Slashdot Mirror

Voiceprinting technologies have been around for quite a while, with efforts visible in the news in the 1960s (spectrograms, etc.) and possibly earlier (I'm too lazy to continue searching, sorry); however. in the late 70s, people started coming out against it as being not particularly useful (visual analysis of spectrograms seems quite fallible). Technology to support it has improved greatly since then. It does have its potential for abuses, just like everything else, but I have not heard of anything particularly terrible in recent history. This doesn't mean it doesn't/can't happen, and your concerns are not unfounded.

Something resembling references/sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.scientificamerican...
https://books.google.com/books...

How about you stop being as stupid as an anti-vaxxer, and be a bit more scientific and open-minded. I am not saying vaccines are bad. Just that, well maybe we need to look at new formulations of our vaccines for greater efficacy.

http://www.thv11.com/news/loca...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

https://www.scientificamerican...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...
"Among the 51 measles cases linked directly to Disneyland, six of the people had received their measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (honestly, since schools mandate this, do you really think less than 12% of people were vaccinated? Or is it more likely they simply couldn't provide proof of vaccination. Can you? Can you provide proof of your own vaccination or your children's? Most folks cannot.

Exactly what I was going to post

Fat = more estrogen = less sperm

Not to mention the other parts of our diet.

Try the massive contamination of drinking water with estrogen from birth control pills as well as the estrogen mimickers such as soy products.

Every time Mr. Skinny Jeans gets a soy Cappuccino along with his Tofu smoothie, goodbye a little of the Mr. and hello a little more of the Ms.

I'm all for reproductive rights, but if you even mention the possibility that all those birth control pills are screwing up the hormonal balance of literally everything that uses water, at least in the U.S., holey moley, the feminists will scream bloody murder.

Repeat after me: "Nothing, nothing on Earth matters more than MY reproductive rights!! Not my health, not your health, not the frogs and fishes health. NOTHING!!!"

Estrogen

Estrogen

Estrogen

Thank goodness this was a singular event

It was a singular event, being the only nuclear power plant accident which caused a verifiable radiologically induced human death. Thus see for instance Fukushima Daiichi where no death due to radioactive materials can be established, and where, perversely (and at great cost), one outcome will be vastly lowered rates of thyroid cancer mortality.

Moreover the dozens of confirmed, and hundreds of potential, deaths due to Chernobyl need to be weighed against the 1.8million lives saved by nuclear energy that would otherwise have been lost due to burning fossil fuels.

Not a 100% confirmed thing by any means, but here are the citations you were after
https://www.scientificamerican...
http://sydney.edu.au/news-opin...

[T]he sweeteners appear to change the population of intestinal bacteria that direct metabolism, the conversion of food to energy or stored fuel. And this result suggests the connection might also exist in humans.

https://www.scientificamerican...

A quick google and a couple minutes with a calculator comes up with ~$1.5T for the solar panels, assuming sunny days all year round.

Fossil fuel subsidies cost the globe $5 Trillion each year. So by that standard your number seems downright reasonable and cost effective.

So, doable? Yeah, could be done. Cheap and easy? Not hardly.....

Nobody said it would be cheap but it might easily be cheaper than all of the alternatives. Certainly will be cheaper than fossil fuels and the baggage they bring.

second link should have been scientific american
https://www.scientificamerican...

An AC said... >They aren't making salt. Just taking the fresh water part away from the salty water. That water will find its way back to the ocean soon enough.As long as it's mixing a bit it won't be any more than a very local problem.

Dude..

https://www.scientificamerican... ...according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography's Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, the salty sludge leftover after desalinization for every gallon of freshwater produced, another gallon of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped willy-nilly offshore. For some desalinization operations, says Graham, it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from discharge areas may be related to the salty outflow. ...

http://pacinst.org/publication...

Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Marine Impacts
Modern reverse-osmosis desalination plants, such as those planned or proposed on the California coast, take in large volumes of seawater â" generally two gallons are withdrawn for every gallon of freshwater produced â" and pass it through fine-pored membranes to separate freshwater from salt. The highly concentrated brine is then typically disposed of back into the ocean.

With the majority of desalination plants extracting water directly through open water intakes in the ocean, there is a direct impact on marine life. Fish and other marine organisms are killed on the intake screens (impingement); organisms small enough to pass through, such as plankton, fish eggs, and larvae, are killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment). The impacts on the marine environment, even for a single desalination plant, may be subject to daily, seasonal, annual, and even decadal variation, and are likely to be species- and site-specific.

Google "do desalinization plants affect local salinity"

For more.

Can you surf the web in half the screen and write a document about the site you're surfing in the other half? Or do you have to switch back and forth and suffer doorway amnesia?

There is another solution, get 6 or more screens.
One app per screen should be enough then :D

Desktop? But my tablet is on the desktop.

To me a "desktop operating system" is one whose GUI shows more than one window at a time, as opposed to the "all maximized all the time" window management policy of stock Android versions 6 ("Marshmallow") and earlier, where a four-function calculator fills the screen.

Surfing on a "desktop" copy of Windows or a "non-desktop" Android device is still surfing the web. Writing documents in Windows or Android is still writing documents.

Can you surf the web in half the screen and write a document about the site you're surfing in the other half? Or do you have to switch back and forth and suffer doorway amnesia?

Spot on. Your body sweats to get rid of heat which dosent work well at all in high humidity. Under 25% humidity the dew point is around 90F while at 90% it's 125F for a 139F temp. Basically your survival time is going to be going to be under 30 minutes at high humidity 90%+ and 129F. Luckily the heat was accompanied by low humidity in the case above, or there would be mass casualties.

Strangely enough the humidity may drastically increase in North Africa and the Middle East

cats cannot taste sweets

I'm not sure if you're experience nullifies the hypotheses. Your cat may have been attracted to the fattiness of the kisses rather than the sweetness. There's been some investigation into this: https://www.scientificamerican...

My cats will ignore sugar and fruits, but they too will eat chocolate and drink mocha; glad to hear the chocolate likely won't kill 'em. I'm still not sure about caffeine.

It surprises people, but Cats cannot taste 'sweet'. There is really no reason for sugar to be put into cat food to benefit the cat.

The manufactures add it as cheap filler. It's the same thing with people food. Government subsidies on corn in the United States means it is super cheap to replace something else with HCF "sugar" or corn meal to increase weight, improve appearance and improve smell to people.

But your cat doesn't care. He or she is just as happy eating freshly killed mouse or crunchy live beetles as the top-shelf pureed fish-n-bits.

OK, I'll try to sum up what beer and yeast is. Yeast evolved over a long time by actually loosing the ability to turn alcohol into vinegar. Many microorganisms can digest sugars into alcohol and then vinegar in one fell swoop. When yeast lost that, it was actually an evolutionary advantage because alcohol is toxic, so by itself evolving to resist the toxicity of alcohol, it could kill of the competition (all the other microorganisms present in rotting fruits) and live happily. Men used that ability to make beer, wine, etc... Wild yeast dies off after something like 8% alcohol, but humans have been selecting it for 10ky so it resists 12% (and now up to 15% in some strong wines).

Not only that, but humans have been evolving to tolerate ethyl alcohol for about 10My:

The results suggested there was a single genetic mutation 10 million years ago that endowed human ancestors with an enhanced ability to break down ethanol. "I remember seeing this huge difference in effects with this mutation and being really surprised," Carrigan said.

Local climate is affected in terms of temperature and rainfall. So as we try to combat climate change with wind farms, we end up changing the climate...

A warmer climate means LESS extremes in weather, because as the temperature grows more water vapor enters the system and it acts on a damper (ha!) for really extreme weather.

So far we have witnessed that first hand, being in an epic lull in terms of major hurricanes hitting the U.S..

It is so sad to see so many be taken in by such obvious fear-mongering, devoid even of what little real science we do know describes how the Earth works in reality... dry portions of the earth are not caused by heat, they care caused by local weather patterns that scrub moisture from the air before it reaches an area. The Antarctic even has a desert after all...

And as mentioned - why even fear anything when it means Ethiopia could simply shift where it grows the crops?? This is what I really don't get about fear mongering, the inability to realize just how good humans are at dealing with change, never mind change that takes place slowly over decades or centuries... why are you so scared of warming? The only thing there ever was to fear was runaway warming and we can see plainly that's not happening (requiring 10 times more CO2 than is currently in the atmosphere, even as countries are gradually ramping down emissions as the increase use of solar power...).

Salt tower... because so many people talking about solar powers inadequacies seem to not be able to use google, read, or keep up with current events.

https://www.scientificamerican...

If it reaches 100% to convince you of the efficacy, then you will be woefully behind the times. Battery banks already live through most data centers, normalizing power prices and effectively making the internet more resilient. They are now being implemented for municipal power storage, alleviating the temporal shifts for generation/consumption.

One of many articles describing these batteries: https://www.scientificamerican...

Generalizing this concept, here are a few alternatives to electro-chemical storage: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n...

Kansas, by the way, is not the only location that's moving forward. Instead of try to convince you of how useful this is - it's obviously already happening regardless of your opinion - you should look into getting employment in this sector. It is literally replacing everything in its path.

Russian actions weren't able to modify votes cast.

You seem awfully confident of that. If there is one thing we know, its that e-voting machines are ridiculously insecure. And we've know it for over a decade.

What risk/reward ratio were they looking at?

Putin's singular goal is the elevation of the Russian state with him as its head. Because he's an autocrat that makes western liberalism an existential threat. Anything he can do to discredit western liberalism helps him - if he can convince enough people that american elections are rigged then he can say to his own citizens that real democracy doesn't exist, that the grass is not greener on the other side and so they should be content with his great leadership.

Sounds like the results are better than what doctors can do:
https://www.scientificamerican...

Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.

This is Slashdot, you know. As well, the coalition of shills and trolls have lost every battle on the alternative energy front, form coal to nuc to the minute nitpicking they are weakly attempting at present; somewhat reminiscent to the old god of the gaps argument, only weaker, and completely illogical.

As Los Angeles installs a battery powered peaking plant, forgoing even Natural gas, https://www.scientificamerican...

This is real, and it is happening.

...for arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression:

https://www.scientificamerican...

> Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something
> Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression

Just found this today on HN: "Snake oil can be beneficial for arthritis and other conditions (2007)"

https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

The article being discussed is

https://www.scientificamerican...

> Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something
> Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression

People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce.

The thing is, people whop work just to get money to fund an addiction are most likely working jobs that are going to be gone anyway in the next couople of decades. That is, someone working a warehousing or a fast food job just to be able to afford booze is not going to be able to find work in the future regardless because automation is already making such jobs obsolete and is only going to keep going.

Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.

Bullshit. The very poiint of this story for example is to point out that the people who can work will not work any less under UBI because you still get more money if you work rather than just being on the UBI. The incentive to work if you can and those raise your standard of living is still there,

If Socialist utopias worked, Venezuela would be a paradise right now instead of the hellhole it is. Massive amounts of people would be fighting to get into Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, and all of the other "Socialist (also known as communism without so many government guns)" countries.

Ah, this argument again. I live in Finland, you know, one of those 'socialist' that offers free healthcare and education with tax money. We have an extensive welfare system already and are also trialing UBI to replace/modernize the wellfare system to make it more flexible. Other countries that have similar systems include but are not limited to: sweden, norway, denmark, Germany, France, etc And last I checked, the US has a social security system also funded by taxes.

There's some sort of weird american myopia, in which the only alternatives seem to be an massive oligarchy á la Russia or modern day US where the top 0,1 % is doing insanely well, the next 9,9 % are doing alright and then the middle and low-income classes are going down, or a 3rd world hellhole. This is just one giant strawman and the age old 'no social policies can ever work because the soviet union' -argument which is utter BS. The advanced European economies have been working as de facto socialist states for the better part of half a century, yet somehow conveniently we are always ignored in these conversations even though we've been far more successful in the implementation of these policies than the 3rd world countries that you just listed. We outperform the US in basic education and health, people are happier, there's less violent crime, less corruption etc. Quoting the study on happiness:

The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007 the USA ranked 3rd among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption (chapter 7) and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better.

But sure, keep looking at Venezuela if it makes you feel good.

They are not doing so, they are all trying to get to the most free countries in the world with Capitalist economies (closest representations at least) and representative democratic Governments.

We have both a capitalistic system (a capitalistic economy does not prevent strong social policies) and a multi-party representational democracy. And if I had to choose, I'd much rather stay here (on in any other

This isn't about pollution. It's about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere - which is the primary acceleration factor for global warming.

The key point is this: human beings are dumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere above and beyond that produced naturally by the environment. This has to have an impact, and reduction of human contributions also has to lower or slow the rate of impact.

You can't escape the laws of physics. We have been accelerating the factor of greenhouse warming since the dawn of the industrial era, and therefore decreasing the time we have available to deal with the effects that are already impacting us. We can argue all day about the primary cause of the warming - increased output of the sun, etc...but you can't argue that what we are doing has no effect.

Some examples of related impacts that are accelerating and affecting human populations today:

The number of severe weather events has increased significantly and steadily year over year since the 1950s.

Sea level rise is real, and related subsidence of coastal areas is also real (e.g. Miami Florida, and Norfolk Virginia sea level impacts). Indications are this increase in speed of sea level rise is related to the thinning and breakup of the floating ice in Antarctica that serves to slow the march of land based glaciers into the Southern Ocean. Glaciers there are recorded as dropping 4 meters per year. And, Larsen B is getting ready to break off and form the largest iceberg in recorded history sometime very soon (June/July). A similar speedup of glacial movement and subsidence is also being measured in Greenland as well as other ice sheets around the world.

Water sheds are being impacted all over the world due to loss of glaciers, both in terms of availability of water in the event of drought, and in terms of record levels of melt water flooding - most recently seen in the Oroville California dam overflow and resultant damage to the aging infrastructure, and flooding this year in Peru.

Crops are already being impacted by heat and drought conditions, and some Northern areas are starting to consider using seeds normally reserved for more Southerly climates, while those in the South are looking into modifications to make their plants more hardy in drought stressed conditions.

Permafrost is not only melting more frequently and in larger areas across the world, but is also causing ground subsidence - with massive evidence of this in Siberia.

By doing nothing - we accept that the major human population centers will be faced with existential problems sooner rather than later.

Which other pollutants are essential for all life on earth?

Plenty -- because dose makes the poison. Nutrients such as nitrates or phosphorous are limiting factors in many ecosystems -- which is why we put them in fertilizers. But fertilizer runoff can have catastrophic consequences for ecosystems.

Ever go swimming in a natural body of water? I've got news for you fish shit in the water. In fact waste products are an important resource in ecosystems, which recycle them. Does that mean you're OK with swimming in shit?

"...longtime scholar of climate politics..."

And there's yer problem right there.

Climate Science is subsumed by politics.
The "science" is tainted by politics.
The "solutions" are tainted by politics.

Oh, and BTW, Thanks mostly to less coal use at power plants, emissions in the first half of 2016 were lowest since 1991

To clear that up...cheaper Gas, enabled by Fracking, has been replacing coal.

To make it even more clear, Fracking has happened mostly on Private Land despite widespread opposition from the Greenies and attempts by the last Administration to regulate and limit its use.

Uranium mining is seriously dirty business, it's by far the most environmentally destructive resource to mine - mining coal is bad, but uranium mining is worse.

Luckily, because uranium in a fission reactor yields about a couple of million times more joules per kilogram when compared to burning coal in a plant, you end up needing mine overall less of it.

(Still you need to reduce that factor by around 5x ~ 6x, because it it need to be a little bit enriched to work as a fuel (0.7% natual to 3-4% fuel)).

I'm not saying the Uranium is clean.

I'm just saying that, whenever you speak about nuclear fission (or even nuclear fusion if that thing eventually takes of one day, before we've managed to drive ourselves into extinction), you have to keep in mind that the total amount of mass considered for a certain amount of energy is several orders of magnitude lower.

Or another angle to consider things :
Coal requires millions times more mass than fission to produce energy.
Coal contains radioactive isotopes, even if the quantity are very tiny. (Well like anything in nature, actually)
But we're burning such an absurd mass of coal and dumping all its outputs in the environment (ash),
to the point that the radioactive content of coal starts get significant.
And research shows that coal is actually producing more radioactive waste than nuclear

But yeah in the end if we manage to go solar/wind/hydro, it's even better.
But until then keep in mind that because of the quantities involved, environmental impact (both pollution and radioactive waste) isn't straight forward.

Ultimately both industries have another major advantage over coal as a local keystone industry: a lot less people dying young from blacklung.

I agree with that.

Why is diversity important?

How Diversity Makes Us Smarter

Being around people who are different from us makes us more creative, more diligent and harder-working

It seems obvious that a group of people with diverse individual expertise would be better than a homogeneous group at solving complex, nonroutine problems. It is less obvious that social diversity should work in the same way—yet the science shows that it does.

Literally, 10 seconds spent with google.

Seems to be working for Star Wars / Star Trek.

They wouldn't be (re)making this stuff if fans weren't throwing money at them for doing it. Ultimately, it's people willing to pay to watch these remakes which causes them to be re-made. If you want new movie ideas, you have to show you're willing to pay for them (and not willing to pay for remakes). The explosion of instant Internet reviews has actually worked against us here, as it's become harder for studios to (partially) recoup the costs of a new movie idea which flops. That makes them less likely to experiment with new movie ideas, and more likely to stick to tried and true ideas - which means a lot more remakes and reboots.

In a way, it's the same problem I'm seeing with science and R&D. Those have traditionally advanced via the shotgun approach: Lots of people try lots of different things; most miss, but some hit, and the stuff that hits is what allows technology to advance. But managers demanding success from researchers, regulations increasing the cost of trying and failing, and media increasingly and selectively mocking failures, has resulted in technology advancing more via a slower evolutionary approach rather than by leaps and bounds. The inkjet printer was invented by a bunch of guys playing with electrostatic charges to make globs of liquid move, with no thought whatsoever for practical applications.

You have to be tolerant of failure if you want lots of success. And decreased tolerance of failure leads to decreased success.

Checkers was, at least as of a few years ago, actually the most complex game to be completely solved..

Spoiler: it's a draw.

This article cites coal as persisting for decades longer than intended, with enormous new strip mines like Garzweiler and Heimbach still opening up despite heavy protests from the same people who, having shut down nuclear, are finding out that coal is far worse. German even tried subsidizing its anthracite mines to maintain quality of output, but the last of them will be worked out in 2018. This leaves only lignite, which has the energy and pollution content of damp firewood. Enjoy!
https://www.scientificamerican...

We could take a huge chunk of the threat out by intelligently regulating antibiotic use in farm animals. But I've been accused of being an evil socialist elitist bent on destroying all american jobs. Why do I hate jobs and love big government so much? Why can't I just accept that jobs heal all sickness, we don't need laws, just jobs jobs jobs jobs?

Since you have now cut-and-paste reposted this twice already in the same thread. I'm getting tired of reposting my reply, so this time I will just repost the links

graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:

The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:

The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Manning was and is clearly a man. Has XY chromosomes, full set of male equipment, and so on.

I love the combination of absolute certainty and imprecision. Go on, what IS that "and so on"? I'll bet you didn't write it because after writing it your argument will fall apart. The thing is what you have actually written is in fact a circular argument. You are defining "man" as someone who has (a) typical XY chromosomes and (b) was born with readily identifies male genitals.

The trouble with that is it doesn't work. In order to correctly use personal pronouns, not only do you require a genetic test, but also a full medical history. Do you demand such things whenever you encounter someone and want to use "he" or "she" as words? Or, do you actually have a somewhat different definition of "man" and "woman" that you actually use in practice every day?

You're also really obsessed with genetics. On that note:

The only issues he has are mental.

The brain is part of biology.

https://www.scientificamerican...

Well, you could just Google it but I'll hold your hand:
http://www.ecowatch.com/100-re...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
https://www.scientificamerican...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

I don't eat a paleo diet by any stretch of the imagination. But you're wrong.

You said:

As opposed to the Paleo nuts who claim 6000 calories a day will cause weight loss, while 2000 calories a day will cause weigh gain (so long as the 6000 calories are carb-free, and the 2000 calories is heavy in fiber)?

You mock "Paleo nuts" for some imagined claim, yet your own claim (that X calories can't cause weight loss compared to Y calories if X > Y) is wrong. Without specifying the makeup of calories, you can't make such a claim based solely on the number of calories. Unless you're also putting your piss and shit through a bomb calorimeter and subtracting the output from the input.

https://www.scientificamerican...

Have you never taken a shit that was huge and a direct result of the food you ate prior? Have you never noticed some turds floating and others sinking like stones? Input does not equal weight gain (or loss). Input minus activity does not equal weight gain (or loss). You can mock "Paleo nuts" all you want, but they're smarter than you. I'll mock them because they can't enjoy delicious things like a good pizza crust or a fresh doughnut.

This system would not be useful for treating any virus that doesn't use DNA (like, say, the flu)....

Per this article in Scientific American--

...But until the arrival of CRISPR, virologists lacked the tools to easily alter ferret genes. Xiaoqun Wang and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing have used CRISPR to tweak genes involved in ferret brain development, and they are now using it to modify the animals' susceptibility to the flu virus. He says that he will make the model available to infectious-disease researchers.

Note the open-source mindset already beginning to surround CRISPR! Researchers are exchanging their CRISPR recipes without concern for patents and intellectual property. This can really accelerate progress with developing CRISPR-based treatments.

The "leaders" of these countries will protest and stop the vaccinations, claiming they are an American plot to harm the poor African children

This sort of resistance to humanitarian efforts has been going on for years, but we unfortunately validated it to some extent by using a sham vaccination campaign to try to track down bin Laden: How the CIA’s Fake Vaccination Campaign Endangers Us All. The ruse failed to provide useful intelligence and the CIA promised never to do it again, but trust is easier to destroy than it is to build.

It's been pretty much settled since the 70s. When EXXON figured it out. linky

Big Oil knew this 40 years ago and has been lying about it ever since to protect their profits.

What are you going to blame when we lose Florida? Is there a convenient river there to point the finger at? What ungodly amount of river water is flowing through the Solomon Islands that's causing them to disappear7?

Which is why bars serve free peanuts, pretzels and chips - obviously they make their real money from food.

Beer has a lot of calories. It is liquid bread.

Certainly ancient beers were. Many were alcoholic gruel. You could fairly live on it. Probably worked as a medicine as well https://blogs.scientificameric...

Sure - show me the work - fair enough. There are lots of citations available - sorry this isn't wikipedia.

For example - Alan Alda covered this on Scientific American Frontiers when he visited the Ford driving simulator. Part of the show had him carrying out tasks while driving so that the viewer could get an idea of what distractions looks like.

It is known that the brain devotes more effort to listening to a phone call than listening to kids in the backseat. Probably because there's pressure to pay attention to the phone call where as you can ignore the children - or scream "shut up !!" at them...but not your boss on the phone.

An article from 2014 shows the same: https://www.scientificamerican...

This is an area of research. IBM even prototyped a driving assistant that could monitor the outside world and disable your phone to "turn down" the distraction level. Hey - talking on a quiet long straight country road vs rush-hour traffic in LA has a different impact-of-risk. Make a mistake in the country and...well probably nothing happens..maybe kill a bunny.

But that isn't the point of all of this -- it is distracted driving and people don't believe it or are willing to accept the risk.

It's Trillions less than WWI, WWII, or any number of volcanic eruptions *alone*

And here we see an example of complete bullshit.

Human emissions are 120 times volcanic eruptions.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. - Scientific American.

...if I recall, one of those autonomous drones got hit by lightning, went haywire and decided it wanted to blow up all sorts of things.

Yeah - well that kinda falls under the "cool story bro" movies division. Aircraft are hit by lightning fairly often - apparently once per year per aircraft - whacky metric, so a lot are hit multiple times.

Last time a plane had a know lightning hit big problem was in 1967. Now it's just a pucker string moment. https://www.scientificamerican...

Scientific American article about acidification (from CO2) contributing to Permian Extinction...

Overview:
https://www.scientificamerican...

Full Article:
http://burro.case.edu/Academic...