the zealots - use energy sources
where MOST APPROPRIATE. If solar fits the bill for
certain projects, then use solar. If in a windy place
then windmills might do it. If oil-burning powerplants
are the best fit, use them. If nuke plants are to be
had, use them for big Grid stuff.

It's zealotry and fanaticism that's causing most of
the problems these days. Every faction sees THEIR
fix as the One And Only and will fight everybody else.
Logic, evidence, economics, all go Bye Bye.

And even coal, the techniques/chemistry to convert it
into methanol and ethanol are now pretty good. The
nasty sulfur and heavy metals are left behind. Some
can be re-sold for various industrial applications.

On 1/8/25 7:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 18:34:06 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>
>> How do you explain Jihadist Islam?
>>
>> Religion/ideology is like evolution, the selfish meme. It is a mistake
>> to presume it must be intrinsically good for adherents, as opposed to
>> just good at perpetuating itself, creating new adherents.
>
> https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/heresy-of-mohammed-10817
>
> Belloc had a good explanation of why Islam didn't fade away like Arianism
> or other Christian heresies.
>
> "Millions of modern people of the white civilization_that is, the
> civilization of Europe and America_have forgotten all about Islam. They
> have never come in contact with it. they take for granted that it is
> decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not
> concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy
> which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a
> menace in the future as it has been in the past."
>
> He wrote that in 1938.

Islam has proven to be a very robust meme. Adherents
quickly become immersed, saturated, with the ideology.
It explicitly includes doing Very Bad Things to all
infidels/heretics. Like the crusaders take on the
christian religion it DEMANDS being spread to all
at ANY cost by ANY means.

Bad enough in an age of slings and arrows ...

Post WW-1, after the Brits badly (intentionally)
divided up a lot of Islamic nations/territories,
there WAS a perception that it would just kinda
fade away. Instead the divisions spawned little
wars, then bigger wars - and extremism.

Today, bet that at LEAST Iran are de-facto nuclear
powers. Islam has taken over much of Africa, and
thus its vast resources. Poor immigration thinking
has imported large quantities of Islamics into
the belly of Europe - enough to be of considerable
political influence. The Ottomans failed to take
Europe (thank Vlad The Impaler) ... but it seems
Europe has completed their goal.

This all just ain't good ....

And that's just religion. Add usual politics and
ambition on top.

On 1/8/25 10:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2025 14:02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> No, it is not the people who dont want nucler, it is the oil gas and
>>> renewable companies who don't want nuclear, and who spend an enormous
>>> amount of money on negative propaganda and buying politicians and
>>> regulators, who tell you that the people don't want nuclear.
>> Well, we know that, at some point, oil and gas will become scarce and
>> expensive.
>>
>> I'm not sure what's in the nuclear objection for "renewables", though.
>
> If you have a nuclear grid there is no point in having any renewable
> energy whatsoever. It simply adds cost complexity and unreliability for
> no benefit whatsoever.

Ummmmm ... depends on your goals. Less nuke may also
be a longer-term goal due to waste disposal and safety
issues.

So, to each problem, the best solution - short/medium/long
term.

> Renewable companies are only too aware of the fact that widespread
> adoption of nuclear power means the end of wind and solar.

Not everyone/everything is 'on the grid', at least
not conveniently/economically. I think solar-PV
does have various useful niches. It can also be
a 'back-up' for more remote communities if the
grid segment goes down ... power the most vital
municipal systems - water/sewer, hospitals, comms.

Hey, why do you think UPS units sell so well ? :-)

Perovskite PV cells have been steadily improving -
now pushing into silicon territory. If you need
to replace silicon cells every 20 years that's
a huge expense - but Perovskite is aiming at
ultra-thin films ... something that can come
on a big roll of mylar and even just glued to
support structures. If the 20-year expense is
suddenly like the price of a can of whitewash
then the picture looks MUCH better.

I'd eventually like to see PVs replace almost
all conventional power plants - even nukes.
However I'm well aware that the tech and
expense for the cells - plus storage - are
generally NOT there yet. Until those factors
look much better then PV is more of a 'fetish'.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 00:19:36 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> The Ottomans failed to take
> Europe (thank Vlad The Impaler) ... but it seems Europe has completed
> their goal.

You might want to thank the people at Leponto, the iege of Vienna, and the
Battle of Vienna too. The Ottomans didn't stop trying until 1683. Vlad was
only a warm up.

On 1/9/25 1:08 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 00:19:36 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> The Ottomans failed to take
>> Europe (thank Vlad The Impaler) ... but it seems Europe has completed
>> their goal.
>
> You might want to thank the people at Leponto, the iege of Vienna, and the
> Battle of Vienna too. The Ottomans didn't stop trying until 1683. Vlad was
> only a warm up.

Vlad literally gave 'em hell-on-earth though !
The little dragon had a big BITE :-)

But yea, the Ottomans and near-heirs DID keep trying
for awhile.

But now EU govts have given them their victory.

The Mongols kinda ruined the 'Islamic Empire' long
back in the 1200s. The all-in-all upswing of power
and knowledge was interrupted and the various areas
kinda went their own ways, sometimes in combat.
Some of the Mongols WERE converted to Islam though.

Greatest sin of The Horde ... burning all the books
in Baghdad and killing all the scholars. This was
as much of a loss as the library at Alexandria
going up in flames. Still wonder if there are
copies hidden carefully away somewhere .....

Like recently seen with 'ISIS', fanatics often
want to erase history - "Nothing before Islam
and ourselves". The NAZIs and USSR extensively
re-wrote/re-phrased history to their own advantage.

Sometimes it's more than mere "revisionism" but
a really vicious and intensive effort to invent
a new past for political/religious reasons. The
priests with the Conquistadors made considerable
efforts to erase old American religions as well.
Lucky some of that remained buried in the jungles
where they couldn't smash it all.

If you want odd-ish religions, note the Slavic
mythology ... it was clearly influenced by
Vedic/Hindu elements despite being so far away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_paganism

On 09/01/2025 00:16, rbowman wrote:
> but the cost of
> generation is only zero if you defer maintenance to the point where it
> isn't worthwhile.

That wasn't exactly my point.

My point is that once the capital costs of wind solar and nuclear are
sunk, and the maintenance costs, the *opportunity* cost of generating
electricity with them is essentially zero.

Neither require more maintenance to *not* generate than to generate.
Neither cost more in fuel terms to generate than to not generate (the
cost of uranium fuel rods is trivial - less than $0.02c/kWh. And that
means that if the market price of elecxtri8city falls below the level at
which burning coal or gas is profitable, its still worth supplying
nuclear - or indeed renewable - power.

So, they are competing in the *same* space.

Now consider if you have enough nuclear power to power the USA on a dark
windless winters night, which you need in case there is no wind or solar.

You already have the technology then to power the whole country without
'renewables' What is then the point of having 'renewables' at *all*?

The short answer is that that there is no point, and in fact they simply
increase the variability of what the nuclear power plants have to generate.

They are a cost with no benefit whatsoever..

Once you have nuclear.

To put it simply, once you have enough nuclear power there is no
justification for subsidised renewable energy whatsoever.

It would in fact be cheaper to simply state purchase all the windfarms
and close them down.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

rbowman wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>
>https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>
>Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
>done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.

Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them
into the mainland.

On 1/8/25 5:45 PM, chrisv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>> No, Carlos, telling the world that we will all be under water unless we
>>> give lots of money to some cabal of elites is what's propaganda and
>>> complete bullshit.
>
> Worse yet are the mandates that take away our freedoms.
>
> Everyone knows that they want to be able to shut off our cars
> remotely, to restrict our travel freedoms, right?

I was consultant on such a study twenty years ago. No, its purpose
wasn't to restrict travel freedoms: it was that police pursuits often
becoming high speed chases which were dangerous to the public, as they
often ended in a crash with collateral damage/death to innocent bystanders.

> And control when we run our air conditions, ...

If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
Its a simple principle & trade-off.

> ... and what we eat, and all sorts of other
> things. Utter tyranny, is the plan.

If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
Its a simple principle & trade-off.

>> Yes.
>> The impact of a putative net zero campaign will massively outweigh a 1
>> °C rise and a sea level rise of four inches.
>>
>> In both cost and environmental destruction

Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".

> I agree. There is no answer to the problems with mining.

Depends on what answer one is looking for: a short term gratification
of cheap energy, or more holistic perspective of addressing the costs of
most of its actual externality costs too? For example, a "clean up the
mess you've caused" tax to pay for the damage that it is doing (and has
done) would create the market incentive to reduce its externality costs,
and shift the market to less bad alternatives...even if the tax money is
never spent as it should be on actual clean-up.

> There is no
> answer to the problems from being utterly dependant upon communist
> China for everything from minerals to the completed car or solar panel
> or wind turbine or power transformer.

True, the West has allowed short term capitalism to be the priority and
outweigh strategic positioning, but there has been some leadership to
allow some rebalancing. For example, because of policy, domestic
manufacturing capacity of solar cells has quadrupled since Biden took
office.

<https://seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt/>

<https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/102224-us-solar-manufacturing-soars-but-gaps-and-uncertainty-persist>

> The West takes a massive hit, while China laughs and builds a hundred
> coal plants every year. They are happy to take our money and make
> everything for us, until we are as dependant and as weak as babies.

Yet we keep on buying stuff at WalMart, because we're unwilling to pay
more for domestically produced.

Gosh, its almost as if there strategically needs to be Federal mandates
which prevent us from being so dumb and avoid doing what we know is
profoundly bad for us ... but there's folks who bitch it "takes away our
freedoms": one can't have your cake & eat it too.

-hh

On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>
>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>
>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>> feasible.
>>>
>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>> knows. The
>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>
>   Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>   the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>   just too different for a good fit.

Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
similarity.

>   Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>   he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>   all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>   and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>   somewhere to the middle.
>
>   With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>   he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>   put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>   is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>   Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>   expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>   is 'good enough'.

Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
everywhere else.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:58:07 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

>
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.
>

Jesus F. Christ! This idiot shows his idiocy yet again!

Ever hear of Thule AFB? Dumb question.

The US built Thule as a major SAC AFB during the beginning of
the Cold War.

Thule was also the site of a famous Broken Arrow incident
when a B-52 crashed and the conventional explosives in the
H-Bombs went off.

Camp Century is also nearby but is long defunct.

I hate idiots, and this idiot is at the top of my list.

--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!

On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>
>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>> hasn't
>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>> feasible.
>>>>
>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>> knows. The
>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>
>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>
>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>    just too different for a good fit.
>
> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
> similarity.
>
>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>
>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>    is 'good enough'.
>
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.

The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
Used to have more during the Cold War.

Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
apart.

Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
out the side of the ice.

There are a number of micro-settlements all around
the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
or EU radar stations - they won't tell.

My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
drive on top of.

On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>
> >
> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt

Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-09 07:56, chrisv wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>
>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>
>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>
> Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
> them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them
> into the mainland.

After all, they're looking for safety and an opportunity to work. What's
safer and more full of opportunity than Greenland?

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>> Joel wrote:

>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>
>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>
>Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.

You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
the mind.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 10:20, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's)
>>>>>> desire to
>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>> knows. The
>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>
>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>
>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant
>> so there is already similarity there. The United States has also been
>> a melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural
>> society like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that
>> there is similarity.
>>
>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>
>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>
>
>   The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>   Used to have more during the Cold War.
>
>   Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>   a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>   found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>   imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>   apart.
>
>   Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>   that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>   out the side of the ice.
>
>   There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>   the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>   or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>
>   My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>   see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>   Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>   by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>   drive on top of.

My favourite depiction of Greenland is the one in the TV show Vikings
where Kjetill Flatnose and others get there and immediately create
borders for each family. They quickly get to starving and fight over the
carcass of some whale that washed up ashore. In the end, Flatnose is all
that's left and he's overjoyed that he's the king of this vast,
uninhabited wasteland.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative