Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

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.