Sea level rise, 10', 20', or more?

It is hard to understand the magnitude of change predicted from the effects of global climate change.  Just take a moment and read this Washington Post Article.  Not only are there huge ice sheets on land in Antarctica and Greenland with the individual potential to raise sea levels on the scale of stories on a building as they flow into the ocean---and they have started flowing into the ocean.  The mass of ice above sea level in Antarctica is hard to visualize.  This huge volume of matter has a gravitational attraction and pulls the southern ocean upward to meet it.  As it melts, not only is it adding the water from the ice above ground, the mass is spreading out over the ocean which causes the sea levels to lower around the antarctic relative to the rest of the world.  Where does that extra water go?  It moves north and adds to the effect of sea level rise. 

When "thank you" is an insult

This is something that is irritating and has become much more clearer to me after moving outside of the US for a few years then coming back.  First of all, thank you is way overused when interacting with seemingly anyone in a business role to a consumer, or at work depending on the context.  It has now become an automatic throw-away phrase and has lost almost all meaning.  People can start off with a thank you, then answer thank you with a thank you, then you end with a thank you...  It used to be that a thank you could rightfully be answered with a "you're welcome."  This was an older meaning of thank you that seems to have been lost today.  That you were actually thanking someone for doing something helpful, and they were acknowledging there willingness to do so in a polite way.  If you think I am exaggerating just think about how often you have heard "you're welcome" lately.  Be that as it may, I have noticed an even newer meaning of thank you arising, that has always been there at some low frequency but is now becoming more common. 

One place I see this all the time is with the people trying to raise money at the entrance/exits to the grocery store.  Here is Hawai'i it is not uncommon for people to set up stands and, usually children, try to sell snacks to people going in and out of the store to raise money.  In principle I have nothing against this and have tried to be polite and smile and nod and go around them.  However, if I say "no" or, heaven forbid, "no thank you" to their offer to sell me something they often say "Thank You" to me in a loud flat voice.  It is cut right on the edge of almost, but not quite, being too loud to sound aggressive and almost, but not quite, of being too flat to sound sarcastic.  It is almost, but not quite passive aggressive but at the same time it is hard to say out of hand that it is not authentic---until the other day.  For some reason I was feeling off and said "you're welcome" in reply.  The person looked upset with me.  Why?  I think it revealed the true meaning of the "thank you" in that context.  It was an insult.  If it were a genuine "thank you" then "you're welcome" should work, shouldn't it?  And what were they mad at me for in the first place, because I wouldn't give them my money to buy something I didn't want?  Sorry, but that is not a workable expectation to get upset about.  (By the way, sorry is another word that has lost all of it's original meaning, but that is another story.) 

The next time you or I plan to say "thank you" to someone, think for a moment if a reply of "you're welcome" would be ... welcome. 

The end of the free internet?

The federal government has really mastered the art of doublespeak (sensu Orwell's doublethink) in the last couple of decades.  Some of the flips in thinking during the Iraq war were amazing (people fighting against a foreign invading force in their own country were suddenly "insurgents" and "terrorists;" if the exact same thing happened in the US---actually it did---they would be "patriots," "defense forces" and "heroes;" how can we call it the department of defense when it is invading other countries for no apparent reason---but that is a different story).  Now I'm afraid the latest one is the news that the internet will be "protected" to "keep it free" by regulating it (link, link).  Yes, by bringing the internet under regulation as a government controlled utility this will somehow enhance its freedom and availability above and beyond what it was previously.  They pulled this trick by linking it in peoples minds to the net neutrality issue.  Somehow by being for net neutrality this results in being for regulating it as a utility.  If you're against the regulations you're against net neutrality.  The argument is specious but it worked.  Much like Apple computers campaign during the 80's that by buying a mac you were for greater choice and freedom (which can only be used on mac hardware unlike the greater flexibility of Microsoft's operating system), which, ironically in the current context, was made into a "1984" commercial (link).  Here in Hawai'i we are still brought down by public utility regulation.  I can think of no greater example then heco's moratorium on PV solar panels forcing people to buy the most expensive, fossil fuel generated, electricity in the country from them.  It would be far more direct to recognize net neutrality as protected under the first amendement---period---end of story.  But now they are trying to get their hooks into it... 

Light at the end of the tunnel?  We are seeing an increase in private spacecraft initiatives and satellite launches.  Back in 2011 there was a convention to discuss building and making "available satellite based communication for the hackerspace community and all of mankind" (link).  This was widely misrepresented in the media as an attempt to build a satellite based, uncensorable, internet access network (e.g., link) not under the control of any single country.  However, perhaps working in this direction is not such a bad idea‽