Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:01:20 +0000
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
References: <vlgrb0$1lsdi$1@dont-email.me> <4RVeP.812124$bYV2.164030@fx17.iad>
 <vlh9oi$1oqb2$1@dont-email.me> <vlhhes$1q4t2$2@dont-email.me>
 <RWYeP.56817$vfee.53192@fx45.iad> <vljb2o$27g6v$5@dont-email.me>
 <XHafP.16926$G93a.13818@fx05.iad> <vljkk3$29dna$3@dont-email.me>
 <kVcfP.505626$0O61.228231@fx15.iad> <vljqt8$2amtn$2@dont-email.me>
 <YoefP.510691$0O61.490083@fx15.iad> <08d05lx8s4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <wwhfP.777424$ZAue.553902@fx12.iad> <vllp2b$2ouqc$2@dont-email.me>
 <kavtnjh6svfdb1e1mklt1icr0ek526kabl@4ax.com>
 <BlDfP.72527$vfee.22696@fx45.iad> <lu8kc1Fj3pqU1@mid.individual.net>
 <YtFfP.27782$DPp5.1024@fx01.iad>
 <zKqcnZ0fubo6w-L6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <3uRfP.66870$2xE6.46054@fx18.iad>
 <7PqcneaP1-evdOL6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vlori4$3e1r9$2@dont-email.me>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: wokiesux
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 19:00:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vlori4$3e1r9$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <DaOcnRN7K57N_h36nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 132
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-rX8HPjT4xJkiIRCkaO+8KXu6d3/LJHLMER5rZRZBSZIqYrOzcAwoR4g43KCyOcx/8BLtFtu7lFVryBo!jBKMwn3IPmZFL76K0mT0ozka66/SnA+wscWLI9Ve6fCkLFrmogrHUhSrilkBaMYC1i3aWoCP6p+o!tmwgWO0Br8f/+Hr92GP1
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7962

On 1/9/25 10:55 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Not to mention they're a mile or two deep!

   Hey, the "high road" fer sure !  :-)

   Alas while an aerial photo might make the glacial
   tops LOOK kinda flat and solid, they ain't. Big
   cracks constantly form, heal, and re-appear in
   new locations. It's not even suitable for hovercraft.

   So ... it's either aircraft or taking the little boat
   from fjord to fjord. It's not a people-friendly place
   and not 'modern'-people friendly either.

   If the USA wants to invest in far-northern defense
   installations, they might do better in Longyearbyen.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyearbyen
   There are a number of islands, only one with any
   number of people.

> Been reading an interesting book "Climate Crash"; it starts out discussing
> exploration etc. of Greenland in the first 4 chapters. It's a little
> out-of-date (2005).

   Seems that 'cooling events' happen for various reasons
   maybe every 4-500 years. Most common reason is some
   huge volcano near Indonesia blasting megatons of dust
   into the upper stratosphere. As such I don't see Greenland
   melting anytime soon - just "cycling" between slightly
   warmer and slightly cooler global climates.

   Alas the whole 'global warming' thing is no longer
   any sort of 'science' but politicized to the extreme.
   There's objective truth and then there's "political
   truth" - and the two rarely cross paths. Any
   supposed 'science' becomes totally contaminated
   with politically/ideologically biased results.

   Look into how long archeological/geological/
   biological science went to great lengths to
   include the phony "world flood" into the equation.
   That there were many big LOCAL floods as the
   glacial sheet melted and seas slowly rose - didn't
   fit the popular religions. If they'd had "AI"s in
   the 18th century they'd have 'politically corrected'
   its answers to fit the current sure-nuf truths
   and religious assertions.