Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

O look at you, being a sissy, did I say something you don't like, boo ho.

Really? Let me take a crack at that before the mods shut down this thread.

You revile the government for social programs, but let's take a look at what a higher power thinks on this:

"Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God." Luke 11:39-42

"He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ Luke 14:14

The strongest rebuke I can think of for this whole sorry affair comes from another New York giant...

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



In case you don't recognize it, it's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. While not a legal document, I don't see anything about background checks or 'except Muslims'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

O look at you, being a sissy, did I say something you don't like, boo ho.

Really? Let me take a crack at that before the mods shut down this thread.

You revile the government for social programs, but let's take a look at what a higher power thinks on this:

"Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God." Luke 11:39-42

"He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ Luke 14:14

The strongest rebuke I can think of for this whole sorry affair comes from another New York giant...

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



In case you don't recognize it, it's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. While not a legal document, I don't see anything about background checks or 'except Muslims'.

Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.

"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Psalm 72.

You were saying?

just, FYI: I looked up several versions of this, and they're broadly similar in most translations. It goes on later...

"For he will deliver the needy when he cries for help,
The afflicted also, and him who has no helper.

He will have compassion on the poor and needy,
And the lives of the needy he will save.

He will rescue their life from oppression and violence,
And their blood will be precious in his sight;"

I'd say that, no, the bible says that the king (probably Solomon in this case) and, thus, government, should care for the poor as well.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.

"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Psalm 72.

You were saying?

It doesn't say he should give alms to the poor out of the kingdoms coffers. It says he should be a righteous and just ruler who doesn't oppress the needy, but delivers them from harm. Deliverance =/= giving hand outs.

It's certainly a good thing to give to the poor, but its not commanded of a king/government to do that. Its commanded that you not oppress them.

Charity isn't charity when it becomes mandatory in the form of taxes to fund social welfare. If the king personally gives money out of his personal funds that is good. But it's not commanded that he use the public treasury to do that, that is not the purpose of the public funds.

Except that was extremely common in that time period for Kings and governments of the time to do, it was expected, at least under certain conditions. The idea that there are things the government should or should not do as a matter of political philosophy would not have been something that occurred to anyone then. Rome for instance gave out free grain to the poor and threw feasts and publicly funded celebrations and food giveaways all the time. Ancient Israel engaged in routine debt cancellation for the poor, as well as land reform and redistribution (and a dedicated portion of tithes were set aside for the destitute). Most other ancient societies of the time did too, at least periodically. They didn't have the resources of modern states to attempt to comprehensively care for people, but attempts were absolutely made. Cancelling or alleviating debts of the poor was also a common thing routinely engaged in by ancient states. These were common things that it was assumed the state was engaged in, and the lessons of religion were ostensibly supposed to apply to those running the state (for which there was no concept of separation from the religion), charity being "forced" or not is not a concept anyone would have acknowledged at the time if engaged in by the state for the purposes of fulfilling such religious obligations, and being tithed (in some form or fashion under many different names) for the works of the church/religion (which included charity) was mandatory in many cultures for hundreds and thousands of years, be it Rome, Egypt, Israel, etc.

I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?

Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.

The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?

Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.

The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.

I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.

 Grey Templar wrote:


It doesn't say he should give alms to the poor out of the kingdoms coffers. It says he should be a righteous and just ruler who doesn't oppress the needy, but delivers them from harm. Deliverance =/= giving hand outs.

It's certainly a good thing to give to the poor, but its not commanded of a king/government to do that. Its commanded that you not oppress them.

Charity isn't charity when it becomes mandatory in the form of taxes to fund social welfare. If the king personally gives money out of his personal funds that is good. But it's not commanded that he use the public treasury to do that, that is not the purpose of the public funds.

Um, just a little fact about Israel and Judea: According to the oldest Biblical traditions, the second tithe was to be given to the poor in the third and sixth year of every sabbatical cycle. So, yes, part of their taxes was given to the poor.

Further, . In connection with the synagogue, there were two funds from which poor and strangers could obtain relief. The weekly money chest (quppah) served to support the local poor, who received a weekly allotment. The plate (tamḥui) was open to any person needing a meal, especially strangers.
The collection was made in the synagogues by at least two officers for the money chest. The distribution was carried out by three officers. There obviously was need to prevent suspicion of misuse of funds(theft or favoritism).

This office was considered burdensome, and the honors showered on its beholders did not always suffice to make it attractive.

It was an obligation for everyone to give to the fund (not necessarily cash). The courts could interfere and appropriate property to recover the sum due for charity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.

Arguably, any society, even a modern one, is three missed meals away from anarchy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?

The sheer volume of potential issues with that plan is staggering, not the least of which being the sheer number of amoral 'fake' churches which would spring up to game the system.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.

Arguably, any society, even a modern one, is three missed meals away from anarchy.

Which is why it's so hilarious when someone rolls by with a reckon about how dumb the government is for having welfare programs. If you leave people to degradation and suffering then you'll wake up one day to find that your head isn't quite as securely connected to your shoulders as you'd want it to be. Haha.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?

Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.

The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.

I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.

Sure, such things are rarely one-dimensional, there's usually a range of factors that go into that, having people starving to death and disrupting social order is seen as a bad thing that needs addressing from an array of perspectives and for a variety of reasons from many perspectives. Hence why most organized societies, governments, and religions have generally supported and engaged in some level of social welfare and wealth redistribution, and such was very much seen as a role of the state, by both the state itself and the religion, on some level in pretty much every major civilization.

The other aspect to consider is that once you are "dirt poor" its very hard to climb up the social and economic ladder again without any outside help. As a result any society that abandons its poor will generally only grow the number of poor within their system.

And the poor do cost money to manage, yet will contribute very little toward the nations upkeep and prosperity. So you continue to create an ever bigger drain and problem upon your society.

Furthermore the more poor you have and the more living in poor living conditions the more you create environments ripe for the spread of disease and sickness which can easily spill out and affect your less poor segments of society.


Welfare/charity/tithes/whatever are there to try and be a safety net so that the most poor of the nation can at least attain a basic level of survival. The expectation is that, managed correctly, it should allow them to survive financial ruin and then, in time, restore themselves back to a position where they are net contributing to society once more.

Of course poorly managed systems can be open to abuse; from those who leach off the system directly and those who leach off it indirectly. But by and large they do function to help stave off the worst of poverty and the costs that come with it.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
The US Gov't thinks we should spend money on Welfare programs too, I think they are stupid, they still do it.

You know, sometimes it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

O look at you, being a sissy, did I say something you don't like, boo ho.

Case in point.

Ok folks, lets just take a breather here and remember this is not a thread about welfare programs. I'm struggling to see anything on the past page worth of posts that has anything to do with the ICAN Nuclear War Warning.

Skink thing is there isn't really much to discuss other than personal opinions on if we'll see a nuclear launch or not. So its no surprise the thread has kind of swayed into discussions on other fringe subjects .

That may be, but if this thread has nothing left to discuss and folks want to discuss the pros and cons of welfare programs they should just start another appropriately titled thread.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That may be, but if this thread has nothing left to discuss and folks want to discuss the pros and cons of welfare programs they should just start another appropriately titled thread.

It'd be closed before anyone can post. The Dakka double standard is hard at work here, European Politics are A-OK (regardless of even the mods posting some pretty hypocritical stuff) but anything in the America's is off limits.

Back to the subject in hand, there's an embedded and translated response from the Korean media in this one:

http://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-may-be-tiny-temper-tantrum-away-nobel-peace-prize-winner-warns-743717

 Luciferian wrote:
We're still doing that.

That's the joke

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.

To be fair, that wasn't actually the argument. The argument was that government is doing this, and one senior (?) person employed in the project made an assessment of what is the most likely event that will cause their work to be necessary. That most likely event is Trump.

So the argument is more 'people who are paid to worry about this stuff think Trump is more of a risk than other threats, so there's probably something to that'.

Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.

There's going to be a lot of capital costs in addition to the labour. BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.

Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It'd be closed before anyone can post. The Dakka double standard is hard at work here, European Politics are A-OK (regardless of even the mods posting some pretty hypocritical stuff) but anything in the America's is off limits.

I don't even necessarily agree with the US politics ban, but it isn't a double standard. That'd be like saying its a double standard that a guy on parole might get put in jail if he's busted doing something that an ordinary person might only get warned over. There's a history there. If European politics had been as problematic as US politics it'd be banned as well.

Hey, U.S. politics didn't lead to two World Wars (Even more if you include ones that spanned the globe before the term World War was coined). Therefore, Eurpoean Politics is obviously more dangerous and should be banned.



Regarding ICAN. I believe back int he days of Star Wars Missile Defense programs their was an idea of a GALPs (Global Accidental Launch System) that would use sophisticated satellites, interceptors, and other counter-measures to deal with the launch of a small number of missiles.

I am out of the loop on current Missile Defense capabilities, but do we have the technology to complete a GALPS style system now? Alsom what International Law/politics considerations would be required for a GALPS style system?

 sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.

Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person..

I wish we had a thousand people. We have equipment for maybe a hundred. We have 35. Which, yes, blows my mind, and is exactly what the contractors advised our superiors AGAINST but rather than hire more people, we plod along, and will be finished in the next 20-30 years. Assuming that the caustic vapors, air locks, etc, don't get us all killed first.

To be honest, though, the thing that gets under my skin the most is the $2.50 candy bars and the five dollar sodas that all expired at least four months ago. Because vending machines in a government facility.

 Easy E wrote:
Hey, U.S. politics didn't lead to two World Wars (Even more if you include ones that spanned the globe before the term World War was coined). Therefore, Eurpoean Politics is obviously more dangerous and should be banned.

If only the mods had put a ban on secret treaties in the early stages of the 20th century


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I wish we had a thousand people. We have equipment for maybe a hundred. We have 35. Which, yes, blows my mind, and is exactly what the contractors advised our superiors AGAINST but rather than hire more people, we plod along, and will be finished in the next 20-30 years. Assuming that the caustic vapors, air locks, etc, don't get us all killed first.

To be honest, though, the thing that gets under my skin the most is the $2.50 candy bars and the five dollar sodas that all expired at least four months ago. Because vending machines in a government facility.

Wait, what? 35 people, and you're going through a million dollars a day? Are you not including contractors in that head count, or is there some serious capital expenditure going on?

I'm assuming that the record rooms are temperature and humidity controlled with specialized lights meant to minimize damage to the records and possibly high end acid/Lignin free storage boxes and materials.

Archival stuff gets expensive.

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.

To be fair, that wasn't actually the argument. The argument was that government is doing this, and one senior (?) person employed in the project made an assessment of what is the most likely event that will cause their work to be necessary. That most likely event is Trump.

Are we really making the distinction between "the US government" and "a person employed to spend government funds.... probably also employed by the government"

Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.

There's going to be a lot of capital costs in addition to the labour. BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.

Actually Baron said 300ft, which is less than 100m, there's plenty of mines and caves around deeper than that.

If it was $1M a day during the digging and reinforcing of giant holes then that's not much, but you usually don't state construction costs as a "per day" thing, that's how you state ongoing costs so that's how I interpreted it.

Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person.

Well it's only $365M if that's 1 years worth of work, which isn't terrible, but no such limit was given in Baron's post so I assumed that was just ongoing costs. Also that's a terrible way of justifying costs on a government project, because all those singular dollars add up across hundreds if not thousands of government projects.

Obviously I didn't do a detailed analysis on the costing, it just sounds too high to me. As a reference point the Eureka Tower in Melbourne cost $415M to build over the course of 4 years (even with our hideously high wages for labourers, I think the US pays its labourers less than us). It's almost 300m tall and at a guess would have maybe, what, 50 metres of foundations under that? Digging a hole, even a nice air conditioned hole with thick concrete walls, then paying some people to fill it with knowledge and catalogue it, $1M a day sounds expensive if it's for any extended duration.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm assuming that the record rooms are temperature and humidity controlled with specialized lights meant to minimize damage to the records and possibly high end acid/Lignin free storage boxes and materials.

Archival stuff gets expensive.

There are probably a lot of computers down there too. Which would need cooling, and cooling is expensive.

Yep. And if its meant to survive the apocalypse it probably has its own generator.

 Grey Templar wrote:

There are probably a lot of computers down there too. Which would need cooling, and cooling is expensive.

Particularly since the microfilm is mostly that volatile acetate based crap that decays into caustic fumes in heat and or humidity. Open the wrong canister the wrong way and you WILL lose your eyes down here, as well as a lot of the skin on your face. Which is why NARA won't touch it.

Your government did not store them well in the 40's and 50'z and 60's so now it's a race to digitize 10 million miles of of film before it all goes to pot. Which is the entirety of SSA's documents produced since it's inception in the 1930's.

You'd think they'd give us a better budget for employees, but we're not allowed to hire people to replace losses except management. Part of some broader drive to reduce overhead. So lots of empty desks, which according to the contractor we hired, since we can't make our own recommendations, is a severe problem that is hampering our efforts. HQ says make do anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yep. And if its meant to survive the apocalypse it probably has its own generator.

Quite a few of them, actually. We had one explode once. That was....exciting... underground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

There are probably a lot of computers down there too. Which would need cooling, and cooling is expensive.

And desperately required, as the server room soars over 120 degrees if it fails. Which means chip creep sets in, and then we need new servers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If it was $1M a day during the digging and reinforcing of giant holes then that's not much, but you usually don't state construction costs as a "per day" thing, that's how you state ongoing costs so that's how I interpreted it.

Which is correct, the facility was originally built back in the 1960's by US Steel. The problem is the scale of it. Think that warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, now make it an underground facility miles across, since we hold over 10 million MILES of film. That's enough microfilm to go from Earth to the Moon 30 odd times.

Wait, so your records are Elder Scrolls? Contains a lot of knowledge but burns your eyes off if you try to read them the wrong way?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wait, so your records are Elder Scrolls? Contains a lot of knowledge but burns your eyes off if you try to read them the wrong way?

No, they're just on acetate film, which decays into acid vapor strong enough that it etches the image of the film reels into the sides of the film canisters. Open one too close to your face and it's just like Chlorine Gas, your lungs and eyes get coated in acid. And not the 'nice' kind.

This is where the good Baron reveals they've not played the Elder Scrolls series