Been able to right click for decades.... Why do you guys that have zero experience with a MAC keep trying to bring that fake piece of info Up?
The first Apple mouse to have right click was the "mighty mouse" released in 2005. So I guess technically it has been longer than 1 decade, but maybe "decades" is an exaggeration... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What most people don't get is that CO2 takes about 100 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. And about 20 years to impact the cycles.
Not sure where you got this 100 year figure, but I'd think critically about that if I were you. CO2 is a very stable molecule. Plants are not good at sequestering CO2 since they die, rot, and emit CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (unless biochar or another carbonization method is employed). The biosphere exchanges carbon with the atmosphere, but the amount in circulation doesn't change quickly. Formation of CaCO3, Oil, coal, and some other carbon-containing inorganic materials subtracts from the carbon being exchanged between atmosphere and biomass , but these are accumulated in the crust by geological process involving plate tectonics, so they are extremely slow. I think conservatively (and a quick google search confirms) that it will take 1000's of years (perhaps 10's or 100's of thousands) of years for CO2 to return to a level closer to where we started before the industrial revolution unless we intervene somehow. Assuming we eventually quit *adding* to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have no idea where everyone seems to be getting this idea that CO2 will persist for 100 years and then vanish, but it is totally wrong. CO2 will persist in the atmosphere for as long as it takes to be sequestered, which is more like 10's of thousands of years or perhaps even millions of years unless we can find a method of sequestration that is significantly faster than Earth's natural sequestration mechanisms. Biomass exchanges carbon with the atmosphere a lot, but it doesn't result in a net impact in carbon being circulated in the biosphere since dead biomass gives off CO2 back to the atmosphere and the net amount of biomass won't increase appreciably (especially as we continue to deforest the planet). The Earth sequesters CO2 through geological processes like subduction of plate tectonics which takes A VERY LONG TIME. Certainly more than 100 years. So could somebody please explain why they think atmospheric CO2 will decrease within 100 years? I don't believe it for one second.
The problem isn't necessarily where we are headed (warmer climate, higher ocean). You have to think about we are now, where we will soon be, and how rapidly the change is occurring. Having certain places underwater isn't nearly as problematic if they submerged over millennia, since creatures have a chance to migrate away, evolve to better suit the changing conditions, etc. Similarly, having warmer weather wouldn't be such an issue if the transition occurred over millenia. As it is, the weather patterns are changing faster than plants and animals (and humans) can adapt. For example, trees are literally unable to migrate to cooler climates except by spreading their seeds a few feet North or South per decade or so. Life can adapt to slow changes very well, but this is different. We are putting enormous pressure on the biosphere by compressing a geological timescale event into a couple centuries. To be clear, I completely agree with you that life on Earth would be fine with 3C warmer weather -- but not if it changes by 3C in 100 or 200 years. Here's a couple examples of what's going on during this period of rapid warming. Coral reefs are bleaching at an unprecedented rate, and we could lose 70% of them by 2050. The oceans have become 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution, which is taking a heavy toll on shellfish: oyster seed production in the pacific northwest has declined 80% between 2005 and 2009. We've seen an increase in severe weather such as hurricanes and flooding. There's more to come.
Look, the "point of no return" is completely arbitrary - how much CO2 do you want in the atmosphere? However much we put in there, it will remain for 10's of thousands of years. Today is a point of no return. So is tomorrow. So is the day after, and so on. The only thing that's been changing is how much CO2 is up there and will remain up there. In other words, this isn't evidence against the greenhouse effect (which is well-understood, tested, and resoundingly supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field). This is evidence that humans tend to move goalposts when they blow past a deadline. There is right now little doubt that the Earth's environment has been altered and will continue to be altered by the elevated CO2. People will die, cities will flood, animals will go extinct. This will all almost certainly happen, the only thing that remains to be seen is the extent to which we increase CO2 levels before switching to renewable energy sources and the extent to which our environment changes as a result of the greenhouse effect. Make no mistake, we have long-since crossed the line of no return and are moving further into dangerous territory with each passing day.
So what happens when mosquito populations crash and the natural ecosystem begins to unravel? How many people will die then? Also, FYI Africa has no active Zika transmission. http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/ac...
Mosquitos are a food supply to fish, birds, and other insects. They transport microorganisms and are a necessary part of the lifecycle for many organisms. What will happen to these other organisms if we "kill off" mosquitos as you put it? Zika isn't even that bad if you're not pregnant. We should finish developing the vaccine and use repellent, nets, and drain standing water in the meantime. Look at what happens every single time humans disrupt native populations of wildlife: unintended consequences.
For this problem we should be using genetic engineering. Infertile male mosquitoes would be the most obvious first step. It would dramatically cut the population and it is highly targeted and does not require removing standing water to an impossible level.
Or we could use bug repellent/mosquito nets, immunize, and not freak out about it so much. The hype that this virus has generated is completely blown out of proportion in my opinion. Why risk altering the natural environmental dynamics? We have no idea what the unintended consequences might be if we genetically engineer some infertile mosquitos. What if it's too effective or accidentally disrupts the mosquito population with respect to other organisms that depend on them? What about fish and bird populations that use mosquitos as a food supply? What about microorganisms and parasite lifecycles that need mosquitos to reproduce? Do we know what will happen to them and how it may affect other organisms in the food chain? It seems like using repellent, mosquito nets, and vaccinations to control spread of the virus will yield the greatest benefit with very little risk involved.
Yeah, we tend to see things as "safe" if they don't directly hurt people. This frustrates me to no end. My favorite example is the debate on fluoride in drinking water, whether or not it is safe to people. Did anyone consider whether it's safe for fish???? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... -- There are lots of other studies like this one, too, dating back 20+ years.
For that matter, why not file a lawsuit against email providers, telco providers, etc etc. Terrorists could be making use of all sorts of methods of communication. Should we sue everyone who makes/supports these communications related products? I don't understand why twitter should be responsible for who uses their service when other companies aren't.
Silicon Valley is expensive even if you live a moderate lifestyle. I just moved into a 650 sqft 1 bedroom apartment in SJ that costs $2200/mo. I decided to move when my 800 sqft 1 bedroom rent was raised to $2800/mo.
Dow made solar shingles until July of this year. They stopped because of low demand. Traditional rack-mounted solar offers better W/$. We'll see how the Elon Musk hype affects things though.
Hence for the vast majority of people who live near a freeway or city it's perfect. Judging by the costs in this summary my plan is saving me over $1000/year compared to ATT (I'm on MetroPCS), and my phone works just fine thank you very much.
Leftist global warming myths again run amok but the facts are as follows:
"However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet's early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions."
Wrong. Venus has an albedo of 0.8 meaning it reflects 80% of the light from the sun. 2643W/m2 * 20% = 530W/m2. Earth has an albedo of 0.3, so it reflects about 30% of the light from the sun. 1370W/m2 * 70% = 959W/m2. Venus has about twice as much incident light, but reflects most of it. Earth absorbs roughly TWICE as much energy from the sun as Venus does. The difference in temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Yeah, shame on them for cutting down forests to harvest wood, grow food, and raise cattle that people in rich countries buy. Of course, first world countries have also leveled entire forests, but it's OK because currently the net change is positive. Also there is no such thing as "outsourcing" of environmental problems from the first world to the third world.
The real problem with fossil fuels is not that we might run out - the problem is that we WON'T run out until long after causing some nearly irreversible changes to our climate. We'll have >2C increase in temperature locked-in after using only 40% of our proven reserves. The results of this temperature increase are totally unknown, but very likely to be bad.
It is true that CO2 stimulates plant growth, if you isolate other factors. The problem is that we are deforesting our planet, so the net change in plant biomass is negative. Furthermore, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is about 37% of the existing 3E12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 1.13E12 tons of excess CO2 from human activities. A single km^2 of rainforest contains about 356 tons of biomass (wikipedia), so assuming it's all carbon (it's not) we'd need another 3.2E9 km^2 of rainforest to consume all of the excess CO2 in the air. The earth's surface area (including oceans) is only 5E8 km^2. So we'd need 6.2 earth surface areas of Amazon rainforest to sequester all of the extra CO2 in the air. You see, the carbon stores were saved up from fossilization over millions and millions of years and we've attempted to release all of them into the atmosphere in about 100 years. The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust. Hope that you see now this is a major problem that won't be solved by sitting back and watching. My sources are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://micpohling.wordpress.c... feel free to check my math.
What other ways are people in these parts of the world likely to get online?
Is that the priority in a country where misogyny is culturally ingrained, where the class system excuses all bad behaviour, where embezzling the government is standard practice?
Yes, it absolutely should be. The spread of ideas and knowledge from all over the world through the internet is a wonderful thing. Developing it and helping everyone have access to it should be a priority. Are you saying that they should not seek to have internet access until all their other problems are solved? Why not? It's a non-sequitur. Also, where does it say India is trading monopolies for infrastructure? As far as I can tell from TFA and other recent stories, Facebook initially wanted a tiered pricing system, but it was already rejected by India to preserve net neutrality.
There is a higher % of Asians in CA compared to the national average. Somewhere around 12%. Still slightly over-represented, but not by as much as using the national average would imply.
1) You're a member of the society you're doing business in.
Read the grandparent post. It simply asserted that a business should hire the best people regardless of sex or ethnicity. That's the society I want to live in, and I suspect most people would agree.
2) Building a reputation as somebody who doesn't care about diversity and inclusion is a good way to find yourself ignored or excluded by the portions of the population you've stated you don't care about. (See: boycott, negative public relations) You are shrinking your pool of available customers.
So you're arguing that Apple should base their hiring practices on meeting some quota of racial hires and gender hires for PR reasons? Sounds pretty messed up to me.
3) Ignoring other parts of the population who could be working for you limits your access to the best thinkers and workers, unless you really care to assert that the lack of minorities in the labor pool are *actually* a reflection of those minorities being dumber and lazier than all of your majority-hire candidates. You are shrinking your pool of available labor.
Read the grandparent post. It says nothing like what you are saying.
Building diversity in your business can be a competitive advantage because it's good public relations, and it's also going to give you access to a wider array of thoughts, ideas, and perspectives - all of which can make your business stronger.
But it's fine - if you don't make it your business, you can be sure your competitors will find a way to make it a competitive advantage. Eventually, you'll be faced with the choice of caring about diversity, or failing and shutting your doors.
Did you read the actual article summary? The breakdown was: "68% male and 32% female as of June 2016, a slight change from a 69%-31% split in 2015. Apple's race and ethnicity breakdown among U.S. employees is 19% Asian, 9% Black, 12% Hispanic, 2% Multiracial, 1% Other, and 56% White." To compare, the racial distribution of the US is 5% asian, 12% black, 16% hispanic, 2% multiracial, 1% other, and 64% white. So what exactly are you so upset about? Is it that Apple has slightly more asians and less hispanics? Fewer whites? Are you planning to complain until Apple's demographics match the US demographics exactly? What do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Been able to right click for decades.... Why do you guys that have zero experience with a MAC keep trying to bring that fake piece of info Up?
The first Apple mouse to have right click was the "mighty mouse" released in 2005. So I guess technically it has been longer than 1 decade, but maybe "decades" is an exaggeration... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What most people don't get is that CO2 takes about 100 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. And about 20 years to impact the cycles.
Not sure where you got this 100 year figure, but I'd think critically about that if I were you. CO2 is a very stable molecule. Plants are not good at sequestering CO2 since they die, rot, and emit CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (unless biochar or another carbonization method is employed). The biosphere exchanges carbon with the atmosphere, but the amount in circulation doesn't change quickly. Formation of CaCO3, Oil, coal, and some other carbon-containing inorganic materials subtracts from the carbon being exchanged between atmosphere and biomass , but these are accumulated in the crust by geological process involving plate tectonics, so they are extremely slow. I think conservatively (and a quick google search confirms) that it will take 1000's of years (perhaps 10's or 100's of thousands) of years for CO2 to return to a level closer to where we started before the industrial revolution unless we intervene somehow. Assuming we eventually quit *adding* to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have no idea where everyone seems to be getting this idea that CO2 will persist for 100 years and then vanish, but it is totally wrong. CO2 will persist in the atmosphere for as long as it takes to be sequestered, which is more like 10's of thousands of years or perhaps even millions of years unless we can find a method of sequestration that is significantly faster than Earth's natural sequestration mechanisms. Biomass exchanges carbon with the atmosphere a lot, but it doesn't result in a net impact in carbon being circulated in the biosphere since dead biomass gives off CO2 back to the atmosphere and the net amount of biomass won't increase appreciably (especially as we continue to deforest the planet). The Earth sequesters CO2 through geological processes like subduction of plate tectonics which takes A VERY LONG TIME. Certainly more than 100 years. So could somebody please explain why they think atmospheric CO2 will decrease within 100 years? I don't believe it for one second.
The problem isn't necessarily where we are headed (warmer climate, higher ocean). You have to think about we are now, where we will soon be, and how rapidly the change is occurring. Having certain places underwater isn't nearly as problematic if they submerged over millennia, since creatures have a chance to migrate away, evolve to better suit the changing conditions, etc. Similarly, having warmer weather wouldn't be such an issue if the transition occurred over millenia. As it is, the weather patterns are changing faster than plants and animals (and humans) can adapt. For example, trees are literally unable to migrate to cooler climates except by spreading their seeds a few feet North or South per decade or so. Life can adapt to slow changes very well, but this is different. We are putting enormous pressure on the biosphere by compressing a geological timescale event into a couple centuries. To be clear, I completely agree with you that life on Earth would be fine with 3C warmer weather -- but not if it changes by 3C in 100 or 200 years. Here's a couple examples of what's going on during this period of rapid warming. Coral reefs are bleaching at an unprecedented rate, and we could lose 70% of them by 2050. The oceans have become 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution, which is taking a heavy toll on shellfish: oyster seed production in the pacific northwest has declined 80% between 2005 and 2009. We've seen an increase in severe weather such as hurricanes and flooding. There's more to come.
Look, the "point of no return" is completely arbitrary - how much CO2 do you want in the atmosphere? However much we put in there, it will remain for 10's of thousands of years. Today is a point of no return. So is tomorrow. So is the day after, and so on. The only thing that's been changing is how much CO2 is up there and will remain up there. In other words, this isn't evidence against the greenhouse effect (which is well-understood, tested, and resoundingly supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field). This is evidence that humans tend to move goalposts when they blow past a deadline. There is right now little doubt that the Earth's environment has been altered and will continue to be altered by the elevated CO2. People will die, cities will flood, animals will go extinct. This will all almost certainly happen, the only thing that remains to be seen is the extent to which we increase CO2 levels before switching to renewable energy sources and the extent to which our environment changes as a result of the greenhouse effect. Make no mistake, we have long-since crossed the line of no return and are moving further into dangerous territory with each passing day.
Just FYI, DDT is banned in the US, not in other countries. It is routinely used to combat malaria across the world.
What on Earth are you babbling about? DDT is still in routine use outside of the US including in Africa. Google it.
So what happens when mosquito populations crash and the natural ecosystem begins to unravel? How many people will die then? Also, FYI Africa has no active Zika transmission. http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/ac...
It might not need to reload or refuel. what if the drone is solar powered and the gun is a laser?
Mosquitos are a food supply to fish, birds, and other insects. They transport microorganisms and are a necessary part of the lifecycle for many organisms. What will happen to these other organisms if we "kill off" mosquitos as you put it? Zika isn't even that bad if you're not pregnant. We should finish developing the vaccine and use repellent, nets, and drain standing water in the meantime. Look at what happens every single time humans disrupt native populations of wildlife: unintended consequences.
For this problem we should be using genetic engineering. Infertile male mosquitoes would be the most obvious first step. It would dramatically cut the population and it is highly targeted and does not require removing standing water to an impossible level.
Or we could use bug repellent/mosquito nets, immunize, and not freak out about it so much. The hype that this virus has generated is completely blown out of proportion in my opinion. Why risk altering the natural environmental dynamics? We have no idea what the unintended consequences might be if we genetically engineer some infertile mosquitos. What if it's too effective or accidentally disrupts the mosquito population with respect to other organisms that depend on them? What about fish and bird populations that use mosquitos as a food supply? What about microorganisms and parasite lifecycles that need mosquitos to reproduce? Do we know what will happen to them and how it may affect other organisms in the food chain? It seems like using repellent, mosquito nets, and vaccinations to control spread of the virus will yield the greatest benefit with very little risk involved.
Yeah, we tend to see things as "safe" if they don't directly hurt people. This frustrates me to no end. My favorite example is the debate on fluoride in drinking water, whether or not it is safe to people. Did anyone consider whether it's safe for fish???? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... -- There are lots of other studies like this one, too, dating back 20+ years.
For that matter, why not file a lawsuit against email providers, telco providers, etc etc. Terrorists could be making use of all sorts of methods of communication. Should we sue everyone who makes/supports these communications related products? I don't understand why twitter should be responsible for who uses their service when other companies aren't.
Silicon Valley is expensive even if you live a moderate lifestyle. I just moved into a 650 sqft 1 bedroom apartment in SJ that costs $2200/mo. I decided to move when my 800 sqft 1 bedroom rent was raised to $2800/mo.
Dow made solar shingles until July of this year. They stopped because of low demand. Traditional rack-mounted solar offers better W/$. We'll see how the Elon Musk hype affects things though.
Hence for the vast majority of people who live near a freeway or city it's perfect. Judging by the costs in this summary my plan is saving me over $1000/year compared to ATT (I'm on MetroPCS), and my phone works just fine thank you very much.
I'm on MetroPCS. $40/mo for unlimited data, talk, texts. That's the same as ATT's "access fee???"
Leftist global warming myths again run amok but the facts are as follows:
"However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet's early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions."
Wrong. Venus has an albedo of 0.8 meaning it reflects 80% of the light from the sun. 2643W/m2 * 20% = 530W/m2. Earth has an albedo of 0.3, so it reflects about 30% of the light from the sun. 1370W/m2 * 70% = 959W/m2. Venus has about twice as much incident light, but reflects most of it. Earth absorbs roughly TWICE as much energy from the sun as Venus does. The difference in temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect.
source: http://www.atmos.washington.ed...
Yeah, shame on them for cutting down forests to harvest wood, grow food, and raise cattle that people in rich countries buy. Of course, first world countries have also leveled entire forests, but it's OK because currently the net change is positive. Also there is no such thing as "outsourcing" of environmental problems from the first world to the third world.
The real problem with fossil fuels is not that we might run out - the problem is that we WON'T run out until long after causing some nearly irreversible changes to our climate. We'll have >2C increase in temperature locked-in after using only 40% of our proven reserves. The results of this temperature increase are totally unknown, but very likely to be bad.
I was simply replying to the parent's idea that increased foliage uptake might be enough to combat the extra CO2. It's not.
It is true that CO2 stimulates plant growth, if you isolate other factors. The problem is that we are deforesting our planet, so the net change in plant biomass is negative. Furthermore, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is about 37% of the existing 3E12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 1.13E12 tons of excess CO2 from human activities. A single km^2 of rainforest contains about 356 tons of biomass (wikipedia), so assuming it's all carbon (it's not) we'd need another 3.2E9 km^2 of rainforest to consume all of the excess CO2 in the air. The earth's surface area (including oceans) is only 5E8 km^2. So we'd need 6.2 earth surface areas of Amazon rainforest to sequester all of the extra CO2 in the air. You see, the carbon stores were saved up from fossilization over millions and millions of years and we've attempted to release all of them into the atmosphere in about 100 years. The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust. Hope that you see now this is a major problem that won't be solved by sitting back and watching. My sources are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://micpohling.wordpress.c... feel free to check my math.
What other ways are people in these parts of the world likely to get online?
Is that the priority in a country where misogyny is culturally ingrained, where the class system excuses all bad behaviour, where embezzling the government is standard practice?
Yes, it absolutely should be. The spread of ideas and knowledge from all over the world through the internet is a wonderful thing. Developing it and helping everyone have access to it should be a priority. Are you saying that they should not seek to have internet access until all their other problems are solved? Why not? It's a non-sequitur. Also, where does it say India is trading monopolies for infrastructure? As far as I can tell from TFA and other recent stories, Facebook initially wanted a tiered pricing system, but it was already rejected by India to preserve net neutrality.
There is a higher % of Asians in CA compared to the national average. Somewhere around 12%. Still slightly over-represented, but not by as much as using the national average would imply.
1) You're a member of the society you're doing business in.
Read the grandparent post. It simply asserted that a business should hire the best people regardless of sex or ethnicity. That's the society I want to live in, and I suspect most people would agree.
2) Building a reputation as somebody who doesn't care about diversity and inclusion is a good way to find yourself ignored or excluded by the portions of the population you've stated you don't care about. (See: boycott, negative public relations) You are shrinking your pool of available customers.
So you're arguing that Apple should base their hiring practices on meeting some quota of racial hires and gender hires for PR reasons? Sounds pretty messed up to me.
3) Ignoring other parts of the population who could be working for you limits your access to the best thinkers and workers, unless you really care to assert that the lack of minorities in the labor pool are *actually* a reflection of those minorities being dumber and lazier than all of your majority-hire candidates. You are shrinking your pool of available labor.
Read the grandparent post. It says nothing like what you are saying.
Building diversity in your business can be a competitive advantage because it's good public relations, and it's also going to give you access to a wider array of thoughts, ideas, and perspectives - all of which can make your business stronger.
But it's fine - if you don't make it your business, you can be sure your competitors will find a way to make it a competitive advantage. Eventually, you'll be faced with the choice of caring about diversity, or failing and shutting your doors.
Did you read the actual article summary? The breakdown was: "68% male and 32% female as of June 2016, a slight change from a 69%-31% split in 2015. Apple's race and ethnicity breakdown among U.S. employees is 19% Asian, 9% Black, 12% Hispanic, 2% Multiracial, 1% Other, and 56% White." To compare, the racial distribution of the US is 5% asian, 12% black, 16% hispanic, 2% multiracial, 1% other, and 64% white. So what exactly are you so upset about? Is it that Apple has slightly more asians and less hispanics? Fewer whites? Are you planning to complain until Apple's demographics match the US demographics exactly? What do you want?