You're confusing C20th sea level rises with projected future changes, which are much faster. (I'm sure you can find models, estimates and measurements they make the from and the associated data from climate reports)
3,509 karma · joined November 27, 2012
Here's what you need to learn:
Find quiet flat road. Maybe a carpark. Some space ahead of you in case of error.
Handbrake on.
Find biting point of clutch. You'll need a little accelerator for this too, but not too much. Trial and error for both. Fun times. Keep handbrake on to start with.
The biting point is this: left foot up until you feel some bite, the car gently trying to pull forwards.
In fact, the biting point is where the clutch is half-engaged so precisely that if you released handbrake you'd stay still, but could make tiny movements forward by letting in (foot up) the clutch a tiny bit more. Then stopping by letting it out again a tiny bit back to biting point.
The more clutch (left foot) you have in, the more accelerator (right foot) you need. But not too much. It's subtle, but very learnable. You'll stall a lot. That's why the handbrake is important. You'll use too much right foot to start with, but that's ok. You'll improve with practice.
So, when you have an idea that you've got the biting point, let out the handbrake carefully. You'll likely go forwards. Feel free to pull handbrake back on gently. And then try to get less bite. You're looking for an equilibrium.
Then iterate. Right foot nuance as well as left foot is good. Be able to creep forwards at will. Then get back to biting point, which will stop the car (from a slow creep).
After a while you'll be able to control the car with your left foot, start stop (with appropriate right foot). That's how to control the car to park too!
Brakes will be needed when you overdo it. Keep a hand on the handbrake while learning.
It's also the way hill starts work. With a hill start you just need proportionately more right foot. But learning it on the flat gives you space to learn your car's clutch characteristics and feel it.
As you get used to all this you will likely find you can make these alterations easily. But you might well stall in places. That's ok. Just don't panic. You'll be fine! I still stall sometimes, especially with unfamiliar cars. Everyone does. Better to be being near the right place than gunning things and ruining your clutch with a leaden right foot.
Basically, gentle in for clutches. They are more replaceable than gearboxes, and you'll not do harm to them learning this.
I'm making arguments about substantive matters that impact on the reception of the OP's argument. I say nothing about their character, and concentrate on their arguments. Method matters. But right now I'm more interested in headway on the original topic. Let's do that and go there instead?
(Regretted word jockish edited , even if warranted)
We really don't need any flame wars.
Your second half warrants response. The content of his response is irrelevant to the important point I raise, which unlike your ad hominem is about ensuring better more rational discussion: I think he's making a poor representation and skewing the average response with underhand rhetoric. 'Uh yeah' starts something less than useful. Using emotion, not reason. HN is about polite reasonable discourse.
I have no _strong_ opinion YET (edit for emphasis, I'm thinking about this) on the actual literal content of the arguments at this juncture, though that may change as I read others' justifications, theories, data and references.
Edit: My response is important for the content, as rhetorical tricks impact reception and evaluation of content.
I object to emotive skews.
What are your justifications for your beliefs, and how are they superior to those in the article?
And in cinema they were better (I seem to remember Geoffrey Rush 'playing' Rachmaninov 3rd Piano Concerto in that film, at excellent pitch in the cinema), so I knew they were sometimes right. But i think the tape, TV and DVD formats I'll have rewound most often in perplexity.
Another confounding: living in California a lot and not having incorrect pitch on local copies. And nowadays, when sources are digital, bit may have originated from analogue recordings, it's now very unclear what to expect.
Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship :
'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.'
'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.'
'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.'
' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
It appears to be a valid question, in that slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
Edit: see below for reasons. I accidentally posted this sentence early before finishing more of a post. Now I've instead made a response to the question below