Slashdot Mirror
Era of 'Biological Annihilation' Is Underway, Scientists Warn (theguardian.com)
Tatiana Schlossberg reports via The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled, alternate source): From the common barn swallow to the exotic giraffe, thousands of animal species are in precipitous decline, a sign that an irreversible era of mass extinction is underway, new research finds. The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls the current decline in animal populations a "global epidemic" and part of the "ongoing sixth mass extinction" caused in large measure by human destruction of animal habitats. The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena. Dr. Ceballos emphasized that he and his co-authors, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, both professors at Stanford University, are not alarmists, but are using scientific data to back up their assertions that significant population decline and possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent, and that both have been underestimated by many other scientists. The study's authors looked at reductions in a species' range -- a result of factors like habitat degradation, pollution and climate change, among others -- and extrapolated from that how many populations have been lost or are in decline, a method that they said is used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. They found that about 30 percent of all land vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians -- are experiencing declines and local population losses. In most parts of the world, mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss.
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
Paul Ehrlich ... not alarmist
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Somehow I always knew it would end like this.
until we extinct ourselves.
You are a fucking genius.
They haven't decided whether to call it the "Holocene extinction" or "Anthropocene extinction".
How about the Covfefecene extinction?
Table-ized A.I.
What you don't agree? I think AC is 100% correct.
Humans are part of the ecosystem, have developed in a way that they are conscious of what they are doing (or not...), and know that they can have an impact (tiny or global) on the planet. Now if we REALLY cause a mass extinction because of our actions, it will still be a "natural" cause.
If this extinction was caused by another species on our planet, would it be more natural? Absolutely not. it would be the exact same shit. Now let's say it would be caused by an extraterrestrial species coming to annihilate us. Would it be natural? Absolutely. They have evolved in a way that they can rule the galaxy, and we haven't. Nature is not just trees, flowers and other animals. We are also part of it.
Humans = the ultimate form of pollution.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague.
Assuming we don't destroy the planet and ourselves first.
...omphaloskepsis often...
If you think about Darwin and the evolution of species, it's based on adaptation and natural selection, which implies that those species that are not well adapted -- go EXTINCT because they all die.
That's irrelevant when cataclysm or just the rate of change messes up the spreadsheets.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree, what I think we really need is a term that actually points out what is somewhat unique with regards to humans. What is somewhat unique of humans in earths present and future, is the knowledge and intent, IE the fact that we have actual scientists yelling at people to warn of the consiquences. If say theories that dinosaurs caused some climate change events by excessive methane, or certain plants caused excessive cooling due to taking carbon out of the air, to meteor crashes. Not one of those causes, had the capacity to know what it was doing to life on the planet. Yet certain humans may very well cause an extinction event, of which the last survivors will be thinking, why didn't we/they listen to the warnings that were being given 50 years in advance.
Just because mass extinctions happen doesn't mean they are a good idea.
Yes. The human presence has been destructive ... like a virus ...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
...omphaloskepsis often...
What I wish to know is what they propose to do to stop this from proceeding. I hear a lot about, Oh My God, but not what to do? My 2 cents ;)
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Randian enviromentalist....
I call bullshit. Everyone knows you don't scale a coelacanth. You skin them, and then separate the drumsticks.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Ah, thank you. Amongst Ehrlich's funny predictions
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." ..."
" I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate
in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
In 1968 he wrote "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." Well, you can argue about that one, since the population hadn't grown by 200 million in that timeframe, but now the populationis 800 million greater and don't look worse off than back then..
So great, in the opinion of his co-author Ehrlich isn't an alarmist. I'd call; him a hysterical headline grabber with a predictiveusefulness of zero.
So, what, humanity isn't a natural phenomena?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If there are no predator, herbivore multiply and will eat every greenerie available for example. Nature do not care for equilibrium, it cares only fir fitness to reproduction, and overwhelming an environment with offspring work well. It is only because prey are paired with predator that an equilibrium SEEM to be reached on small time scale. But look again on bigger time scale and you see the same, that species can go out of equilibrium, change environment sonetime for the worst, and there are period of extinction. That is why this is the sixth and not the first.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yaknow, when you're quoting a genocidal slavemaster to support your argument, you're not really making a good point for your side. Just sayin'.
I had an argument? Pray tell me what would it be.
The AC post above me reminded me of that quote, so I posted it.
Oh, and that would be a *fictional* genocidal slavemaster, from a movie meant to entertain.
It's a fun quote delivered by a good actor, but I hope you don't take it as something intelligent. With the exception of some species of island birds (Watch "Parrots, The Universe, and Everything"), humans are actually one of the only species that avoids explosive population growth. Incidentally, that video is good viewing for anyone who thinks high mortality rates are the only way to control reproduction in safe environments. It's the nonhuman mammals that become invasive. Try googling "mouse plague" for starters. Now THAT'S a mammalian virus! You can argue that humans cause species invasions, but that's still just transportation; everything thereafter is natural behavior in a temporarily favorable environment.
So...mass extinctions don't happen? What is your point?
Play Command HQ online
It's a fun quote delivered by a good actor
Which was the sole reason for its inclusion.
The whole point of this story is that humans are evil exterminating monsters. Quoting a genocidal slavemaster really doesn't help.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I wonder if those have considered have noted how the highest fall first and hardest.
even within a species.
not quite the same, but 1789. come to mind.
As foretold by Methus- I mean, George Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Some species will take advantage of this new world, some won't. Opportunistic species will take over, whether it be slime in the ocean, or mosquitoes on land. Viruses are primed to hit hard with all of the meat on the planet. We are just in a period of massive flux. What shakes out may very well be less people, with a lot of technology.
This guy also previously predicted that England would be gone by the year 2000.
"His name was James Damore."
That's cool, that's cool. I just worry about the influence of such things sometimes. I think there must have been cases of kids growing up with The Prime Directive and going on to make policy decisions that allowed entire peoples to be erased. Like maybe they took the very well meaning anti-colonial message and turned it into something that isolates indigenous peoples from potential help while doing nothing to protect them from those who are more rapacious. Or even worse if they accepted the later interpretations, which discard the fear of colonialism and literally argue it's better for a people to "die pure". As if a culture's 'purity' were somehow more precious than the combined lives of every single person within it. I dunno, maybe I overthink or underthink this stuff.
Can we stop posting the exaggerated climate change and mass extinction crap that causes scientists to lose credibility with the public because of a few irresponsible people?
TFS lost all credibility with me when it described Paul Ehrlich as "not an alarmist". This is the guy who famously predicted that human civilization would collapse in the 1980s, and that was the "best case" scenario.
Well, I'll bet he never gets killed by a whale he just freed from fishing line.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Dinosaurs went extinct in a mass extinction that had 70% of species dies off that almost ended all life on earth. ELEs are scary. And that happened, what, once in the history of earth. The dodo was massacred by humans.
But, yeah, say how non-plused you are. It definitely makes you sound mature/intelligent, and not like a idiot.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague.
(Agent Smith then proceeds to make billions of copies of himself)
You must be new to the english language so I'll help you.
Humanity is typically seperated from the natural world in contexts like this due to the conscience nature of our actions. An asteroid or a volcano are considered natural as they are events that literally just happen "naturally" where as humans choose to do or not do things.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt.
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too.
I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Actually the correct term is "Invasive Species"
If the human race does not move in to space WE will go extinct.
Remember WHERE and WHO is reproducing at an alarming pace. Just a hint: Not first world countries.
Depends if you add a "WHEN" question, then you hint gets completely wrong.
When meds and industrial agriculture where developed in what you now consider "First world countries", those pesky westerner also had a huge demographic explosion (because they kept their old habits of reproducing like rabbits on the ground that most of their children won't even reach adulthood).
But eventually we got wiser and adapted.
And the same adaptation is currently happening in nearly most of these other countries you allude to. We'll never reach the initially predicted 25 billions.
It's called DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, and it's actually a thing, whether or not it surprise your bigoted xenophobic view of the world and all the people who happen to be different than you.
Another hint: If first world countries stopped sending food and meds there, the population growth would return to cabal limits.
Another hint: if we stopped selling food and meds to you, you'll probably turn into a raving survivalist cannibal savage in no time.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
There is no shortage of food.
Depends on how you consider the details :
- Indeed, there's no shortage of food, if your target is just to feed the population and keep it alive.
The planet can more or less roughly procude enough food to keep everyone alive.
We *currently* are not at risk of becoming Soylent Green movie.
- BUT if every single human being decided to eat as much (both in terms of volume, caloric intake, composition (meat vs. veggies), etc.) as the typical westerner, and use as much resource for everything else, you'd need about 3 planets earth worth of production to sustain the current population at that train of life.
GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Which is exactly the topmost reason why I'm against GMO.
I'm not fundamentally against genetic tweaking (common, I'm working in lifescience research. I should pretty well know that we've been doing tweaking since the beginning of agriculture - just with way more lower tech tools. But one can see the difference between modern crops and their closest wild relatives).
I'm fundamentally against what is essentially a lock-in business by companies that managed to bring out the worst of IP rights.
(Patents on life ? Common. That's a much against the fundamental idea of patents as you can be).
(Not to mention that over relying on the few commercially available GMO crops would increase the risks of monoculture).
In short : I'm not against GMO per se, I am against all the shit that current GMO companies are doing.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Dinosaurs went extinct in a mass extinction that had 70% of species dies off that almost ended all life on earth. ELEs are scary. And that happened, what, once in the history of earth.
Five major extinctions happened, only one of them had an external cause (asteroid). For the others, climate change was one of the main reasons.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
In what language is "person" not a singular form of "people?" Not only that, there also exists proper usages for "peoples" and "persons."
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt.
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too.
I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Good post, succinct and informative, but I can't help but wonder if you're completely correct in all your assertions and word usage:
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
(2) Are you sure you intended to use parlor, and not parlance? /pedantry
You need a PhD to understand how dozens of strip malls and endless home plans and urban sprawl slaughter everything ?
Um, kinda obvious humans are exterminating all life on Earth to everyone with eyes and a brain...
> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Y
"Instinctively develops" such a relationship? I'd say "no". Many mammals, introduced to new environment, have no means to make such accommodation and devastate ecosystems. A very classic example is the introduction of rabbits to Australia's ecosystem: others include the introduction of goats almost anywhere, since goats are notorious for cropping plants much closer to the root and destroying the plant parts of ecosystems.
The idea that all mammals "develop a natural equilibrium" ignores the cycles of population growth and decline of simple predator/prey relationships, like the well analyzed one between wolves and rabbits described at https://stanford.edu/~ajspakow... . These equilibria don't require instinct, nor does there seem to be "insinct" involved. They only require negative feedback from the environment.
Yes. The human presence has been destructive ... like a virus ...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
Knowing about something, and fucking doing something about it, are worlds apart. Greed doesn't give a fuck about anything but Greed. Those "circles" will not be heard no matter what. The continued poisoning of our planet, and governments who would rather support Greed above everything else, prove this.
The human species will ultimately learn. Unfortunately, it will be the hard way.
How many of those climate changes were caused by humans?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I’ve found this reasoning specious ever since it was part of a George Carlin skit. The Earth is essentially a large rock that happens to have a thin coat of delicate living goo on it. The rock of course will go on. Now if that thin goo is reduced to just some kind of primitive microbial mat, well then yes the Earth and life has gone on, and evolution will kick in to start the climb again. But the whole “Earth will go on” statement seems to imply Earth and its ecosystem are just too big to fail or that it doesn’t matter that it is no longer habitable by humans, all that matters is somehow, some form of life be here and start evolving again. How about we care about the all the life that is here now, both animal and human?
Letter To Iran
Cancer rates are also SKYROCKETING!!! Not because more people are getting cancer, but because of better diagnostic coverage, better discipline in people getting checkups due to the ACA, and overall people paying closer attention to their health.
Species are going extinct, for sure. We are just more aware of it because we are paying closer attention than we ever have before. I imagine extinction rates are not actually going up that much, if at all, but because we have done so much more exploration for new species, implemented many many more monitoring programs, and in general have cared more about it, we are more aware of extinction when it does happen instead of simply not noticing it.
Humans = the ultimate form of pollution
In the sense of ultimate meaning final or last or most recent, sure. But not in the sense of best or greatest - in my opinion that honor should go to the photosynthesizing plants, starting with cyanobacteria, that pumped tremendous amounts of oxygen into the air, fundamentally changing the preferred biological processes for living on Earth. (Of course this also depends on what one defines as 'pollution.') Humans are altering climate and geologic features, and thereby changing coastlines and what plants and animals live where, but at the moment at least it doesn't appear that we're changing the molecular composition of the air, water and land enough force life to adopt fundamentally new chemical processes to survive. (Although it'd be ironic if our actions were to, say, alter the acidity of the oceans enough to kill off a significant portion of the oxygen-producing life in it that the atmosphere over time becomes difficult to breathe by humans...)
The climate change in this one is much, much faster than that of any previous extinctions.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
He's successful? Please elaborate AC, that is definitely not cremier.
"The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena." Why are humans not considered a natural phenomena?
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Eh, it is hard enough to get the politicians to see that there's a problem, solutions need to be worked out next.
Ehrlich bungled some predictions but with the general message he was not wrong and - this is key - he called for action on population when it could have the most effect back in the 70s. At this point the damage is already done.
From TFS : "The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena."
Why are we acting like human's aren't natural? Yes it might be our fault that this is happening, but we as a species are a "natural phenomena". We're not some extra-dimensional beings or anything special. We're as much a part of nature as nature is a part of us. We just choose to abuse and ruin it for our own means. Not to say any other species that reached our level of intellect wouldn't naturally end up doing the same.
I tend to rant.
Just stop it.
When people act like humans are so much different than other animals, it blows my mind.
Yes we're poisoned from birth with all this "want want want" bullshit. But naturally we are no different than other animals, and instinctively try to do the same. Those who don't, we know would die off within a week of "shit hitting the fan", but to flat out dump on the entire species as you are is just fucking stupid.
I tend to rant.
The money isn't there currently but the fact that they did not let them stop working in that direction is worthy of praise. Be strong and hang in there, NASA. Stay the course and I will certainly write my congressmen about funding.
On the other hand, why not try open sourcing design work.. I am absolutely sure you will find an extraordinary wealth of interested people offering ideas and assistance exploring them. Most will be unqualified but it will be an excellent learning experience inspiring a new generation of aerospace engineers. Some will be qualified and will do exceptional work at peer review, engineering calculations, secondary materials research, etc. And the enthusiasm at this site will illustrate the support the American people have for this project. Embrace it.
Matthew
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Who told you this? Tony Robbins? Are you listening to 'Eye of the Tiger' between pudding cups
Not from the 14-year-old wankers on Slashdot.
It does seem like a "convenient reinterpretation of a failed existence" though.
Only on Slashdot would having a job that pays the bills and a side business that brings in cash flow be considered a failure.
You really should sleep more, and not worry about the slashdot trolls as much as you do, granted I sometimes talk shit to you. but I at least let you know its me talking shit. However talking shit is one of my hobby's and I thoroughly enjoy doing it.. I guess you can say that was one of the poor kid activities that kept our brains busy. Either way 6 hours of sleep is not enough sleep if you have to be cognitive during the work day and produce. even if you can squeeze 45-60 extra minutes into that you should try it. And if you feel you cant sleep, try taking hit or two of weed, or an edible an hour before you want to go to sleep. will help a lot. And its legal where you're at fortunately for you.
yes, its a tv show.
much the same way orwell predicted? or asimov?
do you really enjoy the phrase '14yo wankers' or do you suffer from some kind of obesity-induced autism that compels you to say it as many times as possible
I was previously using "asshat" as a general description of my critics. But Eli the Computer Guy summed up in a recent video who my real critics are on Slashdot: the 14-year-old wankers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUcFStmtr7k
"mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss"
except I'll bet that there are more mammals today than last year. humans count too.
so it's really just that there is less mammal diversity. that's something else altogether.
and what of all of the animal species that prefer the new world climate? lowering the temperature, the pollution, and the acidity would set back the jellyfish population by decades.
So really, this is just an argument of preferring giraffes over jellyfish. So which ones do we eat, which ones clean our dirty oceans, and which ones look prettier?
Personally, I prefer it a little warmer. My country benefits immensely from global warming -- agriculture, tourism, and land. You in Florida have had your time in the sun. Now it's your turn to have the hostile seasons.
And what of solar power? Isn't hotter better? Sorry, that's the hole-in-the-ozone thing. I meant greenhouse effect. Isn't that good for plants? And therefore for agriculture? I like food. And hurricanes? Wind power, soon lightning power.
This planet has many deserts. Between arid-north, snowy south, and sandy middles, plenty of earth is hostile to humans. So isn't this just a shift? If you live at the equator, plan to move north in a generation or two. Florida will become as hot as jamaica. But virginia will become the new florida. And the arctic circle will become the new new york.
For a group of scientists looking to colonize the moon, and mars, global warming ought not seem so hostile by comparison.
Take away the slashdot and maybe you're not a failure. But there is definitely something wrong that you keep frequenting this place. Given how long you've been working, you're darn right you are a failure.
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for scripts to finish. Thank you for your participation!
While it is human to worry about things that affect us in the present like net neutrality (I am very very concerned about it myself) and the like, it is too easy to miss the big picture. If the planet loses half its species in the next few decades, we are what you call "completely fucked". I send my donations to anything that will help preserve nature because, well, it eventually affects every other thing with a very long term effect.
not worry about the slashdot trolls as much as you do
I find the 14-year-old wankers to be amusing. That some of them call themselves men and have children is more worrisome.
Either way 6 hours of sleep is not enough sleep if you have to be cognitive during the work day and produce.
I've always gotten six hours of sleep. My late father who got up at 5:30AM to go to work for 50 years always slept six hours.
You have to get up ridiculously early to get to your shitty job;
My father got up at 5:30AM to go to work for 50 years. He stopped working six weeks before he died at 75 from terminal throat cancer.
You get up 2.5 hours before you're expected to arrive at work, because you have to take shitty public transit in the Bay Area, which is expensive and crowded;
The alternative is to spend 3+ hours driving in traffic. I spend an hour each way taking the express bus, reading The Wall Street Journal in the morning and an ebook on the way home. If you don't arrive at my job by 7:30AM, you won't get a parking spot and street parking sucks.
You spend your "work" days dicking around on Slashdot;
While attending three meetings and two training sessions that didn't apply to me at my regular job yesterday, and responding to email notifications from Slashdot while redoing YouTube thumbnails for a client last night.
and burn hours and days and weeks of your free time for a few dollars;
I love how everyone lowball the numbers that they know nothing about. We went from half-cents to pennies to dollars over the last three months
You have to be in bed by 10:30 pm because you have to wake up again to do it all over again the next day.
I look forward to every new day because that's life.
Era of 'Biological Annihilation' Is Underway
possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent
So let me get this straight. It is possible that mass extinction may be imminent (meaning: it is not happening now, and we're not sure it will). Thus we have biological annihilation already underway. Somehow those two don't quite align... Methinks the headline isn't just clickbait, but outright #FakeNews?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Im not saying I don't do the same, but its still not healthy. You and your father may be 100% different though because your mother also had a part in it.
If it is caused by man, then explain why BEFORE man, many species have come and gone. And even if man were NOT here, many species will go. More crap to stir up the government educated lDIOTS that can't think for themselves, but continue to spout 30 second sound bites...because that is all they know.
You and your father may be 100% different though because your mother also had a part in it.
The older I get the more I become my father. Fortunately, I watched my father get old so I know what to prepare for. As for my late mother, she was an alcoholic, slept all the time and a mean drunk when awake.
- Averaging ~ $27 a month in advertising revenues.
Made $150 in advertising revenues from Slashdot last month. The average for the past quarter was $66.66.
Selling ~ $60 worth of ebooks per year.
That's interesting number I don't recognize. Citation, please?
Working on your "side business" every day, from when you get home, until you go to bed at 10:30 pm.
Correct.
Being stuck on a shitty, dead-end treadmill is what you think of as life?
I'm not the type that comes home, watches TV and drink beers after work. I haven't watched TV in 25 years and it takes me six months to drank a six-pack. I prefer the entrepreneur lifestyle instead.
Paul Ehrlich is also the person who, when it looked like Pons and Fleishmann were really on to something, and clean, nearly free fusion power was going to be running everything on the planet, wrote an article for the newspapers about how this was a complete disaster. In his words "Like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."
I have no use for completely anti-human "philosophers" like Ehrlich. He may know a lot about butterflies, but outside his narrow area of expertise, he's a moron.
So in 3 months, you made $66. An average of $22 per month.
Wrong, dumbass. The average was $66.66 per month. Multiply by three months in a quarter that's $200. An extra $200 that requires little effort on my part than posting a few dozen comments on Slashdot every day.
Even if you're making equivalent rates from all of your claimed 30 revenue streams (and we all know you're not) [...]
Where I don't provide information, you make up shit to fill in gaps and then lowball the results.
I leave work, spend time with my wife & kid, do creative projects (woodworking, music, and open source programming), do useful household upkeep, and a hundred other gratifying, rewarding things.
A lifestyle that I will probably never have. I don't dwell on what I don't have. I deal with what I do have. When God hands out lemons, I make lemonade and people get upset because I don't suck my lemons with salt and tequila like everyone else.
No, it's quite clear that you prefer being able to claim you're an entrepreneur without having to actually deliver on the actual successful business ventures of BEING an entrepreneur.
I've been in business for ten years now. People who don't believe they're successful TODAY won't be successful TOMORROW. I don't let doubters and naysayers dictate how I run my business.
Life....finds a way. But humans....won't. And that's the point.
The most adaptable species on the planet, the toolmakers and builders, won't find a way to survive. What absolute malarky.
Is this Paul posting as an AC?
doesn't mean they are a good idea.
Do you see me saying they are a good idea?
And I see my stalker got mod points again. You missed a few other postings I made in other threads, or did you run out of points before you could get them all?
The climate change in this one is much, much faster than that of any previous extinctions.
I saw one of the most asinine bumper stickers this morning on the way to work: "The climate is changing faster than we are."
Now, I don't know about you, but I can change on a time scale on the order of "weather". Hey, it's hot out, let's go inside where the AC is on. Hey, it's cold out, put on a sweater. I think most people can do that. So if we can change faster than the weather, and the climate is changing faster than we can, then climate change has to be happening faster than the weather. But weather is the day-to-day stuff and "climate" is the long term stuff. So weather changes much faster than the climate. We change faster than the weather.
The car owner clearly doesn't understand the rules of math.
But then, I'm positive of that because of the vehicle they drive: a Subaru Forester. It has the label "pzev" on it. I couldn't figure out by looking at it what that meant, but I saw it at the Subaru dealer. "Partial zero emissions vehicle". How can a vehicle be "partial zero"? Either it is zero or it is not. Unless you're saying "the only thing that emits on this car is the engine, and the engine is only a part of the car...", so only a part of the car emits ... but that's just dumb. Every car qualifies for that.
Do you see any other successful people generating the amount of replies you are?
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for scripts to finish. That I get paid to make two dozen comments per day is a bonus.
Instead, you let all those ghosts and injuries from your past blind you to your reality.
Nothing stands in my way. The future is very bright.
Virii has never been correct.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
"I study viruses."
"I caught some virus."
Does some slang (which, where?) truly use:
"I caught some viruses?"
Off-hand, I can't recall ever hearing that.
Possibly because there's little chance of anyone saying "I caught some virus" unless they mean "some virus" as singular?
But if someone looks at a microscope image, will they say "look at all the virus" or "look at all the viruses"? I fear that most would say the latter these days.
If what you say were true, places that have been inhabited by humans would be depopulated wastelands. They aren't. Humans move into an area and stay in some form of dynamic equilibrium.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So much for the "secret and confidential" sales figures...
I brandied about the Slashdot advertising revenue for months, as I previously told you when you ;ast complained about my "secret and confidential" sales figures.
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
They are two different words, where one fulfils the lack of a singular for the other. Much like there is no singular for money, and we substitute words that may make sense in the context, like "coin" or "note". That doesn't make one a plural of the other.
Persons has a different meaning from people, much like coins has a different meaning from money.
John and Paul may be persons of interest.
Marxists and cobblers may be people of interest.
Inuits and Sami may be peoples of interest.
As for #2, you're right; I erroneously used a boutique word. :)
Virii was the proper plural of viruses for generations.
No, it wasn't. Viri (singlie i) exists, but means "men", "Virii" (double i) doesn't exist as a word, and never has. The first incorrect "virii" can be traced back to the 1970s.
The plural of virus is virus, or viruses/vira is you refer to multiple groups (like "peoples").
You forgot to write who or what you are amusing,,,
example:
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse the crowd while I'm waiting for scripts to finish running.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
A flattening out of the population isn't enough.
Well depending on what they eat, it could be enough (= if they dont all eat like westerner. otherwise you'll need 1-2 extra planets Earth just to feed everyone).
We need to get it down to a pre-explosion level and let other "species" reclaim a majority of the areas that we have expanded into in order stop the decline in biodiversity. There's nothing that indicates that that will happen.
...soon. There nothing that indicates that that will happen soon.
On the other hand, there are indicators that that will happen eventually :
in the developped western world, natality rate is falling under 2, sometime even under 1 (= not every couple have a kid at all).
The population of several european countries only growse due to immigration. Not to born babies.
As they progress along their demographic transition, all the countries will eventually lower the number of babies each couple makes.
And you'll eventually see negative population growth.
At least if we are still around by then.
If we've managed to wipe ourselves out by completely destroying the environment (and climate), then it's another story.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You lost me at "Paul Ehrlich is not an alarmist."
That would have killed the joke.
I look forward to every new day because that's life
That statement alone defines a successful life.
It's going to be a large figure but probably not 99.99% - there's been more species around recently than in any previous historical period.
Ezekiel 23:20