First, I'm very happy for Dusty and Katya. It pales, though, compared with whether Cyana, Olina, and Braden are OK. All those who called Logrin's involvement, stand up and redeem your credits! :D
I really hope Cyana, and Skeeter (at least) are okay! :O Cyana is gonna need someone.
Panel 4 has that action look I love! Kudos
Re: Alt text, Katya doesn't know any better.
Good to see TWC rank is (for the time being) at 6. Vote!
Is it wrong that when I first saw this page I thought "That looks like one of Thunderbird 2's pod vehicles. Can we get Logrin to say 'International Rescue, Thunderbirds are GO!'?"
Those are lights, they match the ones in the grill. The missiles are in the back. The advantage to him showing up now is supposed to directly after is that the golden creeps are gone.
Those are lights, they match the ones in the grill. The missiles are in the back. The advantage to him showing up now is supposed to directly after is that the golden creeps are gone.
well why not ? it's dangerous out there...
bet the gutters have missiles on theirs and Logrin should be smarter than a gutter
and what's that shiny blue turret-thingy in the back ?
Well, those are lights they have a grid/lattice in front - can be easily seen in the patreon post from 14.03.2018 where there is a close up on the vehicle.
She would make a good vote incentive *in* her skating clothes as well.
Of course, knowing Katya, she has piled *all* of her clothes into a big pile in the middle of the room, and have burrowed into them.
And she is just peeking out from underneath. 😂
He keeps turning up, must be a bad penny like that Mr Black fella. Its a small world, That's who is going to show up next. Also we have a loose thread from way back....Where is Jasper?
Yeah, Katya, you don't need much clothing-type protection in a place like Nova Roma, but out here in the wastes, there's toxics and radioactives and things and clothes help keep 'em off or at least they have warning thingies that tell you when you're someplace you need to get out of. If you really don't like clothes, just wear the warning thingies, okay?
I know a high school physics teacher who shoots ping pong balls through the sides of soda cans, so he might be another who could accomplish this other feat.
useless info: a 15 foot round by 6 feet deep pool hold a little over 6000 gallons,. or 12 foot cube, at 6 foot deep, would hold about the same..
the average person "today" goes thru a 100 gallons a Day.. so IF all numbers were the same,, then 3 people would go through 6000 gallons in 20 days...
I would have to guess that people out in the wastes would use a lot less. If you are in the position where water is more scarce, you'd want to conserve as much as possible. My guess would be that the numbers wouldn't stay the same. For instance, in a thousand years, in a society where they have androids, and all kinds of wonderous inventions, they would likely have come up with a better toilet. :D
I could see where that could be true. In the DC universe, we're made to understand that tech and energy are abundant and inexpensive. That would tend to make me think of solid-state Peltier effect refrigeration, etc. (It's even used today) Water for other stuff, would be much as it is today, unless they do more with electronic heating such as microwaves, or infrared heating. Gray water can be used for gardens, and such, so there are a lot of ways they could conserve water if necessary.
I actually looked up how much water people use and used a 3 person limit :D thats how i came up with the original number for what was left - they buy a months supply at a time
Because here in Denmark, I average 20-30 gallons (80-150 liter) a day.
Admittedly, I do have a water saving toilet, shower .. etc. etc.
It should be noted, that if Danes used as much water as the Americans, we would not have enough water from our aquifiers, despite being surrounded by water, so the government have been running some very long term water saving programs, from before I was even born, to this day - And it works!
Which is a good thing, because making seawater into potable water, is really expensive.
My point with this, is that the technology already exists, and is mass produced .. but often not put into us, simply because there's no local policy enforcing their use.
Thus you could totally end up with a desert area, where you have high water usage. Besides, maybe Ranger Logrin has some hydroponics, that need a lot of water.
Just remember how much pollution Nova Roma was making ?
And when asked about Roma's pollution protocols, she essentially answered "The what now?"
Just because something exists, does not mean it gets used.
I did have to look it up also. When robnot posted 100 gal./day, I questioned it. We don't use nearly that much water at our place. We do have water saving toilets, showers etc. here as well, and we use rain water, and downcycle 'gray' water.
We have our own well, and septic system, so we don't pay for water, but it just makes sense to keep from wasting it.
As Sheela points out, there are many water-saving methods and devices to help with that, but I think part of the reason that there aren't more water saving official policies, is because in the cities, the water bill is a revenue sharing device. That means, that many city services are also tied to it, to keep property taxes lower. If individual households want to save money, doing those things would certainly help. If more people would do it, it would also help the environment. In my area there are programs to encourage their use.
Nowadays, though, people don't pay much attention to things like that; what with corporations making huge profits from pumping and bottling water. And people actually buy it!
Heres the info i used in coming up with this.. {{ Let’s look at your daily per person usage. If you used 24,000 gallons, we’ll divide by 3 people = 8,000 gallons per person per month. Let’s divide 8,000 by 31= 258 gallons per person per day. Yep, that’s a lot! By comparison, the photo at right shows our traveling water tower, which is made up of 120 one-gallon jugs and represents the average amount of water used per person, per day in Arizona. }}
It makes sense, Cent. I wasn't disputing your figures; but I was surprised by the 100 gallon amount that robnot posted. I had never thought about water use by anyone else, or characters in the story, either. I looked it up after that. So basically, it all caused me to learn more, and that's always a good thing! :D
I'm literally surrounded by water, the problem here isn't getting water, it's keeping it out of your basement. There are no 'finished basements' for several blocks around me, the tide in the basements ruins the carpets ;) and most, including mine, have small (or not so small) springs we can tap if the economy collapses, there's an underground river about a half block downhill.
I went to a meeting where some some overeducated but underintelligent 'activist' was telling everyone we had to cut down on our water use and asked simply "why ? does the water I don't use pop up in some third world country that prefers to burn witches instead of operating water systems ? or do I just have to feel bad because they get free heat in the winter ? "
The place exploded in laughter and if looks could maim I'd have left in a basket :)
I don't follow blind dogma just because someone else says I have to.
I don't live in a desert, we have more water than we know what to do with, whatever I don't use runs into the ocean and we can't have that contributing to the 'rising water level' now can we ? Of course putting politicians in charge of the water supply didn't help, if you put one in charge of the Sahara Desert, in six weeks there'd be a shortage of sand.
If I need to flush the toilet twice I will. I also have to run the furnace in the -30C winter and reluctantly will because I have an attachment to not freezing to death.
You can't use the (often self imposed) conditions found elsewhere to set up some sort of rigid rules that everyone has to follow regardless of whether they're affected or not, that's the tool of the con artists trying to sell 'global warming' that they had to change to 'climate change' once it started cooling off instead. What do they want ? the glaciers back ? They hate that question too ;)
Of course conditions are different in different areas. You may have more water than you know what to do with, but that's not true everywhere. As for oceans rising with the global temperature, there again, just because it's not apparent in your back yard, doesn't mean it's not happening. It has been measured and proven by scientists from around the globe. (Or if you prefer, all corners :D )
As far as winter heating goes, yeah, we don't like to freeze either. We have a gas furnace and a wood furnace. If it ever quits raining, I can finish filling my wood room. :D
"As for oceans rising with the global temperature, there again, just because it's not apparent in your back yard, doesn't mean it's not happening. It has been measured and proven by scientists from around the globe. (Or if you prefer, all corners :D )"
Yes, and the scientists that take it seriously (as opposed to using it for political purposes) know that what that measurement IS, and that it is a small number per CENTURY, as the global temperature continues to slowly recover from the last ice age.
Nothing to worry about, and nothing we could have much impact on (short of repeatedly nuking the poles, or something insane like that), even if we wanted to.
We have ice core data from the last several hundred thousand years, and there are exactly ZERO cases of CO2 being a leading indicator of of rising temperature, but several where it is a lagging indicator. That alone blows an earth-sized hole in the "CO2 causes global warming" schtick, and it's not alone.
We also have fossil data with estimated CO2 data, from times when the CO2 level was very low (though not MUCH lower than today - we're at a very low point, even now) and very high (CRAZY high), and we see 2 things: 1) the optimal point for life appears to be much higher than where we are now, *at least* double (probably between triple and quadruple), and 2) there are examples of high CO2 and low CO2 at both high temperature and low temperature.
The CO2 level is changing, even without us. We do seem to be helping it along a bit. We don't know nearly enough to know anything for sure, but the weight of what we DO know is VERY STRONGLY on "higher CO2 than what we have now is better".
"Yes, and the scientists that take it seriously (as opposed to using it for political purposes) know that what that measurement IS, and that it is a small number per CENTURY, as the global temperature continues to slowly recover from the last ice age."
So the first thing is to try to make my comment into a political discussion? You instantly took my statement as a political climate debate, and just one page after Centcomm explicitly asked that there be none such. First and foremost, is that I never mentioned anything about cause and effect, or CO2 levels. You brought it up as part and parcel to the larger political climate debate, by bringing up the perceived whys and wherefores of a certain set of outdated political talking points. What little I did post, is almost universally undisputed fact. Temperature is rising and ocean levels along with it. Yes it has been an incrementally slow increase over centuries, until around the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the upward curve becomes increasingly parabolic. CO2 does absorb energy, and re-emit it at infrared wavelengths, thus 'trapping' thermal energy. The CO2 laser is an example of this effect. CO2 concentration and average temperature go hand in hand, however more is NOT better, despite claims as to what we "know". If you're a plant, maybe, but fauna breathes oxygen. Cherry picking data and biased interpretation helps no one. An imbalance can have catastrophic results. Additionally CO2 is not the only gas involved. There are more, such as methane, which are worse, as well as molecular substances which hadn't existed before.
Ice core and fossil data shows changes, sure, but nothing as rapid as the last 200-300 years, where the increase becomes an exponential curve.
I don't mind a discussion, but keep the political motivations out of it.
ok .. again i used "Average" US citizen numbers.. to basically give how much water was being used...an how much is was (size)..
an just because i keep track of weird things (OCD).. i have yet to break 20 gallons a day, or 500 gallons a month..an like Puppy (Sheela), i have water saving every thing...
FWIW, I'm in California (USA) and according to our water bill my wife and I use 2000 gallons of water a month, or about 33 gallons a day per person.
Admittedly, we're the ones who took the 'no watering' ordinance seriously when the drought was on, and kept on with it, and don't have a swimming pool, etc. We have gray-water irrigation for our hedge, three small citrus trees, and the redwood in our front yard.
I should like to add that the water reclamation systems of the Datachasers universe are probably a lot better than our own, as such a lot of that which would be waste in our world would be caught and reused.
For example, you can reclaim a lot of water from bodily waste via evaporation. Boiling some veggies, well, equipment in your ventilation system could reclaim water from the air before exhausting it.
You seal your cooling systems right, they can be almost (not quite, but close) water neutral. Assuming they're using water of course, and not one of many other options (ranging from various oils, to certain ammonia compounds, to myriad others.)
You can reduce the net water usage by a lot once you start being able to consistently reclaim large portions the usual waste.
Think about, for example, the International Space Station.
The reason why I mentioned Danish water usage versus United States water usage, and policies - That was not so much to create a debate about real world data .. but rather use them to illuminate that if we can have a factor of 3 times higher water usage in one developed country (the US) compared to another developed country (Denmark) - Then surely, that could hold true in the Datachases universe as well.
And technology combined with Municipal policies, would be a large part of it. And we know that there are vast difference on policies in different areas, such as waste and pollution policies between Nova Roma and New Troy. And that probably hold true for other areas as well.
That said, we don't know what is a high water usage in the area that Ranger Logrin lives in. for all we know, he uses large amounts of water on hydroponics, or something like that.
No, I wasn't taking it as an issue for debate either. Like you say, Sheela, different usage in different areas, and even household to household in the same block in the same city! We find that Denmark, overall, averages lower consumption rates than the US. Kudos :)
robnot posted the figures, and I looked it up. My point is/was that the US average comes as a surprise, because I, personally, don't use that much, and really never gave a lot of thought to others' usage. I think Centcomm looked it up too, for the same reason, and had to have basis for the story to make sense. She does her research. Kudos!
Okay, I'm confused. (As usual) Dusty is the mechanic from Rotter's settlement? Wasn't she delivering a message to New Troy for Dolly? (I cannot remember the name of Logrim's cat lady friend, I though she had cat eyes.)
Dusty is Logrin's companion. It's confusing because here she doesn't have her original speech font here. Katya was rescued from the Black Castle after Decimus' oh-so-timely demise. :D
I believe new troy is about to find out all manners of cybernetic shenanigans are up in the wasted now......and that poor little girl went from happy family to orphan I think.
I"m not so sure Cyana is an orphan, at least not yet. That isn't necessarily a good thing. Her parents probably were taken for "parts" or to be turned into new gold bots. There could be a very slim chance of rescue but very slim. I'm also holding out hope Skeeter can be downloaded into a new body.
being as it's been hinted at previously that Logrin's been responsible for the closing of more than a few gutter bases and bands, I'd suspect he's not travelling lightly armed.
I really hope Cyana, and Skeeter (at least) are okay! :O Cyana is gonna need someone.
Panel 4 has that action look I love! Kudos
Re: Alt text, Katya doesn't know any better.
Good to see TWC rank is (for the time being) at 6. Vote!
but credit where credit's due! :D
. . . aaand back to 4th again this morning! (Oct. 4th)
He's still one of my favorite characters, probably because he fulfills my favorite archetype to play.
AND HE! IS! BACK!!!!
*squee*
...but poor Cyana had to spend the night alone - wondering if some murderturd or other would come and get her... =S
@alt text: a pity...
I think it is wrong, but I want to be sure. ^_^
F A B
I always thought it meant "Flying As Briefed"
But apparently it was just made up to say something instead of 'Roger' or '10-4'
bet the gutters have missiles on theirs and Logrin should be smarter than a gutter
and what's that shiny blue turret-thingy in the back ?
Of course, knowing Katya, she has piled *all* of her clothes into a big pile in the middle of the room, and have burrowed into them.
And she is just peeking out from underneath. 😂
In for a penny, in for a pound. 🤣
Katya fetches the corpses, and dusty cooks them.
Soo bad.
Just...
Agh!
the average person "today" goes thru a 100 gallons a Day.. so IF all numbers were the same,, then 3 people would go through 6000 gallons in 20 days...
Because here in Denmark, I average 20-30 gallons (80-150 liter) a day.
Admittedly, I do have a water saving toilet, shower .. etc. etc.
It should be noted, that if Danes used as much water as the Americans, we would not have enough water from our aquifiers, despite being surrounded by water, so the government have been running some very long term water saving programs, from before I was even born, to this day - And it works!
Which is a good thing, because making seawater into potable water, is really expensive.
My point with this, is that the technology already exists, and is mass produced .. but often not put into us, simply because there's no local policy enforcing their use.
Thus you could totally end up with a desert area, where you have high water usage. Besides, maybe Ranger Logrin has some hydroponics, that need a lot of water.
Just remember how much pollution Nova Roma was making ?
And when asked about Roma's pollution protocols, she essentially answered "The what now?"
Just because something exists, does not mean it gets used.
We have our own well, and septic system, so we don't pay for water, but it just makes sense to keep from wasting it.
As Sheela points out, there are many water-saving methods and devices to help with that, but I think part of the reason that there aren't more water saving official policies, is because in the cities, the water bill is a revenue sharing device. That means, that many city services are also tied to it, to keep property taxes lower. If individual households want to save money, doing those things would certainly help. If more people would do it, it would also help the environment. In my area there are programs to encourage their use.
Nowadays, though, people don't pay much attention to things like that; what with corporations making huge profits from pumping and bottling water. And people actually buy it!
I went to a meeting where some some overeducated but underintelligent 'activist' was telling everyone we had to cut down on our water use and asked simply "why ? does the water I don't use pop up in some third world country that prefers to burn witches instead of operating water systems ? or do I just have to feel bad because they get free heat in the winter ? "
The place exploded in laughter and if looks could maim I'd have left in a basket :)
I don't follow blind dogma just because someone else says I have to.
I don't live in a desert, we have more water than we know what to do with, whatever I don't use runs into the ocean and we can't have that contributing to the 'rising water level' now can we ? Of course putting politicians in charge of the water supply didn't help, if you put one in charge of the Sahara Desert, in six weeks there'd be a shortage of sand.
If I need to flush the toilet twice I will. I also have to run the furnace in the -30C winter and reluctantly will because I have an attachment to not freezing to death.
You can't use the (often self imposed) conditions found elsewhere to set up some sort of rigid rules that everyone has to follow regardless of whether they're affected or not, that's the tool of the con artists trying to sell 'global warming' that they had to change to 'climate change' once it started cooling off instead. What do they want ? the glaciers back ? They hate that question too ;)
As far as winter heating goes, yeah, we don't like to freeze either. We have a gas furnace and a wood furnace. If it ever quits raining, I can finish filling my wood room. :D
Yes, and the scientists that take it seriously (as opposed to using it for political purposes) know that what that measurement IS, and that it is a small number per CENTURY, as the global temperature continues to slowly recover from the last ice age.
Nothing to worry about, and nothing we could have much impact on (short of repeatedly nuking the poles, or something insane like that), even if we wanted to.
We have ice core data from the last several hundred thousand years, and there are exactly ZERO cases of CO2 being a leading indicator of of rising temperature, but several where it is a lagging indicator. That alone blows an earth-sized hole in the "CO2 causes global warming" schtick, and it's not alone.
We also have fossil data with estimated CO2 data, from times when the CO2 level was very low (though not MUCH lower than today - we're at a very low point, even now) and very high (CRAZY high), and we see 2 things: 1) the optimal point for life appears to be much higher than where we are now, *at least* double (probably between triple and quadruple), and 2) there are examples of high CO2 and low CO2 at both high temperature and low temperature.
The CO2 level is changing, even without us. We do seem to be helping it along a bit. We don't know nearly enough to know anything for sure, but the weight of what we DO know is VERY STRONGLY on "higher CO2 than what we have now is better".
So the first thing is to try to make my comment into a political discussion? You instantly took my statement as a political climate debate, and just one page after Centcomm explicitly asked that there be none such. First and foremost, is that I never mentioned anything about cause and effect, or CO2 levels. You brought it up as part and parcel to the larger political climate debate, by bringing up the perceived whys and wherefores of a certain set of outdated political talking points. What little I did post, is almost universally undisputed fact. Temperature is rising and ocean levels along with it. Yes it has been an incrementally slow increase over centuries, until around the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the upward curve becomes increasingly parabolic. CO2 does absorb energy, and re-emit it at infrared wavelengths, thus 'trapping' thermal energy. The CO2 laser is an example of this effect. CO2 concentration and average temperature go hand in hand, however more is NOT better, despite claims as to what we "know". If you're a plant, maybe, but fauna breathes oxygen. Cherry picking data and biased interpretation helps no one. An imbalance can have catastrophic results. Additionally CO2 is not the only gas involved. There are more, such as methane, which are worse, as well as molecular substances which hadn't existed before.
Ice core and fossil data shows changes, sure, but nothing as rapid as the last 200-300 years, where the increase becomes an exponential curve.
I don't mind a discussion, but keep the political motivations out of it.
an just because i keep track of weird things (OCD).. i have yet to break 20 gallons a day, or 500 gallons a month..an like Puppy (Sheela), i have water saving every thing...
Admittedly, we're the ones who took the 'no watering' ordinance seriously when the drought was on, and kept on with it, and don't have a swimming pool, etc. We have gray-water irrigation for our hedge, three small citrus trees, and the redwood in our front yard.
For example, you can reclaim a lot of water from bodily waste via evaporation. Boiling some veggies, well, equipment in your ventilation system could reclaim water from the air before exhausting it.
You seal your cooling systems right, they can be almost (not quite, but close) water neutral. Assuming they're using water of course, and not one of many other options (ranging from various oils, to certain ammonia compounds, to myriad others.)
You can reduce the net water usage by a lot once you start being able to consistently reclaim large portions the usual waste.
Think about, for example, the International Space Station.
And technology combined with Municipal policies, would be a large part of it. And we know that there are vast difference on policies in different areas, such as waste and pollution policies between Nova Roma and New Troy. And that probably hold true for other areas as well.
That said, we don't know what is a high water usage in the area that Ranger Logrin lives in. for all we know, he uses large amounts of water on hydroponics, or something like that.
robnot posted the figures, and I looked it up. My point is/was that the US average comes as a surprise, because I, personally, don't use that much, and really never gave a lot of thought to others' usage. I think Centcomm looked it up too, for the same reason, and had to have basis for the story to make sense. She does her research. Kudos!
:D
..future version of the 'USMC'..
Pweeeease?